Michigan: Computer "glitch" wrongly gives victory to Democrat.

When the "mistake" was detected and corrected, the victor changed: Fixed computer glitch turns losing Republican into a winner in Oakland County

See also this OTHER case of "computer problems" convenient for Democrats in Michigan, a key swing state:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/326077#7308152

Really quiet thread, I wonder why?

Facts are stubborn things...

Yeah, I noticed the quietness too.

So there will likely be a recount. Like last time. And in Michigan, there are good, verifiable paper audit trails.

In any other year, I'd be first to sign up to observe. This year, though, I'm feeling like a case study of a bad prospective COVID result, so I'm afraid I mostly live on my porch. Going to be a long winter.

This is in response to the observation of how quiet this discussion is, and why?

For me, the internet clampdown on discussions and posts that don't follow the Big Tech party line is working.

I'm self-censoring myself, lest I be banned for life by posting something TPTB don't like.

Whammm!
It's like getting slapped upside the head by an abusive parent when you post something they don't like. No warning, no explanation, no recourse. And it does work.
It's made me very hesitant to express myself in public postings.

As i write this, I wonder if I will get a strike against me, like I did in City-Data for questioning why they removed one of my posts.

We're not even allowed to question.

very bad

>5 davidgn: I hope there won't just be a re-count. That just re-counts the fraudulent ballots. There must a re-do of the entire election in several key states, this time with election security.

>6 margaretbartley: Yeah, you have to wonder why people who claim to be so convinced they won are so desperate the silence everyone who disagrees with them.

>6 margaretbartley: No, i don't wonder why they silence people who disagree with them.
I wonder at the regular people around me who accept and parrot the obvious lies.

It's not desperation that silences opposition, it is power and tyranny.

>6 margaretbartley: You don't have to worry about that here. Just don't go attacking people personally, and you're free to express your opinion. And I and others here are free to disagree.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/326067

>7 Carnophile:
"There must a re-do of the entire election in several key states, this time with election security."
By this you mean the states that Trump lost. The Trump strategy of "heads I win, tails you lose" reaches it's apotheosis.

It also appears there was some chicanery in the Census. Maybe we should redo the Census too. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/census-takers-say-they-were-told-to-enter-fa...

For the conspiracy minded--here's Rudy with ink stained hands and hawking cigars:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/11/07/conspiracies-cigars-and-ink-stain...

Warning--bizarre, grotesque are apt descriptions.

>6 margaretbartley:

Don't worry, you won't get "banned for life" or any other form of sanction for posting an opinion on LT. You may get warned if you consistently post personal attacks against other LT members.

>6 margaretbartley: Library Thing is pretty free-wheeling. In 12 years I have seen people banned only for repeated threats to another’s safety. And in twelve years I’ve only seen it happen twice.

So the silence here isn’t from fear. Truly. Please post away.

Carnophile,

there's no "do over", if i'm not mistaken.

Valid votes, legal votes, are certified as such; improper ballots--for whatever reason--are disqualified, no matter who they favor. So, if the state's law requires the ballots be received by the close of the polls, ballots received later aren't accepted. You don't hold the election again because people couldn't get their mail-in ballots in the mailbox prior to, say, Tuesday (29 Oct.) or Wednesday, (30 Oct.). If that was the case, they ought to have gone to the polls and voted in person, notifying the election poll-judge that they'd mailed a ballot which wouldn't arrive before it was too late. Then, poll officials could examine the voter poll rolls, see they'd voted and discard their mail-in ballot.

No harm, no foul.

Suppose I objected, as I could: say, I''m a legal U.S. citizen living abroad and, well, I just didn't get around to getting my absentee ballot request in. Now that I see the result, I'd like one and I'd like to exercise my right to vote. Sure, it's late, the polls have closed, but, as the pseudo-liberals would argue, my vote were going to Biden, "So what? I want to vote--now, since I hadn't voted earlier. And, oh, by the way, I may need to re-register in the state of last residency. Again, never mind about it being after the polling day. And, yes, of course I knew all along that Tuesday, 3 November 2020 was election day since, well, long before last year. Again, so what?"

>10 mikevail: "There must a re-do of the entire election in several key states, this time with election security."
By this you mean the states that Trump lost.

Not at all. Do them all over if Dems insist.

>14 proximity1: there's no "do over", if i'm not mistaken.
Valid votes, legal votes, are certified as such; improper ballots--for whatever reason--are disqualified

There never has been a do-over before - has there? Actually, I don't know. But if not, there should be this time.

The problem with just re-counting the ballots we have is the very fact that so many of them are, uh, how can I put this - of uncertain provenance. Re-counting those would just seem to confirm Biden's "victory."

>15 Carnophile:

You may have read this

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

An order issued to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Secretary Boockvar from Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.

Ballots in counties throughout the commonwealth which don't conform to Pennsylvania's election laws, whether in terms in their form and presentation--i.e. last legal date and time of arrival--or otherwise are ordered sequestered, sealed and held for safe-keeping pending further court action.

The Secretary had until 14:00 hrs. (her local time, I presume) Saturday, to reply to the order. It's effect was immediate on receipt.

On recount, ballots which are of questionable form or provenance may be challenged for cause and disqualified if found to be irregular in any way that fails to meet legal requirements.

What we're seeing and hearing from Biden and his advocates and, above all, from the MSM, is the equivalent of children's whistling for superstitious security as they pass the graveyard, combined with hefty doses of wishful-thinking.

The strained effort to insist on Biden's so-called victory is done as much to try and convince themselves and each other of what they really do not sincerely believe with any sense of secure confidence. They're spitting in one hand and wishing in the other. In the end, they'll have a palm of spit.

Legally, if an entire election is so corrupt that it must be invalidated in all its results, the recourse is, I believe, to other secondary means of decision.

E.g. the Constitution's Twelfth Amendment governs elections of the President in the U.S. Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12

One thing to keep in mind if you were going to redo an entire election you're not just talking about what's at the top of the ticket--you're going all the way down the ballot which is another reason why it won't be done because you're opening up multiple electoral issues.

The factor of the matter is the burden of proof here is on the accuser and pretty much Trump is just shooting his mouth off without any real fact or evidence to back his claims up. I don't expect he's going to get anywhere with the courts. As well Georgia is already going to go through a recount though it's extremely unlikely that that recount is going to switch around thousands of votes--there's no history of that kind of result happening in this country and if the courts interfered with the Pennsylvania vote Biden still will have enough electoral college votes. There is no avenue for Trump to win any longer.

>17 lriley: And to add to that, if the vote is not within that particular state's standard for an automatic recount, the losing party can request a recount, but the requesting party will have to pay for the recount.

#18--that's true and in the cases of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada all of whom have Democratic governors they would be well advised to make sure they get paid before doing any recounts. Trump is known for stiffing venues wherever he goes---he will certainly stiff them.

>16 proximity1: Ballots in counties throughout the commonwealth which don't conform to Pennsylvania's election laws, whether in terms in their form and presentation--i.e. last legal date and time of arrival--or otherwise are ordered sequestered, sealed and held for safe-keeping pending further court action.

But anyone who would do election fraud would also do time-stamp, etc., fraud. One postal worker is willing to assert under oath that her boss ordered her to falsify postmarks.

The strained effort to insist on Biden's so-called victory is done as much to try and convince themselves and each other of what they really do not sincerely believe with any sense of secure confidence. They're spitting in one hand and wishing in the other. In the end, they'll have a palm of spit.

From your lips to God's ears.

>20 Carnophile: One postal worker is willing to assert under oath that her boss ordered her to falsify postmarks.

Which is a specific individual allegation of fraud which can be investigated by law enforcement and found to be true or false. It does not necessarily represent the entire election process across the huge diversity of the USA.

The way to falsify a postmark is to backdate which presupposes the employee has access to a stamper and is a manual operation and not something that could achieve any significant quantity.Window clerks will almost certainly have a stamper but no one stamps mail being dropped off at a retail facility that's not part of an actual transaction between customer and window clerk. Here's the problem I have with the employee and supervisor story. No it would not be hard to do but either are risking their job and if one were to do it one would not be informing others about it--having that 1. access to the postmark stamper and 2. that idea one would want to do it very quietly because if caught say goodbye to your job and your pension. Keep in mind as well that in Post Offices across the United States and in Postal plants and other Postal facilities there is a walkway or gallery above you where you can be watched at any time and in any work activity and there is no way for you to know you're being watched--sometimes they even put a camera on workers or on a specific location on the workroom floor. The Post Office has its own law enforcement branch and they will be the people watching and Postal Inspectors get off on getting Postal workers fired.

What I really think---someone is probably lying and really wants to get their supervisor fired so concocts this story. This someone and their supervisor are going to get fucking grilled and one or both are going to end up kissing their job goodbye.

Did this employee immediately file a written protest?

665.15 Obedience to Orders

Employees must obey the instructions of their supervisors. If an employee has reason to question the propriety of a supervisor’s order, the individual must nevertheless carry out the order and may immediately file a protest in writing to the official in charge of the installation or may appeal through official channels.*

Or did this employee only confide in James O'Keefe?

*https://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/elmc6_024.htm

Fair point as far as it goes. Let's consider it for its weaknesses:

"But anyone who would do election fraud would also do time-stamp, etc., fraud. One postal worker is willing to assert under oath that her boss ordered her to falsify postmarks."

As you rightly point out, only postal workers should be in a position to commit such fraud. But, in noting that, I certainly don't exclude it. Far from it.

On the other hand, as you also point out, at least one such postal worker has spoken of this kind of fraud. He or she can be brought to court and put on the witness stand to testify to what he knows.

From there, we can actually calculate the rate at which the automated mail post-marking machines process mail, estimate the number of ballots processed in the most likely time-frame in which the frauds were perpetrated (according to testimony under oath) and then, either sample the ballots processed in that time for their distribution between Trump and Biden and disqualify the votes of the party whose agents are deemed to have perpetrated the fraud or, failing that, disqualify all the ballots bearing time-stamps within the suspect period. Whatever else that does, it definitely most penalizes that candidate whose party stuffs the most illegitimate ballots in the boxes since, it stands to reason, the party of which only legitimate ballots are in the ballot-box is going to have relatively fewer than the ballots of a candidate whose party is cheating by putting illegitimate ballots. This take the profit out of the fraud and discourages further episodes of the kind.

The worst thing is to allow this stuff to just pass unchallenged--as has been done for so long now. If this is examined, discovered, revealed, prosecuted and punished it's going to happen over and over again in every such close election.

But the routinized abuse of elections in these ways, as long as it's allowed, actually encourages contests between candidates who have nothing but razor-thin margins separating them on various and sundry issues.

We now have or we're in danger of having a system where these close margins are virtually "baked-in" and maliciously used for the opportunities that affords.

People who 'reason', "who cares about any of that as long as my candidate gets in?" are truly moronic. A corrupted system is going to quickly prove just as harmful to their partisan interests as it does to those of their opposition when one's own party "wins."

The only sane and lasting course is to work to establish and defend and keep as fair a system as possible.

Not telling you anything here that you don't already know. It's for the use of others --those who apparently aren't much interested in questioning or doubting their own presuppositions.

>6 margaretbartley: a number of Democrat partisans have announced that they are making lists of all those involved with the President's staff, campaign, and even those who voted for him. Smells like fascism to me, group-think, conform or else. It should be troubling to everyone, but unfortunately isn't.

Allowing voter ID could have prevented so many issues, including accepting the ballots of thousands of deceased voters.

>25 fuzzi:

And Fox News tells us that an Arkansas police chief has resigned after posting messages calling for the death of the “Marxists” who voted Democrat. “Take no prisoners leave no survivors!”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arkansas-police-chief-resigns-after-allegedly-calling...

Smells like fascism to me, group-think, conform or else. It should be troubling to everyone, but unfortunately isn't.

>26 John5918: yep. Resigned. The others, the Democrats calling for retribution lists of Trump voters aren't resigning.

Fox joined the cacophony of main stream media months ago. If anyone is looking for both sides of the issues they won't find it on any network "news".

>27 fuzzi: First, asking people to remember who supported Mr.Trump when considering future political policies and appointments doesn’t equate to calling for the death (yep, he said it, many many news orgs reporting this, including papers and stations in the locality) of your political opponents.

Second, I can’t find any Democratic law enforcement officers of whatever rank anywhere calling for physical assault and the murder of Trump supporters. If you have such evidence please supply and I’ll join you in vigorously calling for their removal.

Third, whether Fox News is right, center, or left, or a purely entertainment outlet, is completely irrelevant. Facts are facts. No one is denying that this happened, including the police chief.

There really isn’t “two sides” to this unless you can present reliable information of Trump supporters being threatened with physical harm, either by Democratic law enforcement officers, or by duly elected and/or appointed Democratic officials of any type.

The days of “what aboutism” and “look over there!” are, or should be, over. I try to see and admit fault in Democrats. I do wish Trump supporters would do the same with regard to their fellows.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whistleblower-in-michigan-claims-postal-servic...

I wasn't aware of this allegation until today; don't know if it's true or not or even quite credible. It _may_ prove true or false. In either case, it isn't and wasn't in mind when I speculate/ed on the probability of illegal electoral manipulations against Trump.

Those bear proper authorities investigations, evidence-gathering and assessment and then if and when warranted, a proper hearing in court and these things must be taken up promptly and correctly.

Talk of Biden as "president-elect" isn't proper or according to established norms and procedures but it is EVERYWHERE in the MSM.

Does ANY reader here really need a link to substantiate that FACT?

>28 Matke: no, not death necessarily. Loss of employment, livelihood, housing, etc for voting "the wrong way" isn't death, but no one should be making lists for retribution, either side. No one should be punished for supposed wrong-think.

>26 John5918: if a so-called Trump supporter called for physical harm of opponents then I would condemn them as well. I am not familiar with the specific instance you have here, so I won't comment further on it, not without more information.

Doesn't it bother you just a tad that people are being put on retribution (revenge) lists just because they have a different political opinion?

Jake Tapper is making veiled threats on Twitter about future employment being limited for those who support Trump. You think that's okay?

James Hodgkinson thought it was okay to shoot Republican congressmen because he was mad at them. Is heating up the rhetoric about how Trump supporters need to be removed from society helpful, or could it encourage further aggressive actions?

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Who is doing this besides our old friend Maxine Waters? Let's see...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/the_coming_purge_if_trump_loses...

FWIW (and this is both parties) higher level apparatchiks pretty much all spend a fair amount of their time making future connections for the day their services in the govt. are no longer needed or appreciated. They move into high paying consultancy and lobbying jobs--the corporate and banking worlds or law firms often have places for them as well and quite often even foreign governments. This talk of retribution or worrying about one of these sorry souls like they're going to be begging on the street any time soon is ridiculous. Don't worry--they'll take care of themselves just fucking fine.

>30 fuzzi: Again, these are not government employees and/or law officers advocating physical assault and/or murder of the political opposing side. If you want to go into private citizens, it’s quite well-established that the overwhelming amount of physical assaults and deaths are perpetrated by those, however crazy, fervently believe in Mr. Trump. You know, like the “militia” who wanted to kidnap, try, and possibly execute the governor of Michigan And the president openly agreed with the crowd chanting “lock her up.” This is a woman who hasn’t even been accused of a crime. Then he said, “Lock ‘em all up.”
Please show me the Democrat officials and/or congress men or women who have done likewise.
For what it’s worth, I thought that Maxine Waters was wrong. Do you think the president was wrong in Michigan. Did you think he was wrong when he egged on the crowds when they chanted, “Lock her up” regarding Hilary Clinton, again a woman not accused, tried, or convicted of any crime?
Or is all that ok because it’s Mr. Trump?

>30 fuzzi: Doesn't it bother you just a tad that people are being put on retribution (revenge) lists just because they have a different political opinion?

Of course it bothers me. All violence and threats of violence bother me. In any case where it can be proven that people are being illegally disadvantaged by their political opinion, I would hope some action can be taken to redress the situation. But I think >32 Matke: has addressed the question about the relative scale of actual incidents as opposed to allegations.

>29 proximity1: MSM

I don't recognise the abbreviation MSM. Could you elucidate, please?

#34--Mainstream Media.

>1 Carnophile: When the "mistake" was detected and corrected, the victor changed: Fixed computer glitch turns losing Republican into a winner in Oakland County

You should have read the article to the last sentence--quotation marks on the word MISTAKE were apparently not warranted:

"...A Republican city clerk supervised a vote count that wrongly gave victory to a Democrat, after which a Democratic county clerk's staff caught the error and requested a correction from the Republican city clerk, handing the win to a Republican."

Fixed computer glitch turns losing Republican into a winner in Oakland County
Bill Laitner | Nov 6, 2020
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020/11/06/oakland-count...

BIDEN & HARRIS TO GO INTO SPACE

_____________________

Dubuque, IA. – 8 November, 2020
((APP)Associated Phake Press weird service)

Former U.S. Senator Joe Biden and his running-mate former U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, who earlier led a successful bid to defraud the 2020 U.S. presidential election and have themselves declared that contest's winners by journalistic fiat, will soon become the first two such people to travel into space.

Under a bright November sky, standing alone amidst chest-high stalks of mature corn which swayed gently under a stiff breeze, a smiling Joe Biden waved as he appeared in an Iowa corn-field without his running-mate, Kamala Harris. In front of him stood a large teleprompter machine which was linked to a remote video-feed from California's Silicon Valley. Bidens lips moved, as though to say, “Don't fuck with me, kid!” but his prepared remarks, which had been released in a printed copy to the press, instead read,

“My batteries are those bigger “D”, fatter, heavier. They're cells! D-cells. They last so much longer! Barack and I used to play with them in the Oval, uh, uh— Space—the Final Frontier. To go boldly where no man—you know the, the, thing. I'm in the “bump” on the side of the rocket.”

A NASA spokeswoman of color explained that Biden and Harris will be sent into space in separate compartments of the same rocket—for safety. Harris shall ride atop the rocket in a two-seat capsule fitted with a parachute which, on re-entry, will deploy to carry the capsule to a splash-down and recovery point near the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, where a Black Lives Matter protest rally will be held. Biden, for his part, will ride in a pod attached to the rocket's giant booster-stage. Biden's stage will carry Harris up into earth's outer atmosphere where, its fuel spent, it will separate, falling away from the capsule and, pulled down by earth's gravity, burn up in the atmosphere.”

The launch is scheduled for the 10th of January, 2021. Biden said that, on his return from space in January, he's to join the Grand Marshall's car in the New York City Thanksgiving Day parade, set later this month. He'll wear a traditional early-17th century English Puritan pilgrim's costume and carry a blunderbuss, with which he'll pose pointing at a paper-maché giant Turkey with a head resembling that of the deposed president, Donald Trump. When Harris returns, she'll receive a gold and enamel brooch, presented by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. The brooch will have a tiny color portrait of William Henry Harrison, 9th president of the United States.

>36 margd:
Thanks for providing the full story.

>11 lriley:, sorry for the off-topic comment but wow, what a sad fall it's been for Rudy Giuliani. He pulled off a small miracle by clamping down on the NYC crime rate, and was practically a hero through 9-11. Now I can't even respect him anymore, I can't understand what happened to him.

>38 Matke: Except for the initial mistake, I think it's actually a good-news story. The mistake was detected and fixed, and the county (like mine) seems to be functioning in a competent, professional, bipartisan manner.

The Media Should Not Have 'Called' This Election | COMMENTARY | By Andy Puzder 10 November 2020

________________

TRUMP'S Vote-Count Lawsuits: The Endgame | Andrew McCarthy | The National Review

___________________

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, but this. . .>20 Carnophile: Carnophile: One postal worker is willing to assert under oath that her boss ordered her to falsify postmarks.

Heard the same "allegation," only it was a he and a crap-daddy f^ck up by chronic right wing f^ck up, James O'Keefe. According to him, his USPS guy was willing to testify to just what "she" above was, on the promise of money in exchange for blowing the whistle. Not O'Keefe's money, of course. Sucker money that they'd get from GOP donors to a Go-Fund_me page, providing USPS guy could make his "personal" message pathetic enough.

He obviously did a good job on his profile, cause he's collected $136,000 already! Trouble is, today he revealed that it was all a LIE and that he is not going to testify to anything of the kind of postal ELECTION fraud (not voters, they didn't do it; the Trump campaign attempted to put the lie out to frame the local USPS office).

$136,000 for being willing to perjure himself!-- until Mr. Pathetic USPS Guy DID IN FACT submit to giving a sworn affidavit that revealed the entire O'Keefe plot. Lie on one of those and that's already perjury. Had O'Keefe got the idea to get an affidavit for his scheme, he'd be charged with suborning perjury.

