-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
OK so there is dispute around that. But judges asked lawyers to identify exactly where (can’t say), what impact that has on the outcome (huge apparently but unquantified),
Election laws requires observers to be present (surely you can see the sound reason for this requirement?). Does this mean behind a wall or so far away that they can't observe. Or does it mean able to properly onserve whats going on? And thinbk logically. If an oberver can't observe how can they know how it affected the outcome. The KEY is the election law had been ignored. If Russia did thsi we would knowingly nod out heads. But the US it seems to be Ok because orange man bad. But what about the future
but that's disputed (if not outright disproven) and those claiming fraud haven't been able to prove it
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
93% didn't end in any form of viloance apparently
That might be, but the issue is Obama, Biden & co are intimating that peaceful BLM protesters were all attacked by the police while Trump supporters were almost given a free rein.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
OK so there is dispute around that. But judges asked lawyers to identify exactly where (can’t say), what impact that has on the outcome (huge apparently but unquantified),
Election laws requires observers to be present (surely you can see the sound reason for this requirement?). Does this mean behind a wall or so far away that they can't observe. Or does it mean able to properly onserve whats going on? And thinbk logically. If an oberver can't observe how can they know how it affected the outcome. The KEY is the election law had been ignored. If Russia did thsi we would knowingly nod out heads. But the US it seems to be Ok because orange man bad. But what about the future
but that's disputed (if not outright disproven) and those claiming fraud haven't been able to prove it
Except for videos and sworn affidavits.
-
@Victor-Meldrew I guess that specific example is largely based on the full riot presence outside the capital for BLM protests compared to only the normal Capital police presence for yesterday, which does sound well founded base on what ive been able to read
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
You know that’s never, ever going to happen, right?
Then the US (and the West) is finished as we know it. Fair election puts a check on out of control elites and their bought and paid for puppet politicians. Without this = no control and the system will just break down (with corruption. Its bad enough now).
And Trump is the answer to that? Trump is part of that elite and has been since the day he was born. Being a maverick doesn’t make you a man of the people, or anti-establishment. Sometimes it just means you’re selfish.
Anyway I fail to see how replacing a corporatocracy with a plutocracy is any better for the common citizen. The sight of the billionaires lining up to rule is pretty sickening.
And there is a huge amount that should be looked at. Starting with the voting machines. Is it possible (as many claim) that its easy to change votes. Supported by new machine produced voting papers
Maybe they are no good. Do you know for a fact that they won’t look at the design and security going forward? I mean state by state, because the federal government can’t have a role in that.
Why was all the election counting stopped in all these key states (I saw this in real time) but then it just keep on going after the observers had been kicked out. What about hidden boxes being produced (as per videos) etc
You are working off hearsay from people with a vested interest in creating suspicion - the losers!
What I would ahev liked is for the courts to do their job (they haven't) Including the Supreme court (not hiding behind lack of standing bullshit). Or for Congress or the Senate to set up a committee to publically look at all these issues. Shine a light on these issues of election fraud. And then either start the arrests. Or discredit the fraud claims.
Lack of standing is as fundamental to the US system as anything else you’ve mentioned. You know the USA is a federation of individual states - it’s in the name! Elections are held at state level, not federal level. Changing that changes everything, and I’m not sure the good people of the USA are ready to throw off their states quite yet.
As for discrediting the fraud claims, sure, why not? But how? Be honest now, you wouldn’t be satisfied with any outcome that legitimised the Democrats’ claim on the Presidency, would you? So why bother going to all the trouble of inquiries that will never serve their purpose? As for individual cases of voter fraud, they will be prosecuted ( well some of them, others will get away scot-free) as is always the case. The US government even tracks and reports on them, who’d have thought? https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf
-
@Winger neither are proof, you're the first to have a go at MSM not telling the whole truth (or any of it) why are you so will into the believe a short video from someone phone, someone with something to gain. I haven't seen these videos go around EVERY person in the building counting off dems and republicans to prove what is allowed isn't being met...just the odd person being removed with no context other than what the person filming says
-
@JC said in US Politics:
But how? Be honest now, you wouldn’t be satisfied with any outcome that legitimised the Democrats’ claim on the Presidency, would you
100% not correct. For all its faults the people deciding with FAIR and legal elections is by far the best system. So if Biden fairly won and he can be voted out next time fair enough
But my suspicion has been that elections in the West have been rigged for quite some time. And current members of Congress and the Senate ON BOTH SIDES are benefiting from this corrupt system. And that's why no-one wants to look at it. But if it was looked at openly and fairly I and most would accept it (truth has a way of being accepted. Lies and deceitfulness on the other hand ...)
