2020 Election Fraud Roundup

Post Reply New Topic

But there are riots and protests over this election going on in the US. So if people are willing to riot and protest, is it not so far fetched that they would be willing to try to sabotage the election as well? If people are going to riot in the streets over it, then why is it so unbelievable that people would try to sabotage as well?

I mean so many Americans seem angry of this election and who will win, that is not conceivable that they would actually put their money where their mouths are and try to do something about it, and try to sabotage it?

There is so much rioting in the streets going on it seems out of election anger, but yet a lot of people believe that every American is going to vote honestly, and never in a million years would they bring their criminal behavior, into the voting.

Where?

There are no riots ... no cities in flames ... no armed insurrections ... no revolutionary activity of any kind.

Just one sore loser refusing to admit that he is lss popular, less powerful, and less intelligent than he thinks.

That's all.

I can confirm what Fnord said.

Where do you get the idea that there’s been riots recently?

Oh well there seemed to be a lot in the news over the last few months over the election. And people talked about riots going on outside the voting polls during, back during the vote.

But not SINCE the vote, really. Things are very calm now. People are concentrating on other things now.

I feel like the people have spoken, and they know that the right person won.

Oh, I see ... "Once a riot, always a riot", eh?  I have a neighbor who is still fretting over the Muslim family that used to live across the street from her.  She expects the nice, young Asian couple that has lived there for the past three years to start herding camels and bowing toward Mecca at any moment.

I'd start by looking at why that is, though. Why are people so wound up at the moment, and what purpose might that serve?

Right-wing politicians are traditionally agitators. That's partly deliberate - disorder and disobedience give them an excuse to limit freedoms and hoard power because it's "necessary" to maintain control. And it's partly accidental or tangential because playing the blame game and never actually fixing anything properly gets tricky after a while, and that tends to stir people up. Plus a bit of organised rioting is a good distraction if Government are up to something more serious and don't want the press to notice.

Trump has spent most of his Presidency out on the golf course or talking absolute garbage on Twitter. He is a serial liar (see here: Guardian article ) or just watch these:





He's full of s**t. Amazingly Americans seem to tolerate this, whereas in most other countries anyone making inflammatory claims without evidence would be comprehensively ridiculed and most likely jailed. From that point of view he's the President the nation deserved.

Now obviously some of it is pure ego, it's preening and strutting around like a Rooster, and there's most likely some narcissism at work. Boy does he love himself, despite coming across as an angry toddler most of the time. But he also does it because chaos allows him to manipulate people more easily and play them off against one another, so he gains power and control and also covers up his own inadequacies. He's effectively gaslighting the nation - there's always somebody to blame but him.

At the same time, like all fascists, he attracts people who want to be like him - those his actions and opinions validate. If you're rich, greedy, aggressive, sexually predatory, racist, lacking in empathy, childish, vain, bigoted, ignorant, self-centered, hypocritical and cruel, well here's your man. Some people like him because he's promised them the earth (then blamed minority groups / "the elite" or the Democrats for non-delivery) but I'm pretty sure many people love him because it means they can continue being a**holes. Look at our President - why try harder? He is the King Karen.

So you've now got a melting pot of people who've been discriminated against, slandered, let down, stirred up, bewildered, promised the earth or led round in circles.... and they're all at each other's throats. It suits Trump to undermine the democratic process by stirring paranoia, as he markets himself as an alternative, Robin Hood style anti-elitist. In truth his policies have simply been Republican business as usual, just with extra rhetoric. He's not done much to tackle the power of Wall Street and multinational businesses, indeed he has pandered to them. Hasn't tackled climate change because he's pandered to the oil companies. Hasn't addressed poverty, crime, wealth inequality, poor standards of living, or discrimination. Same old same old, just with extra Twitter spin. But then there will be the claims that "there's a crisis which needs addressing, and only I can do it". Even though the democratic crisis is one he has himself created, and he's an elitist's elitist.

Meanwhile have a look at some of the other things he's been busy with, such as Alaska public media article and Independent article Given how much debt he's in, do we think he's hoping the oil industry might look after him when he leaves office, if the election legal fund hasn't helped sufficiently?

I don't believe for a minute that everyone current polarized by Trump's continual outpourings of nonsense is a Democrat. There will be Republicans too, and a huge number of "don't knows". There's no evidence that Democrats have been tempted to rig the election but Republicans haven't. Both sides cheating is equally likely / unlikely. And so far there's no actual, real world evidence to suggest any deliberate cheating at all, just mistakes, which are always going to happen with a vote count of this size.