The karma is -- USPS guy has the money. And it was deserving Trumpty-Dumbpties who were gulled into bilking money out of themselves! Best of all, Lindsey Graham who turned this scheme "in" to William Barr is why he and Barr are also victims of the scam!!! Lindsey's been making hay out of this ELECTION FRAUD (a fraud perpetrated by Republicans on Republicans) in public and Barr has based his entire order to DOJ and FBI to "look for corruption where there is no evidence of corruption" because he BELIEVED what Lindsey sent him to be a legitimate report of significant wrongdoing. Look. It. Up.

One could pee themselves from laughing so hard. But there's always another stupid story even funnier.

You realize, if the election was stolen and voter fraud is widespread, like Trumpty-Dumpties say it is, then it's incumbent on Nancy Pelosi NOT TO SEAT all the new Republicans elected to the house in 2020, since they were fraudulently elected.

It just never ends.

See What I Mean?

White Pennsylvania Republican ridiculed after tweeting he’s a gay Black ex-Democrat.

This keeps up, I'm investing in adult diaper manufacturers!

#42--seems my #22 bore out. It didn't make a lot of sense and this Richard Hopkins I would think has lost his job and if he's been working any length of time his pension goes down the toilet with it. There's a lot at stake for the individual making such claims and who knows if they have some reason to prosecute him--for the Post Office it's a black eye that this guy would make up such a story.

>42 Limelite: I just skimmed this thread; more tomorrow maybe. For now,

Pennsylvania postal worker denies recanting ballot-tampering claims
Richard Hopkins says 'I feel like I just got played' by federal investigators

Here there's video of him asking the Washington Post to recant its story that he recanted.

Regarding Hopkins again--O'Keefe has a video up talking with Hopkins. Mind you Hopkins is from Erie Pa. near the Ohio border and nowhere near Philadelphia (about 300 miles in a straight line but if you're traveling by car almost 420 miles). Hopkins says he did not see anyone backdate anything. He overheard his postmaster Robert Wisenbach discussing backdating with a Darryl (a supervisor?). No one else but Hopkins has come forward on this--so it's hearsay until there's some corroboration As well even if this did occur this is certainly not Post Office policy and an event particular to Erie Pa. not Philadelphia. Biden's lead in Pa. at the moment is closing in on 50,000 votes and mainly because of the Philadelphia vote. One also got from the conversation that Mr. Hopkins had been in hot water before because the subject then turned to that subject for at least a minute of the 2 minute 18 second conversation. So basically uncorroborated allegations by Hopkins that have put his job on the line.

>1 Carnophile: Michigan: Computer "glitch" wrongly gives victory to Democrat

I suppose I'm still trying to figure out why "Michigan: Computer "glitch" wrongly gives victory to Democrat" deserves a thread of its own. As you yourself point out, "When the "mistake" was detected and corrected, the victor changed" (although I don't know why you put "mistake" in quotation marks). In an election in which nearly 150 million people voted, there will be mistakes (or even "mistakes"). There is a system in place to detect and rectify mistakes. The system worked perfectly - a mistake was identified and corrected. Is this news?

>15 Carnophile: There never has been a do-over before - has there? Actually, I don't know. But if not, there should be this time.

You don't know. Seriously? There haven't been that many US presidential elections.

the very fact that so many of them are, uh, how can I put this - of uncertain provenance.

Yes, like the mail-in ballots coming from DC to the Florida election, claiming the voters live at Mar Lago even though Donald Trump told Palm Beach it would be no one's private residence.

In Nevada, there's a bunch of fuss about the signature verification settings on the software that does that job. I don't know if it's the best settings, but I do know the Republicans had years to complain about it.

So far, Trump & Co. have failed to convince almost anyone that there's enough problems with ballots to warrant concern. Even Republican Senators and Fox News have backed away from this idea that there's massive voter fraud. Biden has 306 EV, by my count, just like Trump did in 2016 (sans faithless voters). It was and is too many to be easily flipped; Trump would have claim California voted for him, or that Pennsylvania and New York voted for him. Since neither New York or California voting for Trump passes anyone's bullshit meters, he'd have to flip at least three states; Penn and Georgia or Michigan only gives Trump 269 votes. Clinton was in marginally better straits: Texas, or Penn and Florida could have flipped it her way, but unlike Trump and apparently Trump supporters, she knew when to walk away instead of doubling down on a losing hand and claiming massive fraud.

Even going back to the 2016 primary Trump claimed that Ted Cruz 'stole' Iowa--that the caucus was rigged. Whenever an election goes against him that's the first thing he says. The fact of the matter is he is the cheater. It's well known for instance he cheats even at golf. It's become a known fact that he a tax cheat and he cheats on tax assessments. He stiffs venues after his rallies is another well known. This is really his story---getting away wth murder everywhere he goes which is why he thinks he could get away with actual murder in broad daylight in Manhattan.

>36 margd: quotation marks on the word MISTAKE were apparently not warranted

Oh, OK.

>40 margd: it's actually a good-news story. The mistake was detected and fixed

>47 John5918: As you yourself point out, "When the "mistake" was detected and corrected, the victor changed" ... The system worked perfectly - a mistake was identified and corrected.

The point, as you both know quite well, is that it proves, by example, that there could be other similar “mistakes.”

>47 John5918: I'm still trying to figure out why "Michigan: Computer "glitch" wrongly gives victory to Democrat" deserves a thread of its own.

Yeah, it’s a real puzzler.

>15 Carnophile: There never has been a do-over before - has there? Actually, I don't know.

>48 prosfilaes: You don't know. Seriously? There haven't been that many US presidential elections.

I meant all elections, federal, state, & local.

>48 prosfilaes: Yes, like the mail-in ballots coming from DC to the Florida election, claiming the voters live at Mar Lago even though Donald Trump told Palm Beach it would be no one's private residence.

So you DO believe in electoral fraud.

>50 Carnophile: The point, as you both know quite well, is that it proves, by example, that there could be other similar “mistakes.”

The point, as you know quite well, is that other similar mistakes are likely to have been found and corrected in the same way as this one. All the evidence suggests that the system is working. What's more you're quoting a case where the system worked in favour of your candidate as an example of potential election fraud by the other side. Strange logic. Rather than the thread title being "Michigan: Computer "glitch" wrongly gives victory to Democrat" a more accurate title would be "Michigan electoral system correctly gives victory to Republican", although like you I think it's "it’s a real puzzler" as to why this is news.

Why do you put "mistakes" in quotation marks?

>51 Carnophile: If Trump claimed his Mar-A-Lago address as his residence for voting purposes, there are two potential legal issues that might arise.

If he's actually resident at Mar-A-Lago, apparently this is a violation of the terms of his operation of that facility, so in this case he's living there illegally.
If he's not actually resident at Mar-A-Lago, he is probably guilty of a false claim on his voter registration, and technically he would have voted illegally.
It's possible that both apply: that he is resident at Mar-A-Lago, but not legally resident there, and that he was therefore not entitled to register to vote at that address, and he's in trouble on both counts.

I'm not sure which condition he's in according to the local laws and I don't care. But none of those amount to electoral fraud in any normal use of that term.

There's plenty of things which the Trump campaign has done and is doing which arguably constitute electoral fraud, but Trump voting in Florida is not one of them. That's just ordinary entitled elitist scumbaggery of the sort we're used to from him, and it's far from the most egregious of the violations that he'll be facing starting in January.

>50 Carnophile: The point, as you both know quite well, is that it proves, by example, that there could be other similar “mistakes.”

>51 Carnophile: So you DO believe in electoral fraud.

It exists. No evidence that it exists in significant numbers, anywhere near what it would need to shift a statewide election, much less a nationwide election. Likewise, such similar mistakes could exist. Biden's ahead by 60K votes in PA, and PA alone wouldn't flip the election. PA, GA and at least one other state would be needed. That's why all these games Trump is playing are by and large just annoying judges; he's offering questionable claims that by no means add up to the tens of thousands of votes that he would need to make a difference.

U.S. presidential electoral politics have been brutal since the end of Washington's second term.

The country in 1800 was in many ways similarly bitterly divided. The Federalists (Adams) and the Democratic-Republican Party (Jefferson) loathed and despised each other. Mutually accusing each other of collusion with a foreign power (Adams, accusing Jefferson, a staunch Francophile, of collusion with the revolutionary movements of France; Jefferson accusing Adams, a staunch Anglophile and crypto-Royalist), of colluding with the British crown and merchant class against the interests of the fledgling United States.)

Biden, a power-seeking third-rate political hack, resembles Adams, not Jefferson. Trump, compared to Biden, is closer to Jefferson's approach and temperament. Jefferson was a very wealthy land-owner and shared the interests of people whose lives were tied to agriculture. Adams's sympathies and interests were with the monnied mercantilist class--which included like-minded Britons, whether nobles or commoners.

Like his more modern counterparts, (the Clintons, Obamas, and their enablers, Podesta, Jarrett, Emanuel, Rice, Comey, Mueller and others, Adams, in his day, (or Roscoe Conkling, later, in his,) was a self-seeking hack and opportunist, taking advantage wherever he found it. He was pleased to have a treaty with the Dutch when, as U.S. ambassador to the Dutch Republic, he managed an informal alliance with them during the Fourth Anglo-Dutch war, from which Britain emerged the victor (noted from Wikipedia). No problem for Adams. He could easily remake his associations to conform to that development.

Trump, like Jefferson, actually has some principles which, despite his wealth, move and influence him.

>55 proximity1: Trump... actually has some principles

Care to enlighten us by listing a few?

"annoyed" Judge rules in an early case in favor of Trump's briefs, invalidating (so far,) a (relatively small) number of Penn. ballots.

___________________________

... "Ms. Boockvar argued to the court that the guidance came from a provision in the commonwealth’s election code that allows voters to prove their identities “within six calendar days following the election.” Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the ballot deadline to Nov. 6, then the deadline for voters to confirm their ID would also be extended.

"But the Trump campaign disagreed. “If the deadline is calculated as the statute is written, then as it pertains to the November 3, 2020 General Election, this deadline for voters to resolve proof of identification issues is Monday, November 9, 2020, not November 12, 2020,” the campaign wrote in a filing. They also said Ms. Boockvar lacked the authority to give such guidance.

"Judge Leavitt sided with the Trump campaign on that argument. In a footnote, she said Ms. Boockvar’s position would have been achievable if there was an amendment to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order extending the ballot deadline.

"It is not clear how many mail-in and absentee ballots fall into this category, and the Pennsylvania Department of State declined to comment on how many ballots would be affected. However, these ballots only applied to first-time voters whose identities had not been confirmed before the Nov. 9 deadline." ( Mick Stinelli | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette )

>55 proximity1: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiI5rzOi4Dt...
Yep. Trying to suborn the Electoral College. There’s some principles for you.

Yes, indeed. His has one principle:
ME. ME FIRST. And then me. And there’s also me.
The country, his party, and anything not connected to him, can go hang.

>55 proximity1: You're judging an American politician, especially one from when we were a small nation, for adapting international diplomacy to the realities on the ground? We can discuss pragmatism versus idealism in foreign policy, but "America first" tells you to abandon your allies whenever pragmatic, something Trump was arguably good at. (Arguably, because Trump didn't seem to understand the value of allies in the first place.)

>57 proximity1: As I said, by and large. Let's note that killing votes by voters who confirmed their identities by the 12th is literally voter suppression; we're talking about votes cast by voters with their right to vote having been confirmed being invalidated. The legalistic side of me would be fine with it, if I thought that Trump wouldn't take the opposite argument in NC or AZ.

Claiming so far here is silly. The fire is hot, now is the time to strike. He needs tens of thousands of votes in PA by Dec. 8 and tens of thousands of votes in other states by then, and that's not achievable.

>58 Matke:

"all just about Trump" speaks volumes about your attachment to a free and fair election as that is seen by the some 70+m voters who gave Trump their vote.

For you, these people amount to so much dryer-lint—stuff to be cleaned out and discarded as a part of the post-election clean-up. You may say that there were even more who'd voted for Biden and, thus, why should anyone—and, least of all you and your fellow anti-Trump pro-Biden voters—give a damn how much and how justifiably Trump's backers feel cheated in the wake of the press-announced 'victory'; but to argue that is to commit the logical error known as "begging the question" ( or "petito principii". )

I expect that you'll neither understand that point nor give a damn, even if you did understand it.

Your argument goes: Trump's supporters' objections that they were cheated out of a fair election are not worthy of our time and attention to examine and verify. Why? Because they lost the vote, lost the election. So there's no point in hearing their claims. And how do we know that they lost? The MSM told us this hours before the polls closed and, then, again and again ad nauseam each hour and day ever since--so insecure were they about the actual state of the facts.

Had Biden been the declared loser, you'd again be at the controls trying to engineer a fresh disposal of Trump, renewing calls for his impeachment, trial, conviction and removal, hoping that, this time, you can prove the charge. But you first have to come up with a fresh charge, make something up. You went into this determined to respect only an outcome that went your way even as you asserted your right to insist that Trump declare in advance his readiness to accept the outcome come what may and denounce him at the same time for refusing to do what you yourself wouldn't have then agreed to do: set out credibly your readiness to accept the results without first knowing that they went according to your wishes.

In ALL of that you're joined by the MSM who are part of the vendetta against Trump.

>60 proximity1: Cute. But over here in real-world-land, where facts matter and making shit up doesn't make it true,
(a) Trump has decisively lost the election and
(b) Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election

So trot along now, have yourself a good cry, and come back when you've decided that you want to face facts.

>60 proximity1:
I said none of that.

To be fully clear, i said nothing about those who voted for Mr. Trump. You said Mr. Trump has principles. I said any principles he might have are completely included in the phrase, “Me first.”

If you can’t or won’t understand that and continue to invent a complete farrago of untruths and really, really inaccurate and bizarre interpretations of what I think about other people—a subject about which your ignorance is total—then that is, as they say, on you.

Further, even if the lawsuits that have been filed—and rejected, you’ll note—even if those lawsuits were found to be legitimate, they wouldn’t overturn the election.

And we all remember just how understanding you were when Mrs. Clinton was the winner of the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. Her supporters here have been called “morons” and much worse by you.

And further still, while I dreaded that Mr. Trump would be elected, and hoped that he wouldn’t be re-elected, I would have believed that the election was legitimate. Unlike you and many other Trump supporters, I can accept an unpleasant reality. I did it four years ago. And you should do it now.

And note that you didn’t respond to the news item.

So you, Proxy, have no credibility here on this subject. But continue to blather on if you must.

>52 John5918: The point, as you know quite well, is that other similar mistakes are likely to have been found and corrected

I know you just make stuff up, but Jesus.

you're quoting a case where the system worked in favour of your candidate as an example of potential election fraud by the other side.

The other side's electoral fraud was discovered and reversed to give the correct outcome. This is not working "in favour of" my candidate.

>61 kiparsky: Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election

Back on Planet Earth, they spent years saying that his election was never legitimate because Russia. Think back; you might recall a guy named Mueller.

And "Not my President." Etc., etc.

GOP leaders: We’ll abide by popular vote, won’t give Michigan to Trump
Jonathan Oosting | November 13, 2020

LANSING — Leaders in Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature have not yet called Joe Biden the president elect, but they’re making clear that they will not change the electoral process to benefit President Donald Trump even as they probe alleged election “irregularities,”

“Michigan law does not include a provision for the Legislature to directly select electors or to award electors to anyone other than the person who received the most votes,” said Amber McCann, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake.

The law is clear on that front: Michigan must award its 16 representatives to the Electoral College to the winner of the popular vote, and unofficial results show Joe Biden won the state by nearly 150,000 votes, a margin roughly 14 times larger than Trump’s win here in 2016.

But the U.S. Constitution also appears to give Legislatures the exclusive authority to decide how to award electors, and GOP pundits like Mark Levin of Fox News have urged battleground state lawmakers to bypass the popular vote and decide the election for Trump, who has falsely claimed he won Michigan and sued to try and block certification of the results..

...“Every single legal vote needs to be counted, regardless of who cast it or who they voted for,” Chatfield, R-Levering said last week in a statement announcing a legislative inquiry into the election.“And then the candidate who wins the most of those votes will win Michigan’s electoral votes, just like it always has been. Nothing about that process will change in 2020.”

...The State Board of Canvassers is expected to consider certifying the election Nov. 23. If it does, Trump would have 48 hours to request a recount.

Democrats and other critics have accused the GOP-led Legislature of legitimizing Trump conspiracy theories by launching an inquiry into the Nov. 3 election and using unprecedented subpoena power to request state election records...

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/gop-leaders-well-abide-popular-vote...

>48 prosfilaes: the mail-in ballots coming from DC to the Florida election, claiming the voters live at Mar Lago even though Donald Trump told Palm Beach it would be no one's private residence.

From this I inferred that something like this had happened: hundreds of votes came from D.C., falsely claiming to be from residents at Mar-A-Lago. I assumed this was some lefty D.C. bureaucrats trying to make Trump look bad, expecting the media to report it as “Trump commits tons of fraud.”

Apparently the truth is simply, Trump tried to vote in Florida, was blocked from doing so. As far as I can tell he didn’t try to vote anywhere else, so he didn’t even try to double-vote.

Even the Washington Post admits,

Voting outside the District of Columbia while serving as president is not uncommon. President Barack Obama cast his vote in the 2016 presidential election in his hometown of Chicago, and President George W. Bush voted by mail in Texas in the 2008 presidential election.

>53 kiparsky: I'm not sure which condition he's in according to the local laws and I don't care. But none of those amount to electoral fraud in any normal use of that term.

Agreed.

There's plenty of things which the Trump campaign has done and is doing which arguably constitute electoral fraud, but Trump voting in Florida is not one of them. That's just ordinary entitled elitist scumbaggery of the sort we're used to from him

See WaPo quote above.

>64 Carnophile: Sorry, but you could not be more wrong if you were actively trying to shoot for maximal wrongth, and you were really good at being wrong.

Hilary Clinton accepted Trump's electoral victory the night of the 2016 election, and gave a concession speech the next morning. The Obama administration immediately initiated the transition process, which was handled in a professional manner from their end (the ineptitude of the Trump administration, for example, not being actually prepared for a win, caused some problems, but that can hardly be blamed on democrats). No elected democrat that I am aware of claimed that Trump was not elected to the presidency.

Democrats accepted the results of the election. Period.

Now stop lying.

Think back; you might recall a guy named Mueller.

Think. You might recall that it's not possible to impeach a president if they're not the president. Just as accepting a pardon means accepting guilt for the crime that is pardoned, impeaching a president means accepting that the person impeached is the president.

Damn, you're still not very good at this are you?

>67 kiparsky: No elected democrat that I am aware of claimed that Trump was not elected to the presidency.

In #61 you wrote, Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election, not elected Democrats accepted... So so now you are trying to move the goal posts. And this even though your original words are right in-thread!

>64 Carnophile: Think back; you might recall a guy named Mueller.
>67 kiparsky: Think. You might recall that it's not possible to impeach a president if they're not the president.

Mueller's investigation did not result in impeachment.

And the entire premise of the "Russia" investigation was that Trump's election was faked with help from Russia. The Dems pushing that investigation - and later, in another matter, impeachment - knew that most people accepted Trump as President. But those Dems didn't.

Actually, the entire premise of the Russia investigation was that agents of the Russian government attempted to interfere with a US election by spreading disinformation among voters, not that Russians went in to polling places and changed votes, or that Russians somehow cast illegal votes in the election. These are two quite different things, as I’m sure you’re aware.

>69 Matke: Actually, the entire premise of the Russia investigation was that Trump colluded with Russia, thus leading to an election that was invalid due to "foreign interference."

And I didn't say that "Russians went in to polling places and changed votes," nor did I claim that anyone else said that.

What the author of #67 and I were arguing about is whether Dems accepted Trump as President.

(And not only did they accept it, but "literally on the night of the election.")

>70 Carnophile: What the author of #67 and I were arguing about is whether Dems accepted Trump as President.

You might be arguing. I'm not. The fact is, in 2016 the Democratic candidate for president accepted Trump's victory on the night of the election and officially conceded that defeat in a speech the next morning, and the Democratic administration then in power took all of the usual steps to ensure that a smooth and successful transition of power would take place.

I know that's not what you want to believe, but I don't give a shit what you want to believe and neither does anyone else. Over here in the real world, that's what happened, and there's no arguing about it.

<71

And if I recall correctly Trump publicly thanked Obama for the smooth handover.