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
OK so there is dispute around that. But judges asked lawyers to identify exactly where (can’t say), what impact that has on the outcome (huge apparently but unquantified),
Election laws requires observers to be present (surely you can see the sound reason for this requirement?). Does this mean behind a wall or so far away that they can't observe. Or does it mean able to properly onserve whats going on? And thinbk logically. If an oberver can't observe how can they know how it affected the outcome. The KEY is the election law had been ignored. If Russia did thsi we would knowingly nod out heads. But the US it seems to be Ok because orange man bad. But what about the future
Once again, you are stating categorically that there were no observers. It turns out there were. But some people appointed themselves observers and demanded to scrutinise the vote counting. Probably the same kind of people who turned up in Washington yesterday, you know the type, the ones who are cleverer than us and are just the guy to sort out the shit. And they were turned around, and they made a stink about it. That doesn’t mean the counts were not observed. It just means “Via Getty” didn’t get to put himself at the centre of it all as he wanted.
And of course the logic flaw in concluding that there is guaranteed fraud because you couldn’t personally verify the count doesn’t need elaborating.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
But how? Be honest now, you wouldn’t be satisfied with any outcome that legitimised the Democrats’ claim on the Presidency, would you
100% not correct. For all its faults the people deciding with FAIR and legal elections is by far the best system. So if Biden fairly won and he can be voted out next time fair enough
But my suspicion has been that elections in the West have been rigged for quite some time. And current members of Congress and the Senate ON BOTH SIDES are benefiting from this corrupt system. And that's why no-one wants to look at it. But if it was looked at openly and fairly I and most would accept it (truth has a way of being accepted. Lies and deceitfulness on the other hand ...)
Oh come now. If an inquiry was constituted and found no material evidence of voter fraud you would leave it there? I have doubts Winger. Grave doubts.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
You are working off hearsay from people with a vested interest in creating suspicion - the losers!
There's an in house video showing this.
Post it. And explain how it demonstrates that an accredited observer was denied the right to scrutinise the count. And how it also shows that there were no other accredited scrutineers present. And how many fraudulent votes that specific incident introduced to that particular precinct. And how that affected the state vote, and that affected the electoral college for that state and for the Presidency. These are all things that judges specifically asked for. No lawyer was willing to provide argument to that effect, anywhere. Because they aren’t allowed to just invent stuff. Even Rudi Giuliani balked at that when asked, because he understands the requirements of an officer of the court.
You may also want to ask yourself if any of this is more credible than the alternative, that the election was fair. Good old Occam’s Razor. Given the consequences for getting caught ballot stuffing, and that there were always going to be people like yourself trying to ferret out wrongdoing, who in their right mind would agree to conspire in this at such a scale? If you were one of the “conspirators” you would understand that you are totally dependent on everybody else involved, in all the effected states, to be flawless in their execution, otherwise you personally will be totally fucked. Ask yourself, how did they convince people to potentially take that one for the team?
-
@JC plus how many people would need to be involved for it to work, and therefore the more people involved the more chance of people finding out.
Without looking at the probability of the same occurring on the other side too, for a conspiracy of this level, you'd need so many people involved, and they all need to have the same goal (I can understand how 411,000 people might have conspired together for the moon landing given they all wanted to be part of it)
-
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
@JC plus how many people would need to be involved for it to work, and therefore the more people involved the more chance of people finding out.