That's where conspiracy theories like Q-Anon fall down, they're far too simplistic and convenient. Q-Anon assumes the global world elite is Democrat, when all evidence would suggest it would be Republican (in US terms) as Republican policies benefit the mega-rich far more than Democrat policies do. Then there's also the small matter of that world elite also being a Democrat paedophilia and child-trafficking ring. Why would politics have ANYTHING to do with that? I'm not totally clued up on how these things work but I'm pretty sure if you hang out in the seediest corners of the internet offering to part exchange your kids, the first thing they'll ask isn't going to be your political allegiance. Mainly because it's irrelevant. Same as other groups / clubs / shared interests, whether legal or illegal. "Pssssst, I'm organising a bare knuckle fight, are you.... a Democrat?". "Poker game out back next Thursday, invite only, $10,000 buy in, you must be a Democrat!". It's gibberish. Far, far too convenient for political points-scoring to be real, it's way too neat and easy.

Oh okay, but the problem is that people are not respecting the voting system and would rather sabotage it, rather than respect it and vote honestly. Would all these people prefer if there was no voting system at all, and would they prefer if the democratic party was the only party? Or would they still prefer a voting system at the end of the day?

Or is this not a democratic party vs republican party problem, and it's a Trump problem, and most people would be happy if there is a republican party in the race, if Trump was not a part of it?

Exactly *who* are the people "not respecting the voting system"?

Well the people who were blamed for trying to sabotage it in the affidavits.

Firstly, there's no actual evidence of sabotage, so far. Even if there were, it would be very dangerous to assume it was one-sided. There are equal chances of fraud benefitting Democrats or Republicans, it's a 50/50 likelyhood with a proven result of 0 / 0. Don't forget, Trump is only challenging election results in States where he lost. If there were re-counts in States where he won, they'd possibly be more likely to find errors favouring Trump, wouldn't they?

It's also possible if the Russians or Chinese have been involved, the whole intention would be to create public mistrust and discontent, rather than favouring one particular party. Putin likes to undermine rival powers by creating dischord and systematic instability on an international level, while Donny T does the same at a national level.

Republican voting for House and Senate has been pretty solid, given how chaotic the Trump presidency has been. That says to me most voters stuck to traditional voting lines there more than they did with the Presidential race, ergo Trump is the bigger issue.

The lack of choice in American politics, and the really stifled dialogue surrounding that, is a concern. Democracy doesn't work very well with only a really narrow set of options. Especially when the media seems absolutely fixed on keeping it that way. There's a lot of mass control through content selection. Some things are normalised in the US but aren't elsewhere, and Americans don't know that. Other things work fine elsewhere but are never raised as options or discussion points AT ALL in the States, which means many Americans are kept oblivious to their existence. It's not censorship as in "things being banned" - they're just never raised in the first place.

Yeah there is no concrete evidence right now, but when people are giving sworm testimony about it and naming other people in the process, that could be taken seriously and investigated since sworn affidavits are treated seriously. So there may be evidence later, and I am speaking on what if there is later, sort of thing, and if that is the case. I thought were were talking about whether or not it was tampered with, of course.

But let's say Trump is the bigger issue. Wouldn't it be easier and have more of a pay off to try to remove Trump from the office by force, rather than trying to sabotage the election? I am not condoning the use of physical force to remove a President, but I am saying wouldn't it make more sense to go after the horse's mouth so to speak, rather than to sabotage an election, which would not have near as much of a pay off, in terms of success?

Those affidavits have already been rejected in court (see page 12-13):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... pinion.pdf

Oh okay. Are those all of them though? Plus it says in the affadavit that she fails to name the employees. But what if she, the person who accused people of misconduct, all of a sudden decided to name them now? What if she gives all the information the court is asking for that was missing?

Then she would have to make a new affidavit swearing to the accuracy of the new information she has provided. It would then be processed, seen, vetted, and either pursued, or dismissed. If it's pursued and they find PROOF she's telling the truth, then they'd actually have some proof. If it's pursued and they don't find proof, it's dismissed. If they find out she was knowingly lying when she specifically named people on the new affidavit, she can get in trouble. But unless any of that actually happens, it's a moot point.

Oh yes, for sure, I thought we were talking about hypothetically if things were going to go further, then what do we expect, etc, and that we were talking about if it was a conspiracy theory, or just a lot of individuals trying to sabotage it in their own, etc.