>70 Carnophile: ... "the entire premise of the Russia investigation was that Trump colluded with Russia, thus leading to an election that was invalid due to "foreign interference."

Exactly. And, from my first rather vague acquaintance with the claims, this

"Russians went in to polling places and changed votes, or that Russians somehow cast illegal votes in the election"

was precisely the impression I got from the claims. What the hell else can corrupting, altering, through foreign interference, a U.S. presidential election even mean?

But Trump's opponents went much further than that. They flat out accused him of being a knowing and willing Russian agent, effectively, Putin's mole, in the ultimate position of greatest influence, the presidency.

That's how far these Whack-jobs went in their claims of Russia's defrauding Americans of a free and fair election.

And it's those and other wildly preposterous lies, trafficked with a dedicated and sustained effort by both individuals, groups and corporate organizations, press and other, which makes Biden's call to now "come together" utterly cynical and hollow.

Biden can and should drop dead. And the sooner the better--so we may get on with the impeachment, trial and conviction of Kamala Harris.

__________________________

The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) | Potomac Watch | "Harvesting the 2020 Election | Pelosi’s top priority was remaking the electoral system. The virus gave her a boost. By Kimberly Strassel

_________________________

Nolte: Disgraced Fox News Retracts False House Race Projection — 8 Days Later! | John Nolte | Breitbart | 12 November 2020

73 “Biden can and should drop dead.”
Does that invalidate the feelings of those who voted for him? Is this your concept of reasonable political speech? How is this different from the unreasoning hatred you have accused others of? You’re showing your true colors here, and they’re very ugly.

“so we may get on with the impeachment, trial, and conviction of Kamala Harris.”
Impeachment, trial, and conviction based on what, exactly? Your irrational hatred of and contempt for all Democrats/liberals/anyone who disagrees with Mr. trump, and with your views? She hasn’t taken office, and therefore can’t have committed any high crimes and misdemeanors as Vice President that would justify these actions. Here you have violated the most basic American belief: innocent until proven guilty. In this case, you’ve convicted prior to any charges being brought.

Face it. It’s over. Mr. Trump’s presidency will be limited to one term. Every reasonable judge and government agency has testified to the validity of the election. If you think that will change, you’re living in a fantasy world. And all your howling into the wind about doesn’t matter at all.

>73 proximity1: Fortunately for you, there's a whole book about the claims. You can familiarize yourself with them, and come back when you've actually got some idea of what you're talking about.

>74 Matke:

"Does that invalidate the feelings of those who voted for him?"

Oh, absolutely it does--if those voters are not only not prepared to join in the calls for an open, free and fair inspection of the balloting to ensure that the tallied ballots accurately represent the votes actually cast but are, in addition to that, essentially ready and willing to take full partisan advantage of blocking that objective just so that they can avoid the risk of a more accurate count reversing the outcomes as first announced--- which they know favor their wishes and thus, any re-count simply opens the way to a potential reversal of what they'd like: and that isn't the greatest assurance of the most accurate vote tallying, it's rather their preferred outcome regardless of its accuracy.

So, of course such voters, with such objectives, can go to blazes with Biden as and when geriatric Joe drops dead. Citizens' duty to themselves and their fellow citizens is to, first and foremost, fight in defense of open, free, fair and legally conducted races and, only secondarily, fight for their preferred candidates' victory.

"Is this your concept of reasonable political speech?"

Yes. See above. It's my right to denounce vote-rigging, election-rigging and fraud and the results it produces--until you lot manage to find a way to prevent that right and its use. I'm not bound to smile, nod and politely bow to organized corruption just because some hypocritical simpletons label doing that, "Good sportsmanship"--except when it comes to their doing the same in turn when the votes go against them.

"How is this different from the unreasoning hatred you have accused others of?"

Yes, you'd need to ask that, wouldn't you? Because it doesn't occur to you that it's one thing to accept justified defeat graciously and something else to roll over for organized cheating and election fraud. I discriminate between those who sponsor, favor and seek or acquiesce to organized election fraud, whatever their party-affiliation, and those, whatever their party affiliation, who object to and oppose and refuse to accept it.

"You’re showing your true colors here, and they’re very ugly."

It's you who bear the ugly colors here.

You've already demonstrated that you will not respect, let alone defend a free and fair outcome when it came to Trump, that is, in an instance of that being contrary to your preferences. And, now, that you will sanction, grant, accept and the results, however tainted, corrupt, fraudulent and left wanting in scrutiny and verification when it comes to Biden --apparently because, and only because, on the contrary, the result does conform to your preferences.

In one case as in the other, you ally, you align, yourself strictly according to personal and selfish interest, refusing to accept a legal and valid result and ready to preclude the fullest and fairest possible assurance through the application of the regular legal and procedural standards in applicable state and federal law.

If that's your idea of "sitting pretty", you can have it. I'd rather be denounced by the likes of you as of "ugly colors."


THIS, below, describes your reactions and those of your fellow anti-Trump partisans to the 2016 presidential election.

"Face it. It’s over. (Hillary won.) Mr. Trump’s (bid failed.) (He cheated using Russians' illegal interference, with which he knowingly colluded) ... Every reasonable judge and government agency has testified to the invalidity of the election. If you think that will change, you’re living in a fantasy world. And all your howling into the wind about doesn’t matter at all."

And what, then, did you support? You supported Trump's impeachment, conviction and removal from office--the outcome you'd already sought and favored from the organized press's vendetta-driven attempt to smear him through an entirely illegal and unfounded campaign to frame him for "colluding with the Russian state."

>73 proximity1: What the hell else can corrupting, altering, through foreign interference, a U.S. presidential election even mean?

"I don't know what the claims are, but I know they're false" is when partisanship gets into full reality denying mode.

They flat out accused him of being a knowing and willing Russian agent, effectively, Putin's mole, in the ultimate position of greatest influence, the presidency.

And it turns out he was not knowing, though he was willing. He attacked NATO and EU, two of Putin's greatest thorns in his side, he made the US the laughing stock on the world stage, and he gave Putin room to work in Syria and the Middle East.

And it's those and other wildly preposterous lies

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." It's amazing how Trump's advocates seem to be ignore what Trump actually says. I don't know what future historians will all say, but I do know that full details on top secret espionage tend to come out decades later. When they release the 21st century version of the Venona project, then we'll know more; until then, the claim that Trump was a knowing Russian agent seems unlikely but possible, not at all wildly preposterous.

>76 proximity1:
Whatever are you on about? I never, in any forum or in private speech, said anything other than that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. That is a fact. I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote. Please stop including me in some amorphous group that you imagine.

The case here is that Mr. Trump lost both the popular vote and will lose the electoral college vote. You seem to imagine a vast conspiracy that includes 1. the governing bodies of states that are run by clear Republican majorities; 2. almost all courts, in the various states, with judges appointed by both parties; 3. several government agencies that are nonpartisan; and 4. Heaven only knows how many solid citizens of both parties.

The possibility of such an enormous and widespread, bipartisan conspiracy is ludicrous.

It’s unfortunate that you continue to resort to personal insults (“the likes of you”) which show your unremitting and rather disturbing hatred for all those who disagree with you.

If you feel so strongly about US politics, why don’t you return to the States and take an active part in making things better (from your point of view)? Why stay in England? You’ll not effect any change here in the US by what you’re doing.

>76 proximity1: It's you who bear the ugly colors here.

Just in case it slipped your mind, this is what you said: Biden can and should drop dead. And the sooner the better--so we may get on with the impeachment, trial and conviction of Kamala Harris.

So, you're denouncing Democrats for calling for the impeachment of a president for acts that he took while president, while calling for the impeachment of a future president - who will not even be president for another four years at least - on no basis whatsoever. And in the same breath, you call for the death of America's next president. Hypocrite much?

It's my right to denounce vote-rigging, election-rigging and fraud and the results it produces

It's also your right to denounce the oppression of enslaved elves at the North Pole and cruelty to unicorns. That doesn't mean the things you denounce are real.

in defense of open, free, fair and legally conducted races and, only secondarily, fight for their preferred candidates' victory.

Ah, yes, that. So, when half of the people you agree with were yelling "stop the count" and other half were yelling "count every vote", which ones were acting "in defense of open, free, fair, and legally conducted races"? When Trump deployed mobs to intimidate voters and prevent them from accessing the polling places, that was "in defense of open, free, fair, and legally conducted races"? When Trump deployed mobs to disrupt the counting of votes, to intimidate the people counting the votes, and to attempt to prevent an accurate count of votes, that was "in defense of open, free, fair, and legally conducted races"? When Trump's hand-picked Postmaster General took steps to disrupt the US mails in advance of an election being conducted largely by mail, and then did his best to ensure that legally-cast votes postmarked before the election date would not be counted, that was "in defense of open, free, fair, and legally conducted races"?

Your interest in "free, fair and legally conducted races" seems to be somewhat sporadic - as is typical of your ethical positions. They depend entirely on the actions you find yourself trying to justify.

>76 proximity1:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/525980-tucker-carlson-issues-on-air-apology-o...

And here’s a very typical example of your idea of “voter fraud.”

Except, you know, it’s not.

Katelyn Polantz (CNN) @kpolantz | 1:13 PM · Nov 14, 2020:

Would you like to read a point-by-point rejection of election fraud allegations in Michigan, showing why they're not credible?
That exists now, from a judge.

Read it here (13 p): http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/11/13/costantino.et.al.v.wayne.boc.et.al.opin...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion is on p 12-13

Wow, thank you for posting this.

Yes. Very clarifying.

>71 kiparsky: The fact is, in 2016 the Democratic candidate for president accepted Trump's victory on the night of the election...

In >61 kiparsky: you wrote, Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election.

Meanwhile, back in reality, many Democrats did not accept the result of the 2016 election. They said "Not my President," claimed Trump's presence in the White House was illegitimate due to "foreign interference," etc.

#84---wah, wah, wah. Why don't you go back to 2008 when Obama actually won an overwhelming victory over McCain in both the electoral college and the popular vote? You're trying to tell us now that you accepted Obama as your President? The tea party was a thing within a year of Obama's entrance into the White House--obstructionism was a thing after the 2010 mid-term election. Owning the libs has been the republican party's and your thing for a lot longer than Trump's been on the political radar. Saying different would be a lie and you know it.

>84 Carnophile: Seriously, you're going pedantic? Okay, if you want pedantic, I have listed (in >71 kiparsky:) a number of Democrats who accepted Trump's victory on the night of the election. Therefore it is true to day that "Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election".

I honestly don't know why you're trying to pretend that Democrats didn't accept the Trump win in 2016. It's just making you look silly. The fact is, there's a big difference between saying "My candidate lost (and I'm appalled by that fact)" and saying "My candidate didn't lose (despite the fact that he did)". The former is the Democratic position in 2016, and the latter is the Republican position in 2020, and it's a loser's position - it's the position of someone who's lost, and thinks, "that wasn't quite enough losing, let's go back and get some more". And sure enough, he's losing left, right, and center. He's losing court cases, he's losing supporters, and if he keeps this up he's likely to lose two Senate seats in Georgia. Why do you think this is a good thing for Republicans?

I mean, clearly it's a good thing for America if Trump is able to sell Ossoff and Warnock to the Democrats, because obviously Mitch McConnell can't and won't do his job and pass legislation for Americans, so getting him fired will help all of us, but why do you think that's a good thing for Republicans? I mean, we've established - and frankly, you've been instrumental in making the case for this - that Republicans in 2020 are anti-American traitorous scumbags who want to hurt Americans every chance they get. So why would they want to help Americans by losing the Georgia senate runoffs? Maybe that would be a fun conundrum for you to get confused about for a while.

>84 Carnophile: Meanwhile, back in reality, many Republicans kept claiming Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, 41% of Republicans in 2016 after he had been president for eight years. In September 2010, Newt Gingrich offered this line: Obama’s actions were “so outside our comprehension” that “only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior can you begin to piece {them} together.”

"Not my President"? How about if he's the President, not my nation, aka eight states getting 25,000 votes to succeed from the US?

FWIW Trump was maybe the most persistent purveyor of the birther bullshit and I know I was often arguing with people here back during Obama's presidency about this. Someone would say Obama wasn't born in the United States and I'd say 'what, Hawaii isn't one of our 50 states?' and then would come all the dismissal that Obama was born in Hawaii. I had this conversation numerous and I suspect Carnophile was one of those arguing the birther shit.

>78 Matke: RE: "I never, in any forum or in private speech, said anything other than that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. That is a fact. I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote."

My point was that, as you seem to confirm--if we can credit your claim, above-- you've never mentioned Trump's 2016 election victory in terms other than derogatory, that is, strictly and solely terms which discredit and denigrate his claim on the office. I contend and contended that never once have you ever lifted a finger, typed a word or uttered a word to defend Trump's claim to the presidency since the 2016 returns were in and confirmed. Instead, everything you said or wrote in a public comment was intended to cast discredit, doubt or denigration on the man, his electoral victory and virtually everything he has said or done since taking office.

There is no record here that I can find of any even neutral comment concerning Trump. When others intoned "Not my president," you never made any objection in any discussion on this site--principled or otherwise.

We have no evidence here of your ever having defended the electoral processes or their outcome except when and as these did or tended to ratify and comfort your own political biases. And you're a "member since Dec 28, 2008".

IOW, your "defense" (LOL!) of democracy and, in particular democratic practice in the United States is, by all evidence here, utterly partisan in character.

>78 Matke:

Edited: Nov 14, 12:28pm

>76 proximity1: proximity1:
Whatever are you on about? I never, in any forum or in private speech, said anything other than that Mrs. Clinton won the (2016) popular vote. That is a fact. I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote.

Where, when and how did you say, as you claimed above, " I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote" ?

Searches of "Talk" referencing your user-name bring up a total of _9_ posts.

NOTE: Apparently, in the new and improved version of LT, members can no longer go back and search "Talk"'s past messges or topics and find, as was previously the case, a chronology of all a member's posts. Either that or, apparently, you've deleted all but about nine of yours. A search on your user-name combined with "Trump" or, for that matter, "Clinton," returns "Zero" hits. It would appear then that, since the end of December, 2008, you've never mentioned either "Clinton" or "Trump" by name in any posted comment (which remains extant).

_______________________

RE >80 Matke::

& Tucker Carlson's report, you cite a news org. which tells us,

"Trump Campaign got a list of voters without 'Mrs.' or 'Mr.' so Mrs. James Blalock was listed as just James Blalock.
We checked. They didn't.https://t.co/C60PYQFVAo via @11AliveNews"

You seem to miss the point. What we want to know and what we need to know is this: did the official voter-register indicate "Mrs. James Blalock"?--which is apparently the way she signs herself. If so, then how did it happen that the records supplied to the Trump campaign not also indicate that?

Either the electoral rolls indicate people specifically and correctly or they don't. Which is the case in this state? Does "Mrs. James Blalock" appear on the rolls as "Mrs." or as "Blalock, James, Mrs."? or rather, as "Blalock, James" ?

That is, can one look at the voter rolls and actually tell accurately and without further investigation who the hell did and did not vote---or can't one? How's it possible that there'd even be a doubt or question of whether "James Blalock" referred to a "Mr." or "Mrs." Blalock--ever?

>89 proximity1:
Just to be clear, I’ll state it exactly:
I never, in this forum, on the internet anywhere, in private writings, or in my private speech, said that Mr. Trump wasn’t legally elected president. I have never, anywhere, said he wasn’t my president. This isn’t my only tiny internet presence. Note that I said “anywhere.” And you cannot demonstrate that I did.

Please explain how the statement
“Mr. Trump won the electoral vote,” is derogatory. It is a plain statement of fact.

I became aware of this group only this year—it certainly hasn’t been an unmixed blessing—so back searching would have been fruitless.

I find it quite fascinating that you, in your attempt to prove me a liar, went so far as to research all my posts here on LT.

And you came up with nothing. Not one thing. And yet you reiterate your baseless claim, and, without making the bald statement, virtually call me a liar.

Proxy, your devotion to my posts is flattering. I do appreciate the effort, pointless and useless as it was, to delve into my affairs. But your efforts to discredit me haven’t worked too well.

Perhaps if you devoted one-tenth of that time and effort to defending your claims, you’d be better served in terms of demonstrating good faith and reason.

ETA Most of my edits, although not all, are directed at typos and/or grammar mistakes. Just so we’re clear.

Again, thank you for your time and your kind attention to keeping my record straight.

your words, verbatim: >78 Matke: "I never, in any forum or in private speech, said anything other than that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. That is a fact. I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote." (emphasis added)

now become:
>89 proximity1:

"I never, in this forum, on the internet anywhere, in private writings, or in my private speech, said that Mr. Trump wasn’t legally elected president. I have never, anywhere, said he wasn’t my president. This isn’t my only tiny internet presence. Note that I said 'anywhere.' And you cannot demonstrate that I did."*

Please explain how the statement
“Mr. Trump won the electoral vote,” is derogatory. It is a plain statement of fact.

(* emphasis added)

You had to alter your previously stated position to read, thus:

“Mr. Trump won the electoral vote,”

going on to challenge me, instead, to "explain": "How is that 'derogatory.' It is a plain statement of fact."

Here's "how" it's derogatory:

Taken together, this:

"I never, in any forum or in private speech, said anything other than that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote."

and this:

That is a fact. I said immediately that Mr. Trump won the electoral college vote."

amount to a clear implication that you regard the outcome as discrediting, as a delegitemization of, Trump's claim on the office of president--as, in fact, many other people said without any round-about word-mincing. And you reinforce that impression by your studiously never raising the slightest defense of Trump or his legitimacy in any discussion at this site. No others' claims here of Trump's discredited showing in the 2016 election ever met any positive counter-view frrom you here. Your own words' import having been that of Trump's failure to win the "popular vote." That is, clear the bar of legitimacy by winning other than *only* the Electoral College vote. You do bother to expressly point out: "Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote." (emphasis added)

I note that I never alleged that “Mr. Trump won the electoral vote” was derogatory--nor, for that matter, that you'd ever said that. So, when you begin, "Just to be clear, I’ll state it exactly"... that's more of your ducking and weaving.

My point stands so far uncorrected and not refuted by anything you've thrown out here so far. Here it is again:

>89 proximity1: "My point was that, as you seem to confirm--if we can credit your claim, above-- you've never mentioned Trump's 2016 election victory in terms other than derogatory, that is, strictly and solely terms which discredit and denigrate his claim on the office. I contend and contended that never once have you ever lifted a finger, typed a word or uttered a word to defend Trump's claim to the presidency since the 2016 returns were in and confirmed. Instead, everything you said or wrote in a public comment was intended to cast discredit, doubt or denigration on the man, his electoral victory and virtually everything he has said or done since taking office."

you've shown us nothing and offered nothing to refute that. Only subterfuge and hemming and hawing and changing the import of and emphasis on what you'd previously claimed. But the import remains as stated above--before you attempted to move the goal-posts.

>91 proximity1: Is there a point to any of this babbling that you're doing? Or is this just your way of telling us you have nothing to say, and a whole lot of bile that you want to vent?

If you have something to say, maybe you should start saying it. If not, maybe you should start not saying it in fewer words.

I can’t help what you dream up in your mind.

I don’t deny that I’ve criticized Mr Trump. So what? That’s my right as a US citizen: to criticize one’s government. If you think something’s wrong with that, you’ve forgotten how it works here in the States.

It’s not my job (or anyone’s who makes a statement about their own previous statements) to offer proof of that statement. It would be impossible for anyone to offer definitive proof that they did not say something. It’s up to you to disprove it. You know that as well as I do.

I will repeat, since you seem unable to understand:

I’ve never denied the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s election. Prove that I did.
That is the point which we were discussing: whether I spoke about his election. For heaven’s sakes, read your own words.

I’ve repeatedly and lengthily criticized Mr. Trump’s job performance. Again, that is my right as a US citizen. *That* is democracy.

It would be so very refreshing—and different—if you could accept what is quite obviously a legitimate election of Mr. Biden.

Again thank you for your kind attention to my posts.

>93 Matke:

Proximity doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between saying derogatory things about a president, which many people have done about many presidents, and claiming that a president has not been legitimately elected. It's the same narrative which Trump's supporters tried when he was impeached, trying to conflate saying that he no longer deserves to be president due to actions he has committed as president with claiming that he was not legitimately elected as president.

>94 John5918:

Sometimes our emotions and our attachment to certain ideas can overwhelm our reasoning and plain common sense. I understand that, and I know it’s happened to me. When called on it, though, usually I whisper, “Uh-oh,” and try to answer and do better.