Without looking at the probability of the same occurring on the other side too, for a conspiracy of this level, you'd need so many people involved, and they all need to have the same goal (I can understand how 411,000 people might have conspired together for the moon landing given they all wanted to be part of it)
That would include the state Governors, most of whom are Republicans. A bipartisan plot to unseat Trump? Fantasy
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
@JC plus how many people would need to be involved for it to work, and therefore the more people involved the more chance of people finding out.
Without looking at the probability of the same occurring on the other side too, for a conspiracy of this level, you'd need so many people involved, and they all need to have the same goal (I can understand how 411,000 people might have conspired together for the moon landing given they all wanted to be part of it)
That would include the state Governors, most of whom are Republicans. A bipartisan plot to unseat Trump? Fantasy
Then why not look at the (large amount of) evidence that has been gathered (including how an extra 28 million - or 22% more - people voted this time) And clear it up. (And money is a strong corrupted factor)
-
Not sure if this is of interest to anyone, and it's quite long, so I apologise in advance, but incoming wall of text about the US judicial system...
@Winger It's not just a matter of there being or not being some evidence of irregularities or imperfect conduct of aspects of election law such as observers/scrutineers, or even actual fraud.
The courts operate on the fundamental legal concepts that any issues raised have to be actionable under the law, have to be proven to a relevant legal standard by sufficient admissible evidence, have to be material to the outcome, and the damages/relief sought and/or awarded has to be proportionate.
The courts didn't always say there was no evidence at all or no issues. Rather the cases fell short for a variety of reasons based on those concepts, from some issues not actually being legally actionable (i.e. not unlawful or not raised by anyone actually affected - this is referred to as 'standing'), or insufficient evidence presented to meet the legal standard, or issues with the evidence itself leading to it being discounted (this is referred to as 'admissibility'), or weren't material to the outcome e.g. the issue related to 10 or even 100 votes but the margins were hundreds of thousands, or the relief sought was wildly disproportionate e.g. 1 person wasn't offered a chance to 'cure' their vote, so the whole county's votes should be discounted (the court offered them the opportunity to cure their vote instead, which seems relevant and proportionate relief), or all parties' observers weren't present for every minute of every count, so the whole state's electoral votes should be discarded.
US legal precedent is that voting is serious business, and that disenfranchising anyone requires excellent legal reasons. This pertains to all of the above, but particularly that judges consider that only massive, widespread fraud is sufficient reason to overturn large numbers of ballots or a state's electoral college votes, and that the evidentiary standard for such action is high. Coupled with materiality considerations, court cases are very unlikely to be successful in these. This approach was reflected in Pence's speech to reopen the Senate when he said (paraphrased) that it was not his place as 1 person to ignore the votes of millions.
For the sake of completeness, I note that affidavits are evidence but typically require corroborating evidence to get further than just lodging a court case. Videos can be evidence, but because altering videos is so easy, they typically require additional technical information to show that they are genuine. I won't write more about evidentiary standards as that is an essay-length topic by itself, and I have written quite enough.
I'm sure many Trump supporters genuinely believe in good faith that the case is completely proven, but as the outcomes of dozens of court cases show, it wasn't, and while I don't expect the average voter to understand the legal ins and outs of legal challenges, especially in elections, party lawyers and experienced politicians should know at least the basics. These cases went nowhere (some judges were even quite sharp in their language in some decisions), so I conclude that there was a lot of bad faith nonsense going on from people who should know better. This is particularly borne out by the challenges not being raised at the time laws were passed, or not centring around the states with the same issues (such as mail-in voting), but waiting till after the election and only filing in states where the Trump lost.
-
@sparky said in US Politics:
There are reports that Betsy De Vos, the Education Secretary, perhaps the US Cabinet member closest to Donald Trump has resigned. Are we looking at some sort of 25th Amendment scenario?
Why? If Trump has really lost its only another two weeks until he's out. And if the military step in any 25th amendment action would be irrelevant
US Politics