Proxy...well, Proxy...there seems to be a decided blind spot involving Mr. Trump and/or anyone who criticizes him.

There are plenty of people on both sides of the discussion who have these blind spots, as you point out. Maybe I’m not passionate enough, but for me, once I’m over the maddening heat of the moment, logic and facts will always win over expansive bs, even if it means I have to (oh, the horror) rethink my position.

I always enjoy your posts, John. They’re informative, courteous, and on point.

Meanwhile, mysteriously (LOL!) similar problems plague Georgia's balloting:

Trump outpaced Biden nearly 2-to-1 among 2,600 uncounted ballots found in Georgia | by Emma Colton, Social Media Manager | November 17, 2020 01:30 PM

President Trump outpaced Joe Biden by nearly 2-to-1 among the more than 2,600 uncounted ballots found in Georgia this week.

Georgia’s voting system manager Gabriel Sterling revealed on Monday that out of the 2,600 ballots found in Floyd County, 1,643 were for Trump, 865 were for Biden, and 16 were for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen.

NEW--@GabrielSterling just released the official vote breakdown from the ballots previously uncounted in Floyd County:
Trump--1,643
Biden--865
Jorgensen--16
TOTAL--2,524@FOX5Atlanta
— Claire Simms (@Claire_FOX5) November 17, 2020

The ballots were not originally counted due to county election officials failing to upload votes from a memory card, according to Sterling.

"It's not an equipment issue," Sterling said. "It's a person not executing their job properly. This is the kind of situation that requires a change at the top of their management side."

"Mistakes were made."

>96 proximity1: "Mistakes were made."

And rectified.

This decertification gambit--aimed at primarily black, Dem, big cities--may bring out the vote in Georgia and cost Rs the Senate.

Robert Costa (WaPo) @costareports | 9:31 PM · Nov 17, 2020
One thing I keep hearing from Rudy people tonight: they know they can't catch up. What they want -- in MI, PA, NV, other states -- is for the vote to *not* be certified. Their end game: try to force it to the House. Giuliani talking about this privately.
As vote certification deadline looms in Michigan, canvassing boards come under white-hot spotlight
---------------------------------------------------------
Board in key Michigan county (Detroit's Wayne County) fails, then agrees, to certify vote totals by deadline
Kayla Ruble and Tom Hamburger | November 17, 2020

...The agreement came after two hours of emotional testimony,* primarily from those who wanted to see the results certified, and objections from Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and others nationally.

...While state Democrats say Trump has no hope of overturning Biden’s wide lead in the state, they had expressed anxiety in recent weeks that Republican legislators might not only try to hold up certification in Wayne County but also seek to use a dubious interpretation of state law to appoint their own electors, leading the state to back Trump in the electoral college. That strategy has been scoffed at by legal experts.

...Republican leaders in the legislature have tried in recent days to assuage fears that such a move could gain traction. The Republican Senate leader said just before the vote Tuesday that Biden won Michigan and the legislature won’t interfere — despite requests from Trump loyalists.

But the decision provoked outrage among Democrats and activists in Detroit, and others who said it was no coincidence that Trump’s complaints about voting practices have centered on Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta — all heavily Black cities.

...Among those who spoke during the public comment period was Jennifer Redmond, the deputy chair of elections from Wayne County. She choked up as she addressed the board about their decision not to certify the election results. Redmond recounted how she and her staff have worked 16 hours a day (during a pandemic) to certify the results for the counties, involving more than 1,100 precincts where 878,000 ballots were cast, to meet a nearly impossible two-week deadline.

...After the vote, there was an overwhelming response at the meeting — and beyond. The two Republicans on the panel found themselves under verbal assault, accused of racism, violating their public obligations and attempting to hijack what even GOP leaders in Lansing said were the clear results of the election.

The excoriation of the Republican members came from people at the meeting, but also from the governor, the Michigan House minority leader and election experts around the country.

...a Democratic member of the board proposed a compromise — that the 2020 vote be certified and that an audit of the Detroit vote follow.

...On Monday, Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled against two Republican poll watchers, days after a lower court judge had rejected their request to halt certification...(Rs are appealing to Michigan Supreme Court). A similar suit filed by the Trump campaign in federal court Tuesday is still pending. As part of it, the campaign filed 238 pages of affidavits from Republican poll watchers across Michigan...complaints about rude behavior or unpleasant looks from poll workers or Democratic poll watchers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michigan-vote-canvassing-board/2020/11/1...

___________________________________________________

*
Ray Wert @raywert | 7:22 PM · Nov 17, 2020:
Watch @NedStaebler completely destroy Monica Palmer and William Hartmann —
the two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers —
over their racist and partisan refusal to certify the election.

2:08 ( https://twitter.com/raywert/status/1328856173513150464 )
From Joe F Spaulding

___________________________________________________

*
MeidasTouch.com @MeidasTouch | 10:39 PM · Nov 17, 2020:
These are some of the heroes who helped save democracy tonight and got Michigan to certify the votes in Wayne County and beyond...

0:30 ( https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1328905671949971456 )

__________________________________________________

‘The truth won’: Michigan Secretary of State praises certification as Trump rants on Twitter
Matthew Chapman | 11/17/2020

...President Donald Trump — who had minutes before erroneously cheered on the denial of certification after it had already been reversed — furiously took to Twitter to rage against the immediate turn of fortune, falsely claiming that Detroit was trying to certify “more votes than people.”

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:18 PM · Nov 17, 2020:
Flip Michigan back to TRUMP. Detroit, not surprisingly, has tremendous problems!

Quote Tweet
The Election Wizard @Wizard_Predicts · 10h
The total number of ballots cast in Wayne County was about 863,000.
Without Wayne County, Biden’s lead in Michigan would flip to a 177,000 Trump lead.
So yes, certifying Wayne County is a big deal.
The State of Michigan will now be tasked with attempting certification.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/the-truth-won-michigan-secretary-of-state-prais...

>96 proximity1: And it doesn’t change the outcome: Biden is ahead and will most likely win in Georgia.

And even if he doesn’t, he still will win the election.

>85 lriley: You're trying to tell us now that you accepted Obama as your President?

I never denied that he was President of the US or said “Not my President,” etc.

The tea party was a thing within a year of Obama's entrance into the White House--obstructionism was a thing

To disagreeing with Obama on policy is not to deny that he was elected President.

>87 prosfilaes: Meanwhile, back in reality, many Republicans kept claiming Obama wasn't a natural born citizen

The difference is, I never denied that many Republicans claimed that.

>86 kiparsky: Seriously, you're going pedantic?

You mean, quoting you?

I have listed (in >71 kiparsky: ) a number of Democrats who accepted Trump's victory on the night of the election. Therefore it is true to day that "Democrats accepted the results of the 2016 election literally on the night of the election".

When you say “Democrats accepted...” without qualification it means all or at least the preponderance of Democrats.

In any case, your own argument defeats you: If your listing two Democrats proves that Democrats accepted Trump, then if I list two Democrats who didn’t, that proves that Democrats did NOT accept Trump. Shall I proceed to list a couple? Let me know if you’d like that.

>101 Carnophile: When I say "Democrats accepted" it means what I mean, and what I mean is sufficiently clear that your blundering about is only making it clear that you've got nothing of any use to say on this subject. Do you really think that contorting yourself this way is getting you closer to making some sort of point? If so, I'd like to know what point it is that you're trying to get to.

If you can't think of an actual point that you're trying to make, you should take the advice I already gave to your fellow-traveller in >92 kiparsky:

#100--congrats on winning LT's Lindsey Graham trophy for hypocrisy above and beyond.

>100 Carnophile: What's your goal here? Your last statement makes it clear that most Republicans denied that Obama was President of the US. So the past twelve years have been spent with the other party in hostile opposition to the president in office.

But you have managed to drag the discussion away from the point; Trump refuses to accept he lost the election. Clinton, Romney, McCain, and Kerry did by the next morning, shortly after the election was called by the media. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/did-mitt-romney-wait-too-... asks if Mitt Romney waiting for one hour after CNN called it for Obama waited too long to concede.

>98 margd: contd. No Trumpian pressure on these Rs, yah think? HAH!

Wayne County Republicans ask to ‘rescind’ their votes certifying election results
Tom Hamburger, Kayla Ruble and Tim Elfrink | November 19, 2020

...In affidavits signed Wednesday evening, the two GOP members of the four-member Wayne County Board of Canvassers allege that they were improperly pressured into certifying the election and accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to audit votes in Detroit.

“I rescind my prior vote,” Monica Palmer, the board’s chairwoman... “I fully believe the Wayne County vote should not be certified.”

William Hartmann, the other Republican on the board, has signed a similar affidavit...

Jonathan Kinloch, a Democrat and the board’s vice chairman, told The Post that it’s too late for the pair to reverse course, as the certified results have been sent to the secretary of state in accordance with state rules.

...At the heart of the dispute is a last-minute compromise between Kinloch and the Republicans to seek a comprehensive audit of results in the Detroit area, where the GOP members said the votes were out of balance — meaning that the poll book, the official list of who voted, didn’t match the number of ballots received.

Palmer and Hartmann said in their affidavits that they believed they had a firm commitment to an audit. But Palmer says in her affidavit that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) later said she didn’t view their resolution asking for an audit as binding.

“I felt misled,” Palmer told The Post earlier on Wednesday, before signing the affidavit. “I stand firm in not certifying Wayne County without the audit.”

Kinloch, though, said that Palmer and Hartmann knew exactly what they were agreeing to on Tuesday, and that the board has yet to even formally ask Benson for the audit.

Palmer “knew it wasn’t binding,” Kinloch said. “We just voted yesterday.”

Kinloch said he and Palmer texted each other into the early hours of Wednesday, with the Democrat explaining that he had support across the board for the request. But he said Palmer was aware that he had not been able to directly reach the secretary of state’s office on Tuesday night.

He said the two also communicated about the need to prepare a joint letter to the secretary of state to ask for the audit...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/19/wayne-county-rescind-certifying...

How many ways do the Republican Party have of muddying the waters with their voter suppression gimmicks and bad faith tactics? Almost countless. We all know what the real issue is. They are a minority party who can't win nationally without finding multiple ways every time to game the electoral system.

If they were capable enough to put together a popular program they wouldn't have to worry about being a minority but they're too tied up in the needs of their banking and corporate donors and too dependent on their racist and intolerant voter base.

Trump influence seen in deadlock of Michigan election board
COREY WILLIAMS and JOHN FLESHER | 11/19/2020

...Norman Shinkle, one of the two Republican members of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, told The Associated Press that he had not been contacted by anyone with the Trump campaign. But he said he was bombarded with phone calls and emails from random Trump supporters urging him not to approve the election results.

Michigan Republican Party Chair Laura Cox reacted swiftly after the initial Wayne County deadlock. An email landed immediately at the AP, with Cox saying she was proud that the party’s work had caused GOP canvassers to refuse to bless the election results.

...Wayne County’s election results and those of Michigan’s other 82 counties now go to Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, who then presents them to the state canvassing board, which is scheduled to meet Nov. 23. That board also has four members: two Democrats and two Republicans.

...Shinkle, a former state senator who been on the state board for 12 years, said he was troubled by the way the election was handled in Detroit. In particular, he said, the city failed to have a Republican working on the election staff in each of the 516 precincts, as required by law.

“I think that’s a serious problem,” Shinkle said. “From my perspective, the law wasn’t followed. I can say we have serious problems. The question is: Do we throw out the election because of it?”

The state board is tasked with reviewing the county results and compiling the certified totals into statewide totals, according to Chris Thomas, a former Michigan elections director who served as an adviser to Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey for the general election.

“This is not just a vote to certify the presidential election. This certifies the entire state, said Thomas, who added that by not certifying the county results, the state board would “would basically nullify the entire election” in Michigan.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-michigan-general...

Report: Trump reached out to Wayne County GOP canvassers to express gratitude for their support
ED WHITE (AP) | 11/19/2020

...The county canvassers later voted again and certified the results, 4-0. (A person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that Trump reached out to Palmer and Hartmann on Tuesday evening after the revised vote to express gratitude for their support.) Then, on Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann signed affidavits saying they believe the county vote “should not be certified.” They said in their statement Wednesday that they’ve reported threats against them to law enforcement...

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/gop-canvassers-again-oppose-certifying-detroit-...

>108 margd: contd.

"His concern was about my safety" Yeah, right--I'm sure he asked after Gov Whitmer? the GA Secretary of State? the Pennsylvania and election authorities? the AZ Secretary of State? No?

Wayne County Republican who asked to ‘rescind’ her vote certifying election results says Trump called her
Tom Hamburger, Kayla Ruble and Tim Elfrink | November 19, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/19/wayne-county-rescind-certifying...

>108 margd: >10 mikevail: Election interference. Geez, remember when Rs had a bid when Bill Clinton chatted with the AG on the tarmac?

...In Wayne County, the two Republican canvassers at first balked at certifying the vote, winning praise from Trump, and then reversed course after widespread condemnation. A person familiar with the matter said Trump reached out to the canvassers, Monica Palmer AND WILLIAM HARTMANN (caps are margd's), on Tuesday evening after the revised vote to express gratitude for their support. Then, on Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann signed affidavits saying they believe the county vote “should not be certified.”...

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-targets-vote-certification-29da6aac9cc41...

>107 margd: How is such meddling not illegal? LOCK HIM UP!!

Trump invites top Michigan lawmakers to White House amid longshot bid to overturn election result
Trump campaign attempts to halt certification of election results
Cassidy Johncox | November 19, 2020

President Donald Trump has invited two top Republican Michigan lawmakers to the White House ... Senate Republican Leader Mike Shirkey and House Speaker Lee Chatfield will reportedly attend a meeting a the White House on Friday.

...The invitation comes just three days before the Board of State Canvassers is due to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s 153,000-vote lead over Trump in Michigan.

...Matt Morgan, the Trump campaign’s general counsel, said last week the campaign was trying to halt certification in battleground states until it could get a better handle on vote tallies and whether it would have the right to automatic recounts. Right now, Trump is requesting a recount in Wisconsin in two counties, and Georgia is doing an hand audit after Biden led by a slim margin of 0.3 percentage points, but there is no mandatory recount law in the state. The law provides that option to a trailing candidate if the margin is less than 0.5 percentage points.

Some in the Republican president’s orbit have held out hope that by delaying certification, GOP-controlled state legislatures will get a chance to select different electors, either overturning Biden’s victory or sending it to the House, where Trump would almost surely win...

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2020/11/19/ap-sources-trump-invites...

Remember when the biggest argument against impeaching President Trump was that removing him would be "overturning the will of the voters"?

- Andrew Egger (The Dispatch) @EggerDC | 4:58 PM · Nov 19, 2020
https://twitter.com/EggerDC/status/1329544640257806337

A d the Georgia recount has proved that Mr. Biden won that state fairly.

The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 10:50 AM · Nov 20, 2020:
Voters chose America. Now, Michigan Republicans must do the same.

1:45 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1329814299150344193 )

Lauren Windsor @lawindsor | 11:25 AM · Nov 20, 2020:
This morning, I asked @SenMikeShirkey if he would honor the will of Michigan voters in his meeting with Trump today.
He responded by singing a hymn about being persecuted:

1:35 ( https://twitter.com/lawindsor/status/1329823196321902597 )

>104 prosfilaes: Your last statement makes it clear that most Republicans denied that Obama was President

Wow, from "many" to "most" in 3/8 of a second! Slow down there, quick-draw!

Trump refuses to accept he lost the election.

As you know quite well, he didn't lose the election. We just saw what must be the most obvious case of electoral fraud in the history of the human species.

>102 kiparsky: You listed, in #71, two "elected Democrat"s who - you claim - accepted Trump as legitimate and you asserted this proves that "Democrats" accepted Trump as legitimate.

If 2 examples proves your point then 2 examples prove my point. Actually, though, I only need one, since Hillary Clinton does NOT accept Trump as legitimate:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

Fucking LOL.

For other examples of "elected Democrat"s who deny Trump's legitimacy, see these two:

What Happens When a President Is Declared Illegitimate?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/what-happens-when-a-preside...

Jimmy Carter Says He Sees Trump As An Illegitimate President
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/737008785/jimmy-carter-says-he-sees-trump-as-an-i...

>116 Carnophile: As you know quite well, he didn't lose the election

If you really believe this, you seriously need to get professional help, and I'm not qualified for that. The election is over, the votes are counted, Trump lost, it's over, and I'm done wasting time reading your nonsense.

Trump is organized crime, the IRS is on his tail. All his NYC gangsta buddies have already gone to jail. They are a foreshadow. This good fella owes certain persons a lot of money.

Michigan lawmakers, after meeting with Trump, reaffirm that they will honor the state’s vote.
NYT | 11/21/2020

...Michigan’s top two Republican lawmakers — who had been summoned to the White House by the president — said after the meeting that they had “not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election” in the state. In a statement, they vowed not to interfere with the certification process.

“As legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors, just as we have said throughout this election,” said the two officials, Mike Shirkey, the leader of the State Senate, and Lee Chatfield, the speaker of the State House.

“Michigan’s certification process should be a deliberate process free from threats and intimidation,” they added. “Allegations of fraudulent behavior should be taken seriously, thoroughly investigated, and if proven, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And the candidates who win the most votes win elections and Michigan’s 16 electoral votes. These are simple truths that should provide confidence in our elections.”

...Here is what we know about the meeting:

Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Chatfield, and several other Michigan Republican lawmakers met with Mr. Trump; the length of the conversation and the details of what was said (and WH staffers attending) are not yet known. Both legislative leaders had said they would not interfere with the certification process but created a joint committee to look into alleged reports of irregularities.

At least two other Republican state lawmakers, Tom Barrett, a state senator, and Jason Wentworth, a state representative who will take over as House speaker in January, were also believed to be at the meeting...

Notably, Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and a Michigan native whom Mr. Trump has pressed repeatedly about the state, did not attend Friday’s meeting...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/20/us/joe-biden-trump?smtyp=cur&smid=tw...

_______________________________________________________

Shirkey and Chatfield also, for once, tried to do some good:

“...used our time in the White House to deliver a letter to President Trump making clear our support for additional federal funds to help Michigan in the fight against COVID-19. We have since sent the same correspondence to congressional leaders."

“Months ago, Michigan received funds through the federal CARES Act, and we used that funding to quickly support front line workers, improve testing, ensure adequate PPE, provide additional support to out-of-work Michiganders, and deliver assistance to local businesses that are struggling through no fault of their own. We once again face a time in our state when additional support would go a long way to help those same residents who need our help."

“We highlighted our commitment to appropriating further federal dollars to Michiganders most in need as we continue to deal with the impact of COVID-19. We also emphasized our commitment to fiscal responsibility in the state budget as we move forward..."

https://www.senatormikeshirkey.com/legislative-leaders-meet-with-president-trump...

Zoe Tillman (Buzzfeed News) @ZoeTillman | 9:20 PM · Nov 20, 2020:
New: Black voters in Detroit and a voting rights group, repped by @NAACP_LDF, are suing Trump in federal court,
accusing him of violating the Voting Rights Act by trying to undermine the election results in Michigan

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7331895/11-20-20-Michigan-Welfare-Rig...

Image--complaint ( https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1329972887835578370/photo/1 )
Image--complaint ( https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1329972887835578370/photo/2 )
Image--complaint ( https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1329972887835578370/photo/3 )
Image--complaint ( https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1329972887835578370/photo/4 )

Current Vote Tallies:

Popular Vote:

Mr. Biden: 79,816,557 (51.1%)

Mr. Trump: 73,781,603 (47.2%)

Electoral Vote:

Mr. Biden: 306

Mr. Trump: 232

And with every recount, every audit, every review, Mr. Biden’s margin grows.

QUESTION: What does the extent of the Biden/Harris campaign's electoral fraud "sound like" if we were to represent the difference on a piano keyboard?
____________________________

What Williams College maths professor Steven J. Miller's analysis of ballot data shows is the striking "double-whammy" effects of this Democ Party electoral fraud.

It was, as the addle-pated Biden let out in a moment of clarity and candor, a sophisticated and multi-faceted fraud:

Dems worked in the following two (and more) ways.

They applied for (or amassed) many thousands of "mail-in" or absentee-ballots--using voter rolls--these were mail-in ballots sent to the addresses which, whether in person, by letter or other (e-mailed) request, an unauthorized request was made in the name of an actual registered voter--known as likely to vote "Trump" since, in numerous states, the voter registration rolls (public records) also indicate the voter's avowed party affiliation--if any.

The mail-in/absentee ballot, once in the unauthorized users' hands, it was (necessarily) marked in favor Biden/Harris--which was the whole point of requesting it fraudulently, of course, and returned to the county-clerk or other appropriate office or official where it was placed for eventual counting.

These steps had two "tandem" effects: they not only fraudulently increased the "vote" in "favor of" Biden/Harris, they also, by the same act, reduced--forestalled, a pro-Trump. How and why?

Simple: the actual authorized voter, knowing nothing of the mail-in ballot's having been requested fraudulently in his (or her) name, goes in person to the polling place, expecting, innocently and entirely legally, to cast his ballot. Little does he suspect that he'll be told, once at the sign-in table, that there's already a mail-in ballot having been requested in his name and returned.

Thus, it appears to the poll-workers that he (or she) either has a terrible memory or is attempting to vote twice in the same election--once by mail-in/absentee ballot and once in person.

But, in some states, it's so arranged that a person thus defrauded may cast a "provisional ballot" --a ballot accepted provisionally and conditionally, and only actually counted and included in the tally if the mailed-in ballot is somehow inspected, found faulty and disqualified. In other words, the word of the authorized voter, stating that he or she had neither requested nor received (and certainly never marked and returned) any such mail-in ballot, doesn't serve to disqualify the mail-in ballot, doesn't have the effect of rendering THAT ballot "suspended unless proven good". No. Rather, the authentic voter, standing at the polling check-in table where he (or she) is producing proof of identity to the poll-worker, is told he may vote "just in case" the mail-in ballot isn't counted. But in a state hostile to Trump--which includes some nominally-Republican party states--why should the mail-in ballot not be honored over that of the real voter's claims at the polls? Remember, the plan and point here--ON THE PART OF ELECTION OFFICIALS! is to defraud that would-be Trump voter.

To grasp the dual effects of this, the "multiplier" effect, think of a piano's keyboard.

Start at the keyboard's "Middle-'C'".

We begin at "Square 1" by registering a note for these two "voters". Since, prior to any foul-play, they're on a par, or on equal footing, that note is represented by the same piano-key for each voter. Strike the (same) key once for each voter. Since there've been no shenanigans yet worked at this point, we hear the same tone twice--once for each voter, the authentic and the (potential) fraudulent.

Now, using the tonal difference as the indication of the width of "separation" between these two voters by the degree of variance we hear in the notes sounded, we're going to "register" the effect of having used a fraudulent mail-in ballot to vote once in favor of Biden/Harris by moving that voter's key-sound one whole tone "up".

But that's only step #1.

Now, we're going to register the effect of denying (ultimately) the authentic voter the chance to register his (or her) vote. We do this by sounding the note one whole-step (or note) "down" from the originally sounded key.

After an initial move, each successive ballot produces how many notes "separating" (or showing the "distance" between) these two voters? One? No, two more key's (or spaces) separate them with each additional fraud. The distance or separation can be shown in its growth, its progression, by repeating the same process from the last-sounded separation once more "up" and once more "down" -- for each and every defrauded ballot.

Thus, with each individual fraudulent intervention, the sounds get wider, farther apart, on the keyboard.

Suppose then, that, as Professor Miller's analysis indicates, there's a 99% interval of confidence that between (lower bound) 38,910 and (upper bound) 56,483 voters whose valid (in-person) votes were precluded from being credited to Trump's tally. Then, by the same token, his analysis indicates, again, with 99% interval of confidence, that between 37,001 and 58,914 ballots were credited to the tally of Biden/Harris. Thus, Trump's vote tally is reduced on average, 67,151 votes --that is, one white key “down” (to the left) for every such vote, and, at the same time, Biden/Harris's vote tally is increased on average 66,458 votes--that is, one white key “up” (to the right) for every such vote.

Obviously, we haven't that many “keys” on the piano keyboard's range.

To overcome that, we'll assign an equal value, “up” or “down,” and distribute that across the 52 white keys of the C-Major scale to account for the full vote-totals.

Working to the left from “E” (included) above “Middle-'C'” & to the right of “F” (included) above “Middle-'C'” on the 88-key piano keyboard, there are 26 keys in each direction.

We could, as in this example, assign an equal value of 5000 votes to each of the 52 white keys and then show the separation between the tallies of Biden/Harris versus Trump/Pence votes.

Where on the keyboard's range do these two notes fall?

To indicate the Trump/Pence loss of ballots earned but not credited, we sound the “F” key two octaves below “Middle-C.” On the other hand, in the other tonal “direction,” Biden/Harris were credited with enough fraudulent votes to move “up” (to the right) the same number of keys (13), where we sound the “D” note two octaves above “Middle-C”.

Go to the piano and hit each of these two keys in succession, repeatedly, and fix that tonal difference in your mind. That's the "sound-effect" of this election's fraud against the Trump/Pence campaign and, conversely, in undeserved and undue favor of the Biden/Harris campaign.

>123 proximity1: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". If there were tens of thousands of votes stolen by fake mail-in ballots in their name, surely you can find at least a few dozen voters to aver that. So far I've heard of one voter making that claim, and she called her validity into question by refusing to sign a document asserting she hadn't voted by mail.

>121 margd: I've got to wonder if this will matter. I don't think they're targeting black voters, but in targeting Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta, it's clear they're effectively trying to disenfranchise large numbers of black voters.

Local radio reports that the D Governor can replace the members of Michigan's Board of State Canvassers if they fail to do their jobs, so that's another wrinkle--if I understood correctly. (RNC Chair, who lives in Michigan, was not at Trump's DC meeting with Michigan legislators.)

RNC chair urges Michigan board to pause certification of election results
STEPHANIE BEASLEY | 11/21/2020

...In a letter sent Saturday, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and Michigan Republican Chair Laura Cox urged the board to adjourn for 14 days to allow a full audit and investigation so "numerical anomalies and credible reports of procedural irregularities" can be addressed. "To simply gloss over these irregularities now without a thorough audit would only foster feelings of distrust among Michigan's electorate," the letter reads, echoing talking points from the Trump campaign....

Democratic President-elect Joe Biden won Michigan by about 150,000 votes. The state is among a handful where the Trump campaign has filed legal challenges. It is scheduled to certify its results Monday.

Republican state canvasser Norm Shinkle told the Detroit News on Friday that he was considering throwing his support behind an audit or delay of the final certification after two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their certification of the county’s results after learning an audit would not be conducted prior to state certification.

Shinkle said he couldn’t make a decision before seeing the Michigan Bureau of Elections report on the certifications from 83 counties.

There are four members — two Democrats and two Republicans — on the Michigan State Board of Canvassers.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said earlier this week that her agency would perform a post-election audit of Wayne County and some other local jurisdictions. But she said the audit could not be done before state results were certified because election officials don’t have legal access to the documents needed until then...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/republicans-michigan-election-certifica...

____________________________________________________

‘Dom Perignon’ trends on Twitter after Michigan GOP leaders seen drinking $495 champagne at Trump hotel
Russell Falcon | Nov 21, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. (KXAN) — A round of drinks between several Michigan Republican leaders after a meeting with Pres. Donald Trump is raising eyebrows — and drawing criticism — on Saturday.

“Dom Pérignon” trended on Twitter Saturday morning after photos of House Speaker Lee Chatfield, Sen. Mike Shirkey and State Rep. Jim Lilly chatting in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. surfaced online.

The legislators’ drink of choice — a $500 bottle of Dom Pérignon champagne — in addition to their visible lack of face coverings, are now under fire...

https://www.woodtv.com/news/dom-perignon-trends-on-twitter-after-michigan-gop-le...

#123--FFS. In our household one mail in ballot was requested (by my daughter)--one mail in ballot delivered (by USPS) and one mail in ballot returned (again using USPS). My wife and I voted early--about a week before Nov. 3. My son voted on Nov. 3. Most all of my in-laws in the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania voted before my wife and I did--my wife's mother is closing in on 90 and she takes the virus seriously. One of my wife's sister's survived a major cancer issue a few years back but she's a lot weaker since and she is expected to within the next few years to go blind. The Northern Tier of Pennsylvania is very republican but they're democrats and they voted early.

You're working way too hard to find a solution for a dilemma that doesn't exist.....and really I'd expect better from you. We don't agree on hardly anything but I don't think you're insane but #123 is crazy talk. You're over in England guessing away at all this crap but Donald made a point for months to his followers not to take the pandemic seriously and not to vote early. Returning to sparsely populated small town Northern Tier Pa--those people are running around with hardly any precaution for the virus at all......and they're getting sick a lot too. I hear it all the fucking time and our county is somewhat next door anyway. This is why your numbers looked good at first because they counted the election day returns first because they could keep a running tally. Pennsylvania by law could not start counting early ballots until election day at the earliest so all that got put off. But those people who voted early were in very large % democrats and let's also be clear on one other fact--Potter County where my wife's mom lives is easy to count. Potter County has approx. 15,000 people. Small counties get their counts done much faster than the large urban metropolitan counties with millions of voters and when you factor in way more early ballots (not being counted until at the earliest election day) in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and very few in the smaller counties you're going to need even more time to count the metropolitan areas.

Donald Trump thought he could make up the rules as he went along just to suit himself but it didn't work that way and when the results didn't come in for him---he's gone to the courts in an attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters and again it's not going his way. Let's also keep in mind the Republican Party nationwide did a lot better than expected down ballot. Maybe you could explain why if the vote was rigged the Democrats didn't also rig it to win the Senate--or why they lost numerous House seats because if they had cheated it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have done that. Maybe also you could explain why the Georgia hand count only showed really a couple failed downloading votes issues that really didn't effect the final vote count all that much and didn't change the overall result. The so-called Dominion voting machine narrative sunk like a stone right there. The fact is Trump and Giuliani have been grasping at straws. They never had a case. They've suckered people into coming out for them and suckered them into giving them more money. Their lawsuits have been beyond pathetic with no evidence provided at all and their remedies have been ridiculous. Waving around papers and yelling and sweating so much your makeup starts running down your face is not evidence of anything other than you're a fucking nutjob or shyster or both at the same time.

This is now in the courts. The mathematician's sworn affidavits have been ruled admissible and now must be shown in court to be mathematically faulty.

Desperate shit which goes no further than, "We won." "We didn't cheat. You people need to give up and get over it."

That won't cut it. The fraud is going to be shown irrefutably.

__________________________________________

>124 prosfilaes:

" If there were tens of thousands of votes stolen by fake mail-in ballots in their name, surely you can find at least a few dozen voters to aver that."

That's right. Many more than "a few dozen" have already been found and there are many more such which shall be learned of as the facts come out more fully in court.

#127.....yawn.

>127 proximity1: The mathematician's sworn affidavits have been ruled admissible and now must be shown in court to be mathematically faulty.

Or irrelevant...

Chris Christie just tore into Trump's legal team as 'a national embarrassment'.

>130 lriley: LOL. When Chris Christie calls you an embarrassment, you know you're in pretty bad shape.

#131--Christie is not really dumb and at least as far back as Nov. 8 he was making noises that the election was over and Trump should think about conceding. People around Trump who just tell him the things he wants to hear and/or cringe and/or snap to whenever Donald opens his mouth are helping to feed this dumb shit and Giuliani, Ellis and Powell (the legal team) are part of the problem and embarrassing as are Donald's kids as well as most republican congressmen and Senators. Kevin McCarthy the republican house leader absolutely should know better--unfortunately there are loads of absolute idiots and ambitious sycophants like Nunes, Issa, Gohmert, Gosar, this Qanon Georgia rep, Cotton, Paul, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Jordan, Rick Scott, Noem, DeSantis in the republican party. They're feeding this fire too whilst McConnell looks on from the sidelines keeping his mouth shut and powder dry but I'm sure Mitch knows it's all bullshit--it's just what if anything he can make of it.

My absolute favorite is the threat by Georgia Republicans to boycott the run-offs.

Why, I’m sorry you feel that way. But please, by all means, stand on those principles! Stay home! That’ll show ‘em.

>133 Matke: I'm guessing that the clever secret plan is, they'll argue that the lack of Republican votes is clear evidence of a stolen election.

At least, that's what I would do if I were as godawful stupid as today's Republicans seem to be.

>127 proximity1: There exists a widely quoted story about Diderot and Euler according to which Euler, in a public debate in St. Petersburg, succeeded in embarrassing the freethinking Diderot by claiming to possess an algebraic demonstration of the existence of God: "Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x; hence God exists, answer please!"* I can come up with any number of mathematical arguments: Gödel's theorem of course says that one will always find problems with a correct election that are uncheckable.

Based on my degree in mathematics, a pure mathematician can toss out all sorts of stuff, and none of it means anything in the real world unless a scientist actually ties it to something in the world. Something like election fraud is hard, and if a pure mathematician is talking on it, they have no more authority than anyone here with a basic education.

In any case, what are we talking about? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/11/vote-fraud-statistic-trump-bal... rips apart some claims. Or Benford's law: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-benford/fact-check-deviation-from-b...

>127 proximity1: Many more than "a few dozen" have already been found

Cool. Do you have any evidence of that?

* https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html As it points out, this is almost certainly false.

Washington Examiner editors

ought to re-examine this (Editorial comment):

"It's time for Trump to concede and move on"*

"Take Georgia, for example, which Trump needed to win in order to retain the presidency. If he had been denied victory in that state because of fraud or faulty machines, it would have been discovered in the complete hand-count of ballots ordered and run by Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger. But when the hand-count was complete, Biden had won by 12,284 votes." ...

________________
by the Editors, The Washington Examiner | November 20, 2020 04:15 PM

Or, in other words,

* "Fair, respectable elections--they don't matter. What matters is 'moving on' in the wake of fraud and incompetence in elections' management"

Really?

Were the mailed-in ballots' outer-envelopes retained for forensic analysis? Those who'd disputed that they'd ever sent in a mail-in ballot---when, appearing in person at the polling station and expecting to cast a ballot on election-day, they were told that the register indicated that they'd requested a mail-in ballot and they, their ID in hand, protested that they hadn't--are they going to get an opportunity to show that the mail-in ballot supposedly sent by their own hand wasn't prepared by them--bears no handwriting corresponding to their own, no DNA on the gummed flap (if any) corresponding to their own, no other traces of their having handled the envelope?

They aren't? Why not? Because that vital evidence has been discarded in the aftermath of an election which, more than a year ago was clearly going to be one of the closest, most hotly-contested presidential elections in U.S. history?

If state authorities want to run elections, they'd better demonstrate that they're competent to do that. Otherwise, we're going to find the U.N. sending in observers from Uganda and other more competent places to watch over our corrupt electoral politics.

There's no useful 'moving on' from fraudulent, incompetent elections--except to violent resistance. When the political processes fail and the resolve to stick to the hard and unpleasant tasks of uncovering and rooting out fraud to correct these processes' failings, the only recourse is to some form of violent resistance. Such is what's invited by the failures.

How many more such irredeemably-flawed elections are the national electorate supposed to endure before their faith in and consent to such farces is exhausted?

_______________________

Rather than concede, Trump and supporters ought, if Biden and Harris are sworn in and take office, pursue the investigation of electoral fraud, bring out the evidence of this, present it, and, from there, move to the impeachment, trial and removal of Biden, Harris and their illegitimate appointees.

Then, the president should be chosen by a vote of the Congress as provided for in the Constitution.

"Moving on" cannot be the summum bonum of U.S. Americans' ambitions. If it were to become that in effect, then the nation would be lost and not even fit for defending.

_______________________

“The Fight Ahead” | by Andrew Klavan • Nov 21, 2020 | DailyWire.com | The Daily Wire, Washington, D.C.

“My mind is on the fight ahead.” …

“The 'fight ahead'”?!?!

Fucking idiocy!

“The fight ahead” is pointless and already lost in advance if, at every set-back, the response is to “move on.” We can't win “the fight ahead” or any other fight if we renounce from the fight for principles right now, not “later,” not “ahead,” now.

P.S.

It's time to quote Carnophile in his astute observation:

"Lefties are so cute, how they think the monsters they create won’t eat them."

If this electoral fraud is let to stand, it shall serve as a precedent and
the monster thereby created shall return to devour the very people (or their ideological heirs) who have set established this and set this monster loose.

This Casar was a Tyrant.

3 THIRD PLEBEIAN
Nay that's certaine:
We are blest that Rome is rid of him.

2 SECOND PLEBEIAN
Peace, let vs heare what Antony can say.
Ant. ANTONY
You gentle Romans.
courteous, friendly, kind

All. SECOND PLEBEIAN
Peace hoe, let vs heare him.

An. ANTONY
Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears:
I come to bury Casar, not to praise him:
The euill that men do, liues after them,
The good is oft enterred with their bones,

So let it be with Casar. The Noble Brutus,
Hath told you Casar was Ambitious:
If it were so, it was a greeuous Fault,
And greeuously hath Casar answer'd it.

Heere, vnder leaue of Brutus, and the rest
(For Brutus is an Honourable man,
So are they all; all Honourable men)–
Come I to speake in Casars Funerall.
He was my Friend, faithfull, and iust to me;
honourable, loyal, faithful
But Brutus sayes, he was Ambitious,
And Brutus is an Honourable man.
He hath brought many Captiues home to Rome,
Whose Ransomes, did the generall Coffers fill:
Did this in Casar seeme Ambitious?
When that the poore haue cry'de, Casar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuffe,
Yet Brutus sayes, he was Ambitious:
And Brutus is an Honourable man.
You all did see, that on the Lupercall,
I thrice presented him a Kingly Crowne,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this Ambition?
Yet Brutus sayes, he was Ambitious:
And sure he is an Honourable man.
I speake not to disprooue what Brutus spoke,
But heere I am, to speake what I do know;

(adapted to our rotten times) ...

(NEVER) Did You all loue him once,

(THEREFORE) with-hold you (NOW), to mourne for him.

O Iudgement! thou are fled to brutish Beasts,
And Men haue lost their Reason. Beare with me,
My heart is in the Coffin there with Casar,
And I must pawse, till it come backe to me.

1 FIRST PLEBEIAN
Me thinkes there is much reason in his sayings.
...

... "Some writers who were not necessarily the worst found it difficult, we are told, to postpone for the whole duration of the lengthy Elizabethan play an action that had never been in doubt in the first place and that is always the same anyway. Shakespeare can turn this tedious chore into the most brilliant feat of theatrical double entendre because the tedium of revenge is what he really wants to talk about, and he wants to talk about it in the usual Shakespearean fashion; he will denounce the revenge theatre and all its works with the utmost daring without denying the mass audience the catharsis it demands, without depriving himself of the dramatic success that is necessary to his own career as a dramatist.

“In order to perform revenge with conviction, you must believe in the justice of your own cause, This is what we noted before, and the revenge seeker will not believe in his own cause unless he believes in the guilt of his intended victim. And the guilt of that intended victim entails in turn the innocence of that victim's victim. If the victim's victim is already a killer, and if the revenge seeker reflects a little too much on the circularity of revenge, his faith in vengeance must collapse.

“This is exactly what we have in Hamlet. It cannot be without a purpose that Shakespeare suggests the old Hamlet, the murdered king, was a murderer himself. …

_________________________________________

(p. 273, Chaper 30 : Hamlet's Dull Revenge: “Vengeance in Hamlet” in René Girard's A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare, ((1991) Oxford, Oxford University Press.)

#136---yawn some more.

In 2016 those who voted for POTUS in Georgia numbered 4,146,825. In 2020 those who voted for POTUS in Georgia numbered 4,998,882 and with a pandemic going on (a pandemic that by the way up until this point in time has killed over 9000 Georgians). That's 852,057 more Georgian's voting for POTUS in 2020 than in 2016--or over a 20% increase Prox--despite the virus and now all of those 4,998,882 votes have been hand counted to prove that the Dominion Voting System narrative is nothing but a big pie in the sky lie but you're still thinking there is some Fantasy Island full of Trump voters that haven't been counted. Not even Christopher Columbus could find your island but good luck looking anyway.

Here's another number to stew over. Trump actually got the third most votes in Georgia in 2020. David Perdue--the republican Senator ended up with 790 votes than Trump did which is to say there's an argument to be made that Perdue is more popular in Georgia than Donald is.

Michigan certifies Biden win.

Might as well add that Ohio republican Senator Rob Portman has finally come out and told Trump to give it up--joining Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Romney and Toomey.

Joni Ernst, Marco Rubio, Kevin Cramer, Mike Rounds and John Cornyn getting more uncomfortable and making noises. If Mitch came out of hiding and told Trump to grow up it would be all over.

Let's put a cherry on top though--Rush Limburger apparently has seen enough too and just got done critiquing the fuck out of Trump's legal team. Apparently he expected that in an hour and 45 minutes of promising bombshells that they would bring along some bombs to drop. He's also not buying that Sidney wasn't part of the team because they absolutely introduced her that way.

>136 proximity1: There's no reason to do DNA tests if there's nobody claiming that their votes stolen. Give me some evidence there's at least some small group of people who are claiming their votes were stolen.

How many more such irredeemably-flawed elections are the national electorate supposed to endure before their faith in and consent to such farces is exhausted?

You didn't complain much about the previous election, where Trump lost the popular vote and did better than the polls, but you're making much fuss about an election where the person who won the popular vote and won despite not doing as well as the polls predicted. This is paranoia, biased towards your political positions, not anything based on facts.

Joe Biden elected for second and final CERTIFIED time in Michigan.

And lo! The transition begins under the shadow of the Biden Inaugural platform being built right in front of Trump's eyes. No wonder he's hunkered in his bunker. Imagine how soul-destroying for him to get up every day, look out the window and see and hear that going up. Sort of an "In you face!" thing.

Poor Trump, probably thinks he should have imitated Biden and stayed in the basement, too, instead of holding his Rose Garden Massacre event and Covid rant rallies that ended up self-defeating him and sickeneing his mask-defiant cultists.

5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms | Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least. | J. B. Shurk | The Federalist Washington, D.C. |

● ● ● ● ●

"Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012. Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now."

● ● ● ● ●

"While Biden under-performed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals in every urban county in the United States, he outperformed her in the metropolitan areas of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Even more surprising, the former VP put up a record haul of votes, despite Democrats’ general failures in local House and state legislative seats across the nation."

● ● ● ● ●

"He accomplished all this after receiving a record low share of the primary vote compared to his Republican opponent heading into the general election. Clearly, these are tremendous and unexpected achievements that would normally receive sophisticated analysis from the journalist class but have somehow gone mostly unmentioned during the celebrations at news studios in New York City and Washington, D.C."

● ● ● ● ●

"4. Biden Won Despite Democrat Losses Everywhere Else

"Randy DeSoto noted in The Western Journal that 'Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.' Now that’s a Biden miracle!

"In 2020, The Cook Political Report and The New York Times rated 27 House seats as toss-ups going into Election Day. Right now, Republicans appear to have won all 27. Democrats failed to flip a single state house chamber, while Republicans flipped both the House and Senate in New Hampshire and expanded their dominance of state legislatures across the country.

"Christina Polizzi, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, went so far as to state: 'It’s clear that Trump isn’t an anchor for the Republican legislative candidates. He’s a buoy.' Amazingly, Biden beat the guy who lifted all other Republicans to victory. Now that’s historic!"

"Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out." --- J. B. Shurk

If this were in the domain of physics, such anomalies would produce overwhelming demands for corroboration, renewals of confirmations of data, etc.

That's because, in physics, people are used to dealing with large numbers, used to dealing with statistical comparisons and, so, understand it when they are looking at data which defy "the laws of gravity"--that is, which pose very extraordinarily striking problems of explanation.

Most Americans today, unfortunately, and, apparently the great majority of politically-correct leftists, are the nearest things to completely clueless fools when it comes to such matters.

Georgia's already up to two recounts, plus the original count. Georgia's SoS is a Republican. Are you suggesting that each and every contested state has RINOs in place, or are being bribed or coerced into certifying fictitious results?

This would seem to be what's known as an 'own goal' in that it would tend to make conservative voters even less likely to trust the results of any election.

>141 proximity1:
Yep. He performed just like your hero, surprising a lot of people.

I know your pain. But having been on the receiving end of quite a bit of your vitriolic posts, I don’t sympathize.

We were astonished and devastated. Your turn now.

#141--I can see you're going to be carping about this for the rest of your life.

I'll throw a few ideas at you.

1. Fuck Obama and 2012. By that time he'd already bailed out Wall St. and made sure his federales and allies had destroyed Occupy.

2. Whatever anyone's feelings on Hillary were she wasn't very inspiring and independents didn't want her and preferred to take their chances with a then unknown stupid fuck billionaire.

3. This guy's primary complaint is just stupid. No one of any note ran against the incumbent--the republican party en masse had already circled their wagons around Trump.

4. Biden won despite.....wah, wah, wah. Is Biden all that much different from Hillary? No. But not nearly as despised by those independents and after 4 years the country had a track record of Trump and this is what happens quite often--you end up with people either loving or hating the fucker in charge and they decided they hated the fucker more. The Presidential election wasn't really about Biden---it was about Donald. Perhaps it was 4 years of his outrageous behavior culminating with the failure to act when a real crisis came along which has not only killed a quarter of a million Americans but also has done really major damage to our economy that might take decades to clean up. His failure to take the pandemic head on and instead turn it into a political football meanwhile saying some of the stupidest shit imaginable about it---he'd rather been playing golf anyway--something he always was first in line to criticize Obama about--but there he was every fucking chance at the golf course----and we're going to end with a lot more people dead before this is done all due to Trump's neglect---and most all those mail in ballots came from people who took the pandemic seriously and didn't want to stand in line on election day with hordes of idiot dumb fucks who didn't take it seriously. It ain't that hard to figure out---when a POTUS fails at a crisis moment--runs away and hides--he pays the price. Might as well mention that when so many people lose their jobs, lose their health care, lose their homes--when studies show that 50%+ of 30 year olds and under are now living back home with their parents what the fuck do you expect? One fucking $1200 stimulus check in 9 months---you probably would do better begging off the streets of London. You think no one is going to blame the guy in charge for that state of things? Fuck yeah--they're going to.

If J. B. Shurk really thinks he's on to something with his article he's a moron.

>141 proximity1: Here's Nature reporting on the Second Law being observed being broken, and how that was predicted in 1878. Physicists are used to dealing with large numbers, and would laugh that you considered these large numbers; you start hitting a trillion, then the physicists might consider it a large number.

Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.

Yeah. It's like he was extraordinarily unpopular. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ shows that since Eisenhower, Trump had lower approval ratings coming into the election than any president who won a second term. (Yeah, this may exclude Truman, but it's clear modern polling wasn't there yet, just by looking at the graph.) Gerald Ford had notably better approval ratings than Trump. You look at those ratings, Trump was clearly a one-term president.

Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now."

https://xkcd.com/1122/ is a list of what "rules" each presidential winner broke. Some are silly, but it points out that New York, Mississippi, California and New Mexico were once bellweathers.

Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012.

In 2008 Obama got 69,498,516 votes, and in 2012 65,915,795. It's almost like that's a cherry picked number.

The eligible voting population went up 10 million between 2008 and 2020, so what you're complaining about is the percentage of the voting population voting went from 57% to 67%. Could it be because Trump was a very polarizing candidate? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184621/presidential-election-voter-turnout-... shows both sides got out the vote, both in swing states and states that came out the way everyone expected.

He accomplished all this after receiving a record low share of the primary vote compared to his Republican opponent heading into the general election.

That is called p-hacking, poking at enough examples until you find something suspicious out of pure luck. Or something you can claim is suspicious; Trump got 45% of the Republican primary vote in 2016, compared to Biden getting 52% in 2020. But hey, the Republicans ran a primary that was mostly a farce in 2020, canceling it in several states and declining to hold debates. So instead of looking at absolute values, compare the values. Not that any of this is very reliable, since primary rules vary so much between states and parties, but hey, it lets you huff and puff as if this were evidence.

>142 MsMixte: This would seem to be what's known as an 'own goal' in that it would tend to make conservative voters even less likely to trust the results of any election.

It's sort of scary; if the Republicans don't get it in check in the next few years, everything may break up when Republicans riot because they didn't win an election they assumed from the start would be rigged.

>142 MsMixte: Georgia's already up to two recounts, plus the original count.

As I said earlier, re-counting fraudulent votes just... re-counts fraudulent votes. It doesn’t detect and discard fraudulent votes, which is the problem.

>146 Carnophile: The Republican SoS of Georgia has stated that there has been no fraud. This leads inevitably to the SoS of Georgia being called a RINO.

Your choice to believe what you will.

>146 Carnophile: It doesn’t detect and discard fraudulent votes, which is the problem.

No, it doesn't detect votes by people replaced by Russian doppelgangers. Which, as long as we're not bothering to provide evidence for the claim, I will declare is the problem, though unlike last election, we true Americans managed to overcome them.

>147 MsMixte: This leads inevitably to the SoS of Georgia being called a RINO.

I had to look up RINO, but I think you put your finger on a right wing dynamic which is common at the moment. As soon as anything is said which contradicts the extreme right wing narrative, it is rejected out of hand as "fake" and the speaker is vilified as being biased, left wing, socialist, liberal, RINO, unthinking, lying, or whatever. The narrative does not seem able to accept that there might be objective academics and analysts, that there exist facts and evidence, or that there might be people who are right wing and Republican but who just don't agree with that particular narrative.

Of course it has also been seen in various autocratic states which are classed as left wing, but then I don't suppose the US Republican party would like to see itself compared to the communist party in former USSR, China, North Korea and elsewhere.

Politico’s Tim Alberta has written a comprehensive story on the Michigan election saga:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-...

RealClearPolitics' Most-Read in the past 24 hours:

Something Rotten in Pennsylvania
| by Julie Kelly | from American Greatness | November 22, 2020

November 22, 2020

“An October 29 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that election officials in several Pennsylvania counties were debating how to alert voters that their mail-in ballot might not meet state requirements. 'Officials across Pennsylvania are trying to help voters fix mail ballots that would otherwise be disqualified because of technical mistakes in completing them, creating a patchwork of policies around how—or even whether—people are notified and given a chance to make their votes count,' reporter Jonathan Lai explained. Some jurisdictions were contacting voters directly; one county, according to the paper, sent the “flawed” ballots back to the voters.

“But there was a much bigger story behind Lai’s article: Election officials clearly violated the law by inspecting mail-in ballots before November 3.(emphasis in original) According to Pennsylvania’s election rules, county election boards were required to 'safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers' until pre-canvassing legally began at 7 a.m. on Election Day.

“Not only were an unknown number of mail-in ballots mishandled by election workers days before the official start date, election observers were not present at the premature inspections.

The state’s election code clearly states:

(T)he county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o’clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting. A county board of elections shall provide at least forty-eight hours’ notice of a pre-canvass meeting by publicly posting a notice of a pre-canvass meeting on its publicly accessible Internet website. One authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.

“Roughly 2.5 million Pennsylvanians voted absentee in the general election; nearly 2 million of those votes were cast for Joe Biden. One analysis found rejection rates for Pennsylvania mail-in ballots was 30 times lower this year compared to 2016.

“While the president’s lawyers have fixated on hard-to-prove, complex allegations of software rigging and 'seized' servers overseas, the more obvious instances of provable voter fraud, especially in the Keystone State, remain mostly ignored. In a fair world, or a country that still takes itself seriously, political leaders of both parties would demand a do-over of Pennsylvania’s election. Rules were changed at the last minute, ballot 'curing' guidance inconsistently applied before and after Election Day, and none of the results in other races are in line with a decisive Biden victory.

“Take, for example, the fact that Pennsylvania’s incumbent state treasurer—a Democrat—was soundly defeated by a Republican challenger. Joe Torsella, considered a 2022 U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate, lost by nearly 80,000 votes. “Torsella’s loss marks the first time since 1994 that a Republican beat an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder and caps a brutal election cycle for Pennsylvania Democrats in down-ballot races,” the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on November 11.

“Biden received nearly 224,000 more votes than Torsella; the difference between Donald Trump and Torsella’s Republican opponent was less than 90,000 votes. A Republican also won Pennsylvania’s auditor general’s race by nearly 200,000 votes. In the state’s 17th Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Conor Lamb barely survived an upset by Republican Sean Parnell in a race most experts rated as a secure Democratic hold.

“And in an even bigger shock, Frank Dermody, the Democratic minority leader of the Pennsylvania state legislature, lost the seat he occupied for 30 years to a Republican.

“In 2020 the mood of the Pennsylvania electorate—and the country in general—clearly favored Republicans, which makes Biden’s 80,000-vote advantage over the president dubious at best, illegitimate at worse. Nonetheless, after an Obama-appointed judge over the weekend dismissed the Trump campaign’s plea to delay certifying the results, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, is expected to make Biden’s victory there official on Monday.” …

____________________________
(Other than where noted, all emphasis is added)



And then, inside the "bigger story" is an even bigger story :

namely, the one captured in the question, never expressly posed in this bizarrely written and thought-through article:

What in the FUCK are Pennsylvania county election officials doing opening at once both the mail-in ballots' outer (addressed) envelope and, immediately, the inner (ballot-containing) envelope!?!?!?

Surely that's a clear violation of Pennsylvania election-law. And they must have been doing that since they'd otherwise be in no position to return voters' ballots to them by the post for "correction" of their faulty execution which, otherwise, should have, by law, rendered them void and not receivable in the condition in which they were received.

This isn't, strictly speaking, voter-fraud. It's instead illegal ballot-tampering by election officers themselves.

Do anti-Trumpers give a shit? Of course they don't. For them, fuck "fairness." Their beloved corrupt former officials were facing Trump's Attorney General William Barr's investigation into these former Obama officials' illegal acts by which they'd spent years trying to undermine and thwart the proper administration of the federal government under a president whose election they detested and refused to accept.

Does anyone here seriously believe that these same Penn county election officials, obviously bent on thumb-on-the-scales-help for Biden/Harris were going to return faulty ballots clearly indicating a voter's preference for Trump/Pence so that the faults might be corrected, returned and counted--rather than toss them in the bin?

Or did they, rather, have the amazing audacity to replace these illegally-opened and inspected ballots in their original envelopes and put them back --for opening and counting later, as though they'd never been opened and tampered with?

You people who demand that Trump "put up or shut up," that he present the prima facie evidence of electoral fraud--

THERE YOU HAVE IT, GODDAMN YOU!!!!

Now, what the fuck are you going to do about this?!?!?

Don't tell us because the answer is already crystal clear:

Try and duck, dodge and explain away the obvious evidence of open electoral fraud in favor of your corrupt preferred candidates.

...

"The non-partisan United States Election Project research site maintained by University of Florida professor Michael McDonald reports 1,009 rejected mail-in ballots, out of a total 2,615,045 mail-in ballots cast as of Nov. 5, or a rate of 0.038%. However, 'The few rejected ballots reported here,' the site cautions, 'are for first time voters who did not provide required id with their mailed ballot or a missing signature.'

"The historical rate of mail-in ballot rejection generally hovers around 1%. For first-time mail-in voters, the rate can jump as high as 3%.

"In 2016, Pennsylvania received about 266,208 mail-in ballots. Just under 1% of them, 2,534, were rejected, roughly in line with historical expectations, according to the 2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey.

"A historically average overall rate of rejected mail-in ballots applied to Pennsylvania's reported mail-in ballot total for 2020 would result in approximately 26,000 rejections. Returned mail ballots in the state this cycle were approximately 65% Democratic and 24% Republican. Applying those proportions to 26,000 would translate to a historically average 16,900 rejected Democratic mail ballots and 6,240 rejected GOP mail ballots, a difference of 10,660 that could be shaved off Biden's current, reported* lead of about 83,000 votes in Pennsylvania. (emphasis added)

"Until all rejected 2020 mail-in ballots have been tabulated in the state, a rejection rate cannot be calculated, and reliable inferences cannot be drawn from the limited report of rejected ballot numbers currently available.

"The Pennsylvania Department of State told Just the News that the currently listed number of rejected ballots 'is a small subset of the total number of ballots which were rejected,' and that the ultimate number of rejections is typically not released until 'some weeks after the election.'

"DOS spokeswoman Wanda Mullen said that Pennsylvania state law changed from 2016 to 2019 'to allow voters to cast a mail ballot without an excuse,' leading to a lower likelihood of rejections in current elections.

"Just the News will update this (present) story as more complete data are released." ...

* This is question-begging (petitio principii"). No one had yet established any "Biden lead." So that is purely circular reasoning of the kind found in these threads' Anti-Trump posts: Biden won because, (something, something) Biden won."

Funny, the polls showed Mr. Biden ahead, so saying that “in 2020 the mood of Pennsylvania—and the country in general—clearly favored Republicans” is sheer bullshit. Noisy, showy bombast by a smaller group doesn’t equate to real superiority in numbers.

In fact, the Republicans crowed quite a bit about how they unexpectedly scored more congressional seats than anyone anticipated.

So yeah, on the face of it, lies. And if the polls showed Mr. Biden ahead by a greater percentage than the actual votes tallied, shouldn’t it be the Democrats claiming fraud?

Give it up, Proxy. All that virtual screaming you were doing in this group earlier about how your lot would bury the Dems, about how Mr. Trump would crush Mr. Biden in the election, about how you’d bash all your opponents here in Pro and Con: all that’s come to nought.

I don’t actually expect you to give it up, since you still cling, longingly, to your theory about Shakespeare, despite all reasonable research demonstrating that DeVere (is that your guy?) didn’t write the plays.

Apparently you’re bucking to become the second Patron Saint of Lost Causes, head bloody but unbowed.

See you on January 20, 2021.

Q.E.D.

#151--three weeks of looking around for anything--and watching the republican clown show. The Four Seasons landscaping debacle--not complete without being next to a porn emporium and across the road from a crematorium or without one of your speakers being an ex-con pedophile. The postal carrier that may have heard or maybe didn't something nefarious that his supervisor said. All the winning you guys did in court--all the wild accusations without a shred of evidence--the press conference with the black goo running down both sides of Giuliani's face whilst Sidney went full on Q'anon conspiracy.

.....and here you are someone finally trying to figure out the numbers.....and all after Pennsylvania certifies Biden/Harris. The republicans have a national strategy built around winning the electoral college vote and not the popular vote. I find some of Kelly's assertions a little bit off. Let's take Conor Lamb for instance--Lamb is a blue dog conservative democrat who represents a conservative congressional district. His victory in a runoff 3 years ago was kind of a surprise as it was really a pretty safe republican seat and he managed to win again in 2018 in a blue wave. So now he narrowly wins against an extremely conservative Sean Parnell. If the republicans had found a better candidate than Parnell they would have taken that seat back. That in no way is a safe democratic seat.

So Kelly says the Democrats were playing games--well I don't know.....maybe. Were the republicans playing games?.......yeah they were. Among their ideas was to screw up things with mail in ballots and the functionality of the Post Office...to fuck up counting the vote in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin--to plan all along to take results they didn't like to the courts. Their plan to suppress the vote or have millions of votes thrown out by the courts because states wouldn't have a chance to count in a timely manner. When your court strategy fell apart you were fucked. Maybe next time you should try to appeal to more than 40 some % of the electorate.

... "((reporter) Julie) Kelly says the Democrats were playing games--well I don't know" ...

LOL!

No, not "Julie Kelly"--who is a real reporter-- "says"...

the facts she's reporting show, indicate that the Democrats were committing election-fraud--not "games," election-fraud. That's crime, not a "game."

And you pretend you "don't know." Bullshit. You know goddamn well. You just refuse to acknowledge what you see very clearly.

#155--Julie Kelly is a real reporter? Who says so? You? I've heard fake news this and fake news that for the last 4 fucking years. If your Donald is to be believed you can't trust anyone. LOL yourself.

You want to claim fraud then come up with some really fraudulent votes and the proofs too---names and addresses and you'll need thousands and thousands.

>150 2wonderY: “I don’t get it,” the president said, venting confusion and frustration. “All these other Republicans, all over the country, they all win their races. And I’m the only guy that loses?”

-- GO FIGGER!

"Within minutes of Van Langevelde’s vote for certification—and of Shinkle’s abstention, which guaranteed his colleague would bear the brunt of the party’s fury alone—the fires of retaliation raged. In GOP circles, there were immediate calls for Van Langevelde to lose his seat on the board; to lose his job in the House of Representatives; to be censured on the floor of the Legislature and exiled from the party forever. Actionable threats against him and his family began to be reported. The Michigan State Police worked with local law enforcement to arrange a security detail."

"All for doing his job. All for upholding the rule of law. All for following his conscience and defying the wishes of Donald Trump."

--SO impressive, the service of almost all state secretaries of state, board members, poll workers etc. Appalling that they should be attacked for conscientious work on our behalf! Below the D AG of Michigan, Dana Nessel, is investigating threats against Chair of Wayne Co. Canvassing Board, Monica Palmer (R), presumably by Ds at first. Nessel also investigated kidnapping threat to our D governor for her emergency orders on COVID. Sounds like Nessel may also need to invesigate R threats to member of state canvassing board, Van Langevelde (R). Grr!

Michigan AG investigating threats against county canvassers
DAVID EGGERT - Associated Press - Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said Tuesday that her office is investigating threats against election officials in Wayne County, where two Republicans voted against certifying the results last week before reversing course.

Monica Palmer, the chair of the county’s canvassing board, told state canvassers Monday that she had been sent graphic text messages threatening her daughter and saying “my entire family should be fearful for our lives.”...Some social media users “doxxed” them, posting their personal information online.

..“We will investigate any credible complaints of threats to government officials, elected or appointed, and will prosecute criminal conduct to the fullest extent of the law,” Nessel, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Serving the people - regardless of party - is an honorable but sometimes difficult and thankless task. And while many of us have been subjected to hateful and often obscene insults, threats of violence and harm will not be tolerated.”...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/24/michigan-ag-investigating-threa...

Wasn't there a thread a few months ago on LT claiming that Republicans were afraid to voice their opinions because action was taken against them by "the left" if they did so? Turns out the first part might be true, but the second part is incorrect - action is actually taken against them by their fellow right wingers.

>151 proximity1: provable voter fraud

If it's provable, why has it not been proved? Giuliani and his crew of fabulists have brought about thirty cases to various courts, of which I think one has been sustained. Either this was one of them, or it was not. If it was, then a court has dealt with it. If it's not, then apparently this noodle didn't even make it into the pot that Giuliani threw against the wall - and if even Giuliani didn't buy it, I think that tells you there exactly nothing there.

Face it: Trump had his four years, he failed to make his case to the American people, and he lost. I know, reality is hard, but you'll have to get used to it some time. Might as well start now.

So that is purely circular reasoning of the kind found in these threads' Anti-Trump posts: Biden won because, (something, something) Biden won."

Actually, Biden won because when they counted the votes, he won clear majorities in enough states to give him a majority of the electoral college. That's all. It's done.


FUCK ... shit ... fuck ... GODDAMN YOU!!!!... fuck


There you go, let it all out... have a good cry, it'll all look better in the morning.

#159--all the shit that Giuliani and Trump threw at the wall was too runny to stick.

>151 proximity1: your patience is obviously greater than mine.

For most of those baying for Trump's concession facts don't matter, laws don't matter, procedures don't matter, they demand you just give them the results they want.

And some Republicans are also involved in shady election tampering. Georgia's Gov. Kemp and SoS Raffensperger appear to be up to their necks in corruption.

Throw them all out.

Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.
Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verse 21

Duplicate post

>161 fuzzi:

I’m not sure There you have it, goddamn you is a sign of patience.

Proximity1 is known for calling those who disagree with him “fucking morons” as well as numerous other epithets, denigrating his opponents’ ability to read, understand the simplest logic, or their devotion to their country.

If you think I’m exaggerating or making this up, just have a look at some of his earlier posts, especially right before the election, should you have the time and/or would like a truer look at who you’re agreeing with.

Proxy may be many things, many good things, but patient he is not.

>161 fuzzi: facts don't matter, laws don't matter, procedures don't matter, they demand you just give them the results they want.

Exactly what facts, procedures, or laws do you think are being disregarded here? If all you're saying is, you didn't get it your way and you're going to throw a tantrum about it, just say so and I'll add you to list of people I don't need to read. If you have a serious allegation that you think needs to be seen - and which hasn't already been thrown out by a judge - then make your case. If you don't have a case to make, whining isn't going to help.

And just one further comment, which isn’t answered here, I don’t think:

The Republicans have all this “hard evidence” of voter fraud and/or other shenanigans in the voting.

Apparently enough to overcome a 6,000,000 vote gap.

So. Then why have all these cases been thrown out of court? Some have been dismissed by judges appointed by Mr. Trump.

Why? Every single judge in every single district is corrupt? Does that really seem logical to you?

Do you honestly believe, deep down, that despite a plethora of dismissed cases, there was enough malfeasance to turn over 6,000,000 votes?

Remember, the polls showed Mr. Biden ahead of Mr. Trump.

If you don’t like them apples, remember that Mr. Trump was considerably behind in the polls in 2016 and yet he won. Didn’t question that, did you? I don’t remember any of our friends on the right doing so then.

Hmm...

How about we accept that the majority of the people who voted, voted against Mr. Trump. Of course that was true last time, but those on the right were completely happy with the electoral college. Why aren’t you at least accepting of it this year? Why not give Mr. Biden a chance, instead of condemning him before he sets foot in office?

Isn’t that what you’ve been complaining about for four years? That those on the left didn’t give Mr. Trump a chance? What is this? It’s only ok if you do it?

The hypocrisy is startling.

I, for one, absolutely agree that Governor Kemp is corrupt and should be investigated for tampering.

>161 fuzzi: For most of those baying for Trump's concession facts don't matter, laws don't matter, procedures don't matter, they demand you just give them the results they want.

And yet we've been asking for facts. Trump needs to flip 100,000 votes in Georgia or Michigan, Pennsylvania and at least one other state to win this election. Show us at least some evidence the election has been tampered with to that extreme. Better yet, show it to a judge.

What happened last election, when Trump won by slimmer margins and Russian interference was suspected (and later proven)? Surely that would have been the time to fight it out? But Clinton didn't even support Jill Stein's attempt to get Michigan recounted.

SoS Raffensperger appear to be up to their necks in corruption.

And what I see is that despite Raffensperger having massively different politics from me, I can trust him to uphold the basic idea that the winner of the vote wins, the basic idea that democracy rules. Maybe I don't have to be in hurry to flee the country, in a panic about the state of American democracy. Whereas people who are still buying Trump's evidence-less claims that he won an election he was predicted not to win, he lost the popular vote in, and he lost the electoral vote in, make me scared for the state of American democracy.

Here's the election as it was predicted: https://www.270towin.com/maps/consensus-2020-electoral-map-forecast (279 Biden, 96 up for grabs, 163 Trump -- and remember, 270 wins)
Here's how it came out: https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-projected-results (306 Biden, 232 Trump, and every single EV that wasn't listed as up for grabs went to the predicted winner)

If you believe the most obvious explanation for Biden's win is massive fraud and widespread corruption, you're basically saying that American democracy is riddled with fraud and corruption. And since you can't point to a single real factor besides your candidate losing, I don't see any way to change the system to convince you it's fair besides just giving up democracy.

>168 prosfilaes:
Thank you for expressing that so clearly.

The Last Word. . .

. . .belongs to Trump appointee, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

Until Trumpty-Dumbpties can back up their claims with evidence and proof, their wailings are but cries in the wilderness of courts across this land.

To borrow from the Bard, Trump's allegation of massive voter fraud “is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.”

And echoed by his supporters in an endless chorus of complaint that is falling on the deaf ears of America. We've moved on. And Don-Boy isn't going to come up with any ass-saving miracle that he was cheated out of second term when the fact is, he was booted out of office.

He has until December 8th to continue his challenges. Then, it's game over. Electors meet Dec. 14th, and no Republican governors are going to hijack them for Trump's benefit.

Reality bites again.

Affidavit : Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia

... "I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible."

filed in a civil action with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta division in C.J. Pearson v. Kemp

>171 proximity1:

Did you actually READ this affidavit?

I rarely comment on messages, because it simply isn't worth it, but this particular affidavit contains so many incorrect and misleading "facts" that I simply can't let it go.

1) The affidavit references Hammer (HAMR) and Scorecard, and acts like the existence and use of these tools are well known, unarguable facts. The sources for the existence of these tools are given as WikiLeaks (with a space, which is of course incorrect), retired General Thomas McInerney, Kirk Wiebe, and, last, former CIA analyst Dennis Montgomery.

In searching WikiLeaks, there's no such thing listed (there is a Hammer Drill hacking tool -- not the same thing) that I can locate.

Dennis Montgomery is actually the original source of all information about these supposed tools -- and he has a long track record of perpetuating fraud. Look up information on his involvement in the trial of Sherrif Joe Arpaio, who had to admit in court that his information from Dennis Montgomery was complete junk. It's obvious why he was listed last, since his credibility is less than zero, and anything coming from him is automatically tainted.

Thomas McInerney made his statements about these supposed tools on right-wing conspiracy programs -- and claimed that Obama used them to win the 2012 election. In fact, all of his information came from Dennis Montgomery (he essentially quoted him word for word). He has no inside knowledge at all.

Kirk Wiebe has been out of the intelligence game since 2001. I seriously doubt anything that he knew at the time is relevant -- 19 years is an eternity in SIGINT and computer science in general. Since he's acted as a major -- and legitimate -- whistleblower in the past, I seriously doubt that anyone is feeding him relevant, and real, intelligence. At this point, you could label him "Some citizen that hated Obama and loves Trump". His entire rant on Scorecard / Hammer is, again, taken directly from the false information provided by Dennis Montgomery. The root of this entire information tree is rotten.

Also, if you read what Wiebe has to say about Hammer and Scorecard (https://larouchepub.com/other/2020/4746-hammer_scorecard_and_truth.html), it's failry obvious that his knowledge is pretty basic. He's describing a man in the middle attack (MITM) -- which is simply not a possibility with most voting systems, and, as a bonus, his description makes it pretty obvious that his understanding of an MITM attack is very basic, and something he's spewing out from someone else's words.

2) Much of the rest of the affidavit boils down to "since we CAN hack elections, ipso facto, we DID hack this election", and posits a different attack vector from MITM. This is a logical fallacy, obviously, and the second attack vector requires physical modification of the voting machines.

3) A large portion of our election data is simply not subject to an MITM attack, unless there is a LITERAL man in the middle -- multiple men / women from both parties, in fact. Voting machines are not connected to the internet, and final tallies are printed, signed by representatives of both parties, and sent to a central location for final tabulation. There IS no opportunity for a machine based MITM.

4) Mention is made of a few "proofs" that the vote had to be manipulated based on anomalous data spikes. Specifically, a change from Trump + 700,000 to Trump + 300,000 votes in the course of a few hours, which, according to the affidavit, is a physical impossibility. Dr. Keshevarz-Nia neglects to define "a few hours". Actually, this few hours was 12 hours (you can find an analysis of the data online here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-navid-keshavarz-nias-claims-of-a-sudde... -- and the initial lead that Trump enjoyed took only 6 hours. There's no physical impossibility here at all, nor is it at all surprising, since mail in ballots had not been counted at the point that Trump had a 700K advantage. This is just bad math.

5) Attacks based on #2 and #3, if they were possible, would have been caught by the hand recount in Georgia. This did not happen.

I could go on -- there are many, many flaws here, any one of which is fatal to the argument presented. In short, this affidavit is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

#172---this is the second time in recent memory that Larouche has popped up in this group as some kind of supportive (dis)information for the current POTUS. Sounds like these characters are all well versed in being conspiracy cranks and bullshit peddlers.

>172 ljbryant:, >173 lriley: Oh, god, just followed that link.... hilarious!

I totally believe that this dude is a "former senior analyst for the NSA"... just like I believe that if I stand on my head and sing "Oh, Canada", monkeys will fly out of my ass.

And this is the stuff that proxy's inside information relies on? That explains so much!

#174--it's an exercise in grabbing for straws really. Since election night nothing has gone Trump's way really. You don't manufacture evidence by making wild and inaccurate claims on twitter. The unfortunate thing is that so many of his acolytes are running around believing all these crazy lies to be true and we have a few examples of that here at LT.

How many times have I heard from one of Trump's voters that nobody but they can think for themselves anymore? Yet you almost never hear a single critique directed at Trump by one of these lunkheads though he continually contradicts himself. Instead they circle their wagons around him and spit venom even against mild rebukes directed his way. I can spend all day critiquing just about every politician even ones I like very much because I know none of them are perfect--fact is I'm not perfect either. That comes with being human. People are fallible--they make mistakes. With Trump you've got a good 35% of the American electorate incapable of criticizing him even a little bit for anything at all. I'll tell you he's sat around and done almost nothing positive to stop the Covid virus from killing over 260,000 Americans. If there's no other reason to damn him--that will do right there. He'd rather knock a little ball around a field with a little stick than put an iota of thought or energy into stopping the pandemic.

>175 lriley: You won't find his supporters criticizing him for doing nothing about Covid-19 because it's all a hoax. The hospitals are empty. It's just a bad flu, maybe.

Criticizing him is essentially criticizing one's self. They hate the same things as he does, so why would they be critical of themselves? Self-reflection is not something they do. We've seen that right here.

One of the witnesses in Sidney Powell’s new Michigan lawsuit says in a declaration
he thinks there’s something fishy about election returns in Edison County, MI.
Thing is, there is no Edison County in Michigan.

Image--text ( https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1333535486690910210/photo/1 )

- Jonathan Oosting @jonathanoosting 5:16 PM · Nov 30, 2020

>177 margd: Of course.

>172 ljbryant:

Yes, I actually read the affidavit. Its author's English-language exposition is indeed so woefully poor that one get's the idea that he is not a native-English speaker or, if so, he cannot be above the age of, say, 25 years old.

You're right: we should ignore his credentials and focus on his mangled English--this accords with my own priorities by natural inclination. English is so maligned.

Fortunately, there is much better evidence of systemically-done election fraud and ballot manipulation and falsification than what is presented in the affidavit. Courts are presented with these things and they must be evaluated for their value, if any.

I notice you have not a word to say about this:

https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

preferring to harp upon another's terribly poor command of English. I mention this not only because "it's failry obvious" but also because your logic leaves something to be desired.

On motive to defraud, for example: you write, in criticism of the affidavit's author,

"2) Much of the rest of the affidavit boils down to 'since we CAN hack elections, ipso facto, we DID hack this election',"

The people who are, again, failry obviously most deeply interested in the election's outcome and who are also, for that reason, the prime suspects here because they possessed both (strong) "motive" and "opportunities", are those who face very serious criminal charges and a continuing Justice Department criminal investigation--very likely to lead to their indictment on a range of felonies which, if convicted, as there is every good reason to expect that they should be, unless the next Trump administration is nipped in the bud, expose them to long prison sentences.

The last thing this affidavit's author needed to do was worry about establishing "motive."

Anyone who hasn't by now understood this and borne it constantly in mind is someone who is in my opinion failry obviously not well qualified to criticize others on their faults in sound logic and reasoning.

Expensive, Glitchy Voting Machines Expose 2020 Hacking Risks | Paper ballots may be safer and cheaper, but local officials swoon at digital equipment. | By Kartikay Mehrotra
and Margaret Newkirk | November 8, 2019, 8:30 PM GMT

I'll see your "Senior Software Engineer" title and credentials and raise you
J. Walter Halderman, Walter Mebane, (Univ. of Michigan, Letters, Science and Arts) et al. and others not named "Walter".

You'd be well placed to be aware of the rich opportunities such machines afford for vote manipulation, wouldn't you? Indeed, I think we're now at the point where we're obliged to suspect that their major attractive feature is precisely this--they're desirable to officialdom not despite but due to their susceptibility to officially-directed "insider-fraud".

Candidate: "By how much are we leading?"

Software engineer: "By how much would you like to lead?

>179 proximity1: Proxy, did you even read >172 ljbryant:? Why are you not bothering to respond to the detailed critique that ljbryant provided?

Also, you posted that "voting anomalies" one in a different thread, which probably explains why ljbryant didn't respond to it here. It died quickly and painlessly here. Again, you have not troubled yourself with responding to the detailed criticism.

I can only assume that your lack of response to either of those indicates that you've abandoned those references, so have you got anything else to offer to defend your so far defenseless claims of voter fraud? To date, everything you've offered has evaporated like butter in a blast furnace, but feel free to keep trying if you like.

Trump was busy last night retweeting posts supporting his election fraud claims by someone with the user name of Catturd.

#179--the burden of proof is not on our entire electoral system it's on the person or persons making the allegations and almost a month out from the election and they have nothing. Their court case count is at 1 win--39 losses. What's more at least some of the judges ruling against the POTUS's claims are republicans including those who were appointed by him and McConnell--and what's further more in states where recounts or retallies have been done nothing significantly has changed and some of these states have republicans in dominant positions overseeing the election.

Trump decided there were crimes so you decided there were crimes too. Neither him nor you have been able to come up with a shred of evidence to support your claims but yet you go ahead. Judges when presented with evidence usually will take the time to hear things out. When only presented with allegations and no evidence they have the habit of throwing those cases out. 'You're going to win so much, you'll be sick of winning' has turned into 'you're going to lose so much that winning is the last thing you could ever expect'. Trump is a loser plain and simple and he got destroyed by Biden in the election.

> 179 I really don't think you read my critique at all. I didn't say a single word about the author's mangled English. Not one. In fact, I didn't even notice that until after YOU brought it up. I'm quite used to dealing with developers and QA personnel whose native language is not English. My entire critique was of the substance of the affidavit, not the language used to express it, and you addressed none of my points. Kudos.

Edited to add: And, I'm flattered -- since you mentioned that I'm a Senior Software Engineer, I assume that you looked at my profile after seeing my post to try to determine my credentials before making a fool of yourself (incorrectly, of course -- my profile is 9 years old, and understated). Were you trying to decide if you wanted to ask me out? Thank you, but I'm happily married, and also not interested in conspiracy theorist touting conservatives.

More probably, though, looking at my profile was simply a way of determining if an ad hominem attack was an appropriate response, since you couldn't address the actual argument.

>182 ljbryant: "I really don't think you read my critique at all." ???

Oh, but I DID.

Unless I read the Martian version of the post.

I thought I'd seen clear criticism of his--yes--really poor grasp of English. I can make a mistake of this kind but it's not common and I don't generally make stuff up by replying to things which concern aspects of posts which just weren't there.

Another mysterious mystery!

If your profile is open to other LT members' review, that's because you allow it. I take no responsibility for what you choose to allow others here to read about you, nor it's accuracy or the lack of it. I take what you write about yourself, allowing others here to read at face value. What the fuck else? Had I undertaken a fact-check of your self-description by posing questions about the details' accuracy, then you'd be here berating me for that "fault." So you can waste your time typing such scoldings but that's your business, not mine. I use what information I have available to inform myself.

And certainly not for "dates,"; so you needn't have and, don't "worry," even if I "went that way"--and I don't-- you'd never make my dating list. Not even the unabridged version.

... "you couldn't address the actual argument."

Uh, yeah, I could and in fact, at least in part, actually did address the (your) actual argument--where I wrote,

On motive to defraud, for example: you write, in criticism of the affidavit's author,

"2) Much of the rest of the affidavit boils down to 'since we CAN hack elections, ipso facto, we DID hack this election',"

To that, I'd written (in case you hadn't read it):

... "The people who are, again, failry obviously most deeply interested in the election's outcome and who are also, for that reason, the prime suspects here because they possessed both (strong) "motive" and "opportunities", are those who face very serious criminal charges and a continuing Justice Department criminal investigation--very likely to lead to their indictment on a range of felonies which, if convicted, as there is every good reason to expect that they should be, unless the next Trump administration is nipped in the bud, expose them to long prison sentences."

I thought your enumerated points (!) comprised "Your 'argument'.
Do you now mean to inform us that the just cited part above wasn't part of your points/"argument/critique? What else was it, then?

And, just there where I expressly address one of your enumerated points, you've ignored it. Ought I now wonder " you read my critique at all"?

Besides, if you were paying attention, you'd know I read your post
because I'd cited it. Therefore, it ought to have been "failry obvious" to you that I read your post.

I wonder: Did you read your post?

And this,

"More probably, though, looking at my profile was simply a way of determining if an ad hominem attack was an appropriate response, since you couldn't address the actual argument,"

Why should I have needed to do that? Couldn't I have simply skipped straight to the ad hominem without a care (as, in fact, I have none) as to its "appropriateness" to one of your "station"? LOL!! Computer programmers are not in some special protected class as far as I'm concerned.

So, besides being more gratuitous invective which went along with whatever popped into your programming mind, if this is an example of your--forgive me, I don't have the up-to-date information on your professional status in the world of computer programming--but, whatever it is, if such reasoning as that is exemplary of your rank in the heights of computer software programming/engineering or (insert appropriately exalted title here) then I remain duly unimpressed. Not, of course, that you care. Neither of us cares; that's the real point here.

Good thing you're married---happily or otherwise--because "our relationship"--the one which never did and never shall exist--is still and already never started and finished definitively without that start. That means you and your wildly overactive imagination should now go back to your wife.

The single most gratifying news story since the Friday after Election Day:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-elections-willia...

Mr. Barr has stated that the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Please keep in mind that this man is Mr. Trump’s latest appointee to the AG position. He raised the specter of mail-in voter fraud repeatedly—before the election. He issued a directive allowing federal attorneys to pursue any “substantial allegations of voter fraud.”

He has been a staunch defender of President Trump’s policies and decisions.

Mr. Barr can hardly be classified as a “rino” or a “Never Trumper.”

Only an idiot or a helpless tool of the “alternate facts” crowd would believe that. R. Barr is part of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump or for Mr. Biden.

We all know who will be inaugurated on 1/20/21.

And it isn’t Mr. Trump.

"He (A.G. Wm. Barr) said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department."

Defrauding a U.S. presidential is a state crime or civil tort, then, not a matter for a federal crime.

Noted.

>183 proximity1: Exactly how much of the current argument do you actually understand? Because you're not doing a very good job of taking part in it, and I have to wonder if that's because you're just having trouble keeping track.

The only point relevant in any way to the substance of ljbryant's critique is, in fact, not responsive. Once again, asserting that a particular attack is possible in principle is not sufficient to establish that that attack happened. This is not a point about motive or opportunity, it's a point about "just because it's possible that Smith could have shot Jones doesn't mean you can assert that Jones was shot". You still haven't produced a body. There is nothing to suggest that anything fraudulent whatsoever has happened here. So your response goes wide of the mark. Go back and read again, if you like, and try to actually respond to what was said this time.

(and this time you can leave out about 90% of the words... just include the ones that actually have to do with something...)

>183 proximity1: Certainly, I read my post, and yours. However, from yours, what I got was:

1) Accusing me of attacking the affiant's poor English, which I didn't do.

2) Ignoring my actual point, as >186 kiparsky: points out, by, again, trying to argue that because something is possible, and a (very large, on both sides of the issue) group has motive, it happened, which is exactly what the original affidavit incorrectly and illogically did, which, again, was my point. The interesting thing here is that you listed, as a motive (that I don't care about, because motive is irrelevant), that certain someones do not wish to go to jail. President Trump is currently doing everything he can to stay in office, while there is very probably pending litigation in New York for banking fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. If anyone has this motive, it is him. Still, motive, as I said, is irrelevant. Just because something could be done, doesn't mean it has, and the potential fraud involving voting machines has been, at least for Georgia, largely disproven with a hand recount of ballots. In any case, extraordinary claims (massive voter fraud, in states that are largely run by Republicans, for Democrats) require extraordinary proof. The side of "there was no massive fraud" isn't the side that has something to prove.

3) Ad hominem, again (not by hurling insults or invective -- that's not required for ad hominem -- but by ignoring the argument and attacking the credentials of the person making the argument). My actual credentials are, largely, irrelevant.

4) Appeal to authority, in the persons of J. Walter Halderman and Walter Mebane. This makes complete sense -- ad hominem to denigrate my credentials, then appeal to authority to override them. Without, I might add, actually PRESENTING the arguments of the two authorities mentioned.

In all honesty, I can't find anyone at all by the name of J. Walter Halderman. I assume that you mean J. Alex Halderman? If so, then thank you very, very much. You are arguing my point for me, more effectively than I can.

J. Alex Halderman was a signator on a letter that explicitly supports my point -- security flaws do exist, but there is no evidence in the current election that those flaws were exploited. See https://josephhall.org/papers/Experts-Statement-on-the-US-2020-General-Election-.... As a sample quote: "We are aware of alarming assertions being made that the 2020 election was “rigged” by exploiting technical vulnerabilities. However, in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent. To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise."

Walter Mebane authored a paper as well, expliclty denying that fraud was likely in the 2020 election. See his paper here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf. In summary, though:

"For Milwaukee the probabilities of no fraud, incremental fraud and extreme fraud are, respectively, .9797, .0180 and .0023, and for Allegheny County the probabilities are .9839, .0154 and .0006. These probabilities correspond to estimates of 1003.1 eforensics-fraudulent votes in Milwaukee and 599.3 in Allegheny County—negligble amounts that probably neither reflect nor result from bad acts."

And: "To date I’ve not heard of any substantial irregularities having occurred anywhere, and the particular datasets examined in this paper give essentially no evidence that election frauds occurred."

>183 proximity1: Oh yes -- and, I will add, that I'm one of the group of software engineers that is somewhat terrified of fully computerized ballots, so your point about the potential abuse is, in fact, well taken. As a (lowly, obviously beneath contempt) software engineer with many (useless) years of experience, I am quite aware of how many vulnerabilities there are in even simple software and hardware. I do believe that we need to increase security around election machines, if they are going to be used, and I would prefer either paper ballots or a verifiable blockchain for elections, not the systems we currently have (although the "scan and tally" machines are very auditable, and therefore more trustworthy) -- I just don't believe that there's any evidence in the current election that those vulnerabilities were used for large scale fraud. The possibility of a thing is not evidence of that thing.

#185--I thought all of this voter fraud shit was a coordinated conspiracy that crossed state lines and national boundaries and if so that would make it federal. It seems you're very good at getting on or off the narrative however it works best for you. I mean there are the turncoat RINO's like Kemp, Raffensberger and DeWine, the cyber security chief Krebs, various democrats of course up to and including Biden, remote hackers of the Dominion voting machines, corrupt state judiciaries and people like Soros and the ghost of Hugo Chavez. Are you now saying that it wasn't coordinated--that all these states were rigged from within with no outside help?

It’ll all come out in the wash, as Mr. Biden is inaugurated after a fair and legal election.

Oh, as a side note, Proxy has stated in this group that the ad hominem fallacy doesn’t exist, based on one professor with whom apparently no one else agrees.

>179 proximity1: Candidate: "By how much are we leading?"

Software engineer: "By how much would you like to lead?

Let's assume that. Candidate is going to have one of two properties; either they're going to be the guy the engineer thinks is best for the job, or someone who is capable of setting up the engineer with their own island to retire on. So what I would find most suspicious is when a rich candidate, say one on Forbes 400*, suddenly wins an election they weren't predicted to win. (Helps if they're known to be of little ethics.*)

Just looking at the numbers, the 2020 Presidential election is pretty similar to the 2016 Presidential election; winner won 306 electoral votes, and the election could have been flipped for less than 100,000 votes in the right places. The difference is in 2020, the winner of the popular vote and the polls won the election. If you think if the election could be stolen, it must have been, why are you worried about 2020 and not the more suspicious 2016?

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-took-trump-off-the-f...

It's all over.

Necessary elections confirming Biden as prez-elect all certified by state governors, Dem and Repub alike.

No one is hijacking electors. Barr and the DOJ are not going to conduct election fraud witch hunts to cover Julie Annie's a$$. Trump isn't going to be able to pardon anyone else in n effort to obstruct justice after Barr's DOJ released the pay-for-pardon quid pro quo bribery scheme that enters on the White House. Poeple in this administration and some who are no longer in it are going to jail. All of them are ruined professionally and reputationally. Even WH staffers can't get work and they're looking, in spite of the memo circulated weeks ago telling them not to dare.

Trump won't attend the inauguration, won't invite Biden to the WH, and won't find the balls to perform the outgoing president's duties to the Constitution, office, and smooth transition of power. He may be leaving the the WH in handcuffs, trailed by Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr., even the Stupid Son. Melania will slink out the back.

Giuiliani show comes to Michigan Legislature. (Was blonde witness (#2)drunk?)

philip lewis @Phil_Lewis_ | 8:58 PM · Dec 2, 2020:
One of Rudy Giuliani’s witnesses just said she thinks “all Chinese look alike”
while making the argument for a voter ID requirement in Michigan
0:32 ( https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1334316061605421059 )

philip lewis @Phil_Lewis_ | 9:14 PM · Dec 2, 2020:
Earlier in the hearing, Rep. Stephen Johnson asked another witness about the poll book numbers
She says “what did guys do, take it and do something crazy to it?” (He’s a Republican)
0:31 ( https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1334320120647340033 ) *

philip lewis @Phil_Lewis_ | 10:46 PM · Dec 2, 2020:
Rudy Giuliani says “maybe sometimes Republicans are too nice. Maybe sometimes we’re too decent.”
“Those days are over,” someone says in the crowd
0:27 ( https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1334343292159463427 )
-----------------------------------------------------

* Longer recording of blonde witness being interviewed by Michigan State Rep Johnson (R). Wowzer.

Molly Jong-Fast @MollyJongFast | 9:07 PM · Dec 2, 2020:
This is like pretty much the trumpiest thing I’ve ever seen
2:07 ( https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1334318185772961796 0
From Ryan J. Reilly

These ladies are going to give blondes (and Michigan!) a bad name.
This one is reporting a food truck.

The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 7:00 PM · Nov 12, 2020
This is a key witness for Trump’s voter fraud case.
1:10 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732 )
From Republicans for Joe Biden

Clever steel-trap reasoning on "evidence of electoral fraud" :

The EXPERTS TELL US: We've seen no evidence of electoral fraud so there's no ground or basis for these suspicions, allegations, interrogatories, etc. about any such thing.

WE ASK : Have you bothered the LOOK for the evidence?

The EXPERTS TELL US: There's no reason to look for evidence of electoral fraud since we see no evidence of electoral fraud.

WE ASK : Could the reason that you've "seen no evidence of electoral fraud" be related to the fact that you've not looked for evidence of electoral fraud?

The EXPERTS TELL US: We don't go looking for evidence of something unless there is evidence to support our looking for evidence of it.

WE ASK : Then it seems that, rather conveniently, you're free to ignore anything and everything for which you haven't already a presumption of an existence of evidence and, so, you are thus "let off the hook" of any responsibility to look into anything other than what you'd be, on your own initiative, interested in checking into.

The EXPERTS TELL US: Why waste our time looking into evidence of something for which we've seen no evidence?

WE ASK : "What's 'wrong' with this 'picture'?"

#195--look for evidence of crimes when there is no particular reason to think a crime was committed? Is that what you're trying to say?

>195 proximity1:, >196 lriley:

It is of course possible that every LT member could have committed the crime of murder, even though there is no particular reason to think a crime was committed, and we've seen no evidence for it. I wonder if proximity is suggesting that the police in numerous countries should investigate each and every one of us on the off-chance that they might find some evidence of murder?

But I think the flaw in proximity's circular line of reasoning is that in fact people have looked for fraud. There are tried and tested monitoring systems and safeguards within the electoral process, and if anything this election has been under closer scrutiny than ever. Despite all of this intense monitoring, only a small number of cases of fraud or even mistakes have been identified, and they have been dealt with. If the avalanche of fraud cases alleged by Trump and his coterie existed, they would have been found. They didn't so they weren't.

Here’s some evidence of voter fraud:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registe...

Apparently the Justice Department investigation, authorized by Mr. Barr, which indicated no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing that would overturn the election, isn’t enough of an investigation for some.

“My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” applies here to those who are clutching desperately to the vain hope that a well-run, legal election can be overturned because they don’t like the outcome.

The side you believe is correct doesn’t always win. That is a fact, however unpalatable, of political life.

Instead of uselessly complaining, those who aren’t happy with the results would be far better served by getting down to the real work of the next election.

>198 Matke:

Good. The system is working. Fraud is being identified and dealt with.

>195 proximity1: If you're asserting fraud, it's your responsibility to support your assertions with evidence that convinces the dubious. If you can't do that, it's more than a little disingenuous to try to shift the burden of proving your case onto those who you're trying to convince.

>195 proximity1: I think that the narrative went more like this:

Proxy's post tells us LOOK AT THE AFFADAVIT! There must be fraud, since he's an expert.

I explain the issues with the affadavit, which are numerous, and obvious.

Proxy's next set of posts accuses me of attacking the affiant for poor English, which I didn't, then throws in his own expert witnesses as simple name drops, with no actual facts from said expert witnesses, while attacking my credentials.

I thank Proxy for his expert witnesses, then point out that his experts actually looked at the statistics in the ballot numbers (they didn't ignore them, they LOOKED AT THEM), and found that there was no evidence of fraud, and that the Georgia recount demonstrated that there was, in fact, no computer fraud involved.

Proxy's next post -- Straw man SQUIRREL!

If that's the level of reasoning you wish to include in your posts, I'll leave you to it. I've seen children in middle school debate clubs exhibit a much better grasp of logic. Of course, I will admit, your posts aren't any worse than anything that's come out of the Trump legal team and associated lawsuits, so I suppose there is that.

It's Over

Acting like Bill Barr and advocating that media and "investigators" go look for fraud where fraud isn't and where no evidence for fraud exists is tantamount to insisting the police surround, storm, and search banks where no robbery is underway because they're doing business as usual.

Only a mentally dissociated delusional idiot would suggest such a thing, right?

Impeach Joe Biden. Start now.

>204 proximity1: Lol. Grounds? Do you have evidence of him holding meetings with Russians looking to provide dirt on his political opponents,? Do you have foreign governments approaching the FBI saying that Biden staff members have been telling them about leaked dirt from the Russians? Do you have indications that Biden's national security nominees are meeting with the Russians trying to disrupt Trump's foreign policy objectives? Do you have tape of Biden asking foreign governments to interfere with the US election on his behalf?

We have all of that for Trump, and that's why he was investigated and impeached and spared only because the Republicans in the Senate are not sufficiently patriotic to vote in favor of their country over their party, and will go down in history as not only a complete failure as a president (and as a husband, father, citizen, businessman, and human being, but those are separate topics...) but also as someone certainly guilty of the crimes and misdemeanors he was accused of, and forever beyond exoneration.

Go ahead, line up your charges for Biden. This should be a good laugh.

#204--once again the House impeaches and currently controlled by the democratic party---good luck with that. The Senate then tries and maybe convicts.

>205 kiparsky:

I don't think it's polite to laugh at mental illness. Delusion and dissociation from reality must be frightening for those who suffer from it.

After all, they must know they're crazy, especially whenever they read the words their own fingers typed and don't believe them themselves. "Did I do that?" must be the terrifying question that passes through their minds each time the see what they've done.

What I'm trying to say is we should offer them our "thoughts and prayers," just like Republicans always do whenever someone not filthy rich, or connected to powerful Republican senators, or able to donate thousands to their political campaigns do when poor, weak, and apolitical Americans lose their jobs, or their homes to raging forest fires, or their loved ones' lives to Covid-19.

>195 proximity1: Once again, an incredibly rich man won the US Presidential election despite polls going against him, not by a popular surge, but by a thin margin in a handful of swing states. If this was about electoral fraud, you might have worried about that. But when someone predicted to win wins, it's got to be because of fraud.

WE ASK : "What's 'wrong' with this 'picture'?"

>193 margd: contd. Giuliani's witness was two months out of probation.

Wait, there's more: Michigan election hearing witness Mellissa Carone has a criminal record
Deadline Detroit | December 03, 2020, 8:57 PM

the viral sensation from Grosse Pointe Woods spent a year on criminal probation that ended Sept. 13. That's less than two months before she provided election week technical support at TCF Center as a contractor for Dominion Voting Systems, which set the stage for colorful Lansing testimony with presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani this week to two legislative committees.

...under Carone's maiden name -- Mellissa Wright: Carone, 33, was sentenced to 12 months of probation for a computer crime in September 2019, stemming from an incident in November 2018.

The mother of two had struck a plea deal with Michigan prosecutors, who in turn dropped a first-degree obscenity charge against her. ...

https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/26807/wait_there_s_more_viral_michigan_...

Brad Heath @bradheath | 8:13 AM · Dec 7, 2020:
The federal court order in MI ending Sidney Powell & Co.'s request to overturn the election results there methodically shreds all of their claims. They lose on every single issue - the case is moot, was filed too late, they have no standing, etc.

https://courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.35090...
Image ( https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1335935387747938305/photo/1 )

Suppose--as I suspect is being done--the country is setting itself up for the predicament of having to face up to irrefutable evidence of, or, worse, proofs (supported by credible eyewitness testimony) of what's been suspected since the 3rd of November: widespread officially-directed (at the state level, of course) election fraud which defrauded the actual and legitimate voters' intent to re-elect Trump?

Suppose for a moment that this is what becomes evident in the ensuing weeks--after states' so-called validation of electors, giving Biden a victory he neither gained nor deserves--but before inauguration day, 2021?

How's the country supposed to deal with such a turn of events?

Does Biden and his "team" stop, step down? Do they face facts and evidence they cannot refute at long last? Does he dig in his heels and, in doing so, get his long-time supporters' approval for taking up a stance which these same people have been denouncing Donald Trump for pursuing?

How much more of a pathetic case can the people of the United States make of their nation and its electoral politics while the rest of the world looks on?

Piss poor attempt to hijack a thread with fantasy nonsense.

>211 proximity1: Since even Trump's most craven supporters, such as McConnell and Kayleigh the Intern have now publicly admitted that Trump's loss was conclusive all along, this doesn't seem like too much of a worry.

The most pathetic thing we're going to see going forward is Trump's lawyers arguing that their client should not be convicted since he is clearly not mentally competent. "After all, your honor, he did just shit himself in this very courtroom, and he is even now claiming to be the legitimate president, and is signing 'bills' at the defendant's table, using the crayons and butcher paper your bailiffs have so kindly provided."
(Aside: "Yes, Donald, that's a very good signature. Now, I have to talk to this nice man for just a few more minutes, it's very important. Can you please sit quietly for me?")

>211 proximity1: Do they face facts and evidence they cannot refute

I think the problem that you and like-minded people face is that these "facts and evidence" of what you have "suspected since the 3rd of November" has not been produced, more than a month after the election, despite being searched for assiduously, and despite numerous court cases and challenges, audits and recounts, none of which have turned up any significant fraud, and none of which have altered the result of the election.

Trump thought courts would help him win but judges were his harshest critics (Guardian)

Judges, whether appointed by Democrats or Republicans, rejected Trump’s election claims, underscoring their role in checking his efforts to stay in power...

When your legal team members are "Kraken Suit Karen," "Jenna -- Queen of the Elite Strike Force -- Ellis," and "Rudy the Red-Nosed Superspreader," the judges feel insulted because they are all living insults to the legal profession and abusers of the courts who should be disbarred.

Still nutballs on the loose...

Michigan Capitol temporarily shut down as state police investigate ‘threat’
Samuel Dodge | Jan 7, 2021

The building is all clear after MSP conducted its bomb sweep.

LANSING, MI - The Michigan Capitol was temporarily shut down due to state police investigating a (6:45 am) “threat,” according to a Thursday alert sent out to House representatives and staff.

The message, sent out before 8 a.m. on Jan. 7, says: “Due to a threat early this morning...the Capitol is temporarily closed to all members and staff. Michigan State Police are investigating. You will be notified when the building is re-opened.”

Messages were left with the spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police and GOP spokesman for the House. The Michigan House and Senate are not in session until next week...

https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/01/michigan-capitol-temporarily-shut-...

From DeVos country, home of the armed anti-maskers, kissing cousins of the Michigan Guv kidnappers:

Lindsay Ellis (chronicle) @lindsayaellis | 8:23 AM · Feb 1, 2021:
Hillsdale College opposed the governor's shutdown of in-person classes. They held an in-person graduation, defying state mandates. But faculty and administrators jumped the vaccine line after its science lab stored 1500 doses. 200 went to Hillsdale staff

How a Bounty of Vaccines Flooded a Small Hospital and Its Nearby College
An ad hoc, chaotic distribution system is leading to a bizarre mix of vaccine haves and have-nots.
Julie Appleby | February 1, 2021
https://khn.org/news/article/how-a-bounty-of-vaccines-flooded-a-small-hospital-a...

#218--that's pretty damned sad.

Adam Brewster (CBS) @adam_brew | 8:19 AM · Jun 23, 2021:
https://twitter.com/adam_brew/status/1407674664818720771

NEW: A long-awaited report from the GOP-led Michigan Senate Oversight Committee is out this morning: "This Committee found no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud in Michigan’s prosecution of the 2020 election."

The committee also recommends that MI AG Dana Nessel "consider investigating those who have been utilizing misleading and false information about Antrim County to raise money or publicity for their own ends."

Antrim refresher: human error caused the county's tabulators to incorrectly communicate results to central election software & suggest Biden won the county. Equipment was reprogrammed & the results showed that Trump won Antrim by nearly 4k votes. A hand recount confirmed that.

More from report: "The Committee finds those promoting Antrim County as the prime evidence of a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election place all other statements and actions they make in a position of zero credibility."

Michigan Secretary of State Joceyln Benson said the report confirms what audits, courts & election officials "already know to be true: our 2020 election was secure and the results are accurate." She adds the report is only noteworthy b/c it comes from GOP legislator.
Image-photo of SOS Benson statement ( https://twitter.com/adam_brew/status/1407700478889185283/photo/1 )