Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Nov 2020, 2:45 am
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Imo the Democrats were furious over the results of the last election and used whatever means they could come up with to change the outcome.
And now the Republicans are furious over the results of the last election and are using whatever means they can come up with to change the outcome.
Goose and gander, right?
As I understand it, the Democrats did challenge the results of the 2016 election, indirectly, using Jill Stein as a proxy (Given she was even further behind (with no electoral college votes from any other states, there was considerably less reason\motivation for her to challenge a count than Mr Trump currently has):
Quote:
On November 23, Stein launched a public fundraiser to pay for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, asserting that the election's outcome had been affected by hacking in those states.[35] Changing the outcome of these three states would make Clinton the winner, and this would require showing that less than 60,000 votes had been counted for Trump which should have been counted for Clinton. Stein filed for a recount in Wisconsin on November 25.[36] Stein subsequently filed for a recount in Pennsylvania on November 28,[37] and in Michigan on November 30.[38]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein_presidential_campaign,_2016#Recount_petitions
The challenges were quickly halted when one found that Mr Trump had won more votes than the initial count had shown:
Quote:
Wisconsin completed a 10-day recount financed by the Stein campaign on Monday, resulting in an increase in Trump’s lead over Hillary Clinton from 22,617 to 22,748 votes.
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/jill-stein-election-recount_n_58507032e4b092f08685ff68?ri18n=true
Yet Trump is too addled with personality disorders to do the same as the Clinton campaign four years before.
You mean he should hide behind proxies when contesting the results, rather than doing so directly?
Proxies or not, Trump's charges of misconduct by the Biden campaign are facetious. That's the difference.
From your subjective point of view, maybe. From other subjective points of view, maybe not.
For those interested in an objective evaluation, we'll just have to wait to see what evidence both sides can produce.
Be my guest and wait. But imagined evidence is still imagined, and will never stand up to scrutiny.
16 Nov 2020, 2:46 am
16 Nov 2020, 3:00 am
16 Nov 2020, 4:11 am
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
What's nervous about their statements? They're obviously upset that Trump won't acknowledge Biden's election, and that the Republican leadership are acting like members of the Trump cult by denying reality. But nothing nervous or suspicious about it.
My understanding is that due process is, well, due process.
No amount of intimidation, from the media and/or elsewhere, is going to change that.
So far, all their claims are being found to be frivolous. Sure, every person is worthy of due process in court, but that was never meant to be used to try legally enforcing a narcissist's tantrums when he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Team Trump is abusing this legal right.
I have heard differently.
Not "all their claims are being found to be frivolous."
Perhaps Brictoria can enlighten us.
Just found the details of what looks like an interesting Georgia case...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta0rze1m3flzk5o/2020-11-13%20Complaint%20-%20L.%20Wood%20v.%20Raffensperger%20et%20al.pdf?dl=0)
It seems the state elections board had an agreement with the Democrat party regarding handling of absentee ballots which altered certain legislated requirements, potentially allowing what (under existing legislation) would have been a rejected ballot to be counted.
Unfortunately, the PDF is an image rather than text version, so copying parts (other than through transcription) out isn't possible, but it is relatively easy to read if anyone is interested.
Given the precedent set in a Pennsylvania court on another case where the "Secretary of State" lacked the statutory authority to make changes to election procedures, it will be interesting to see where this one goes...
On a side note: While this case is by a third party, the initial case in Pennsylvania (which was won) was from the Trump campaign, and as they won it, was obviously not "frivolous" (i.e. a judge agreed with what they put forward, having looked at what each side presented)...Having looked at that case, the aim of it appears to have been to choose a "simple" case in order to help set precedent for other cases, such as this, where the election boards\"Secretary of State" in certain states did not follow legislation\altered legislation without the authority to do so, thereby potentially affecting the results for the state.
16 Nov 2020, 4:16 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Nov 2020, 5:22 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Nov 2020, 5:24 am
16 Nov 2020, 5:27 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
What's nervous about their statements? They're obviously upset that Trump won't acknowledge Biden's election, and that the Republican leadership are acting like members of the Trump cult by denying reality. But nothing nervous or suspicious about it.
My understanding is that due process is, well, due process.
No amount of intimidation, from the media and/or elsewhere, is going to change that.
So far, all their claims are being found to be frivolous. Sure, every person is worthy of due process in court, but that was never meant to be used to try legally enforcing a narcissist's tantrums when he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Team Trump is abusing this legal right.
I have heard differently.
Not "all their claims are being found to be frivolous."
Perhaps Brictoria can enlighten us.
That's not what I and everyone else have heard. If any of it isn't frivolous, what is it?
"Everyone"?
Oh, you mean here.
You need to get out more.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Nov 2020, 5:29 am
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
What's nervous about their statements? They're obviously upset that Trump won't acknowledge Biden's election, and that the Republican leadership are acting like members of the Trump cult by denying reality. But nothing nervous or suspicious about it.
My understanding is that due process is, well, due process.
No amount of intimidation, from the media and/or elsewhere, is going to change that.
So far, all their claims are being found to be frivolous. Sure, every person is worthy of due process in court, but that was never meant to be used to try legally enforcing a narcissist's tantrums when he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Team Trump is abusing this legal right.
I have heard differently.
Not "all their claims are being found to be frivolous."
Perhaps Brictoria can enlighten us.
That's not what I and everyone else have heard. If any of it isn't frivolous, what is it?
"Everyone"?
Oh, you mean here.
You need to get out more.
I mean most of the United States and her allies, except for the Trump cult who are too enamoured with their orange messiah.
16 Nov 2020, 5:34 am
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
What's nervous about their statements? They're obviously upset that Trump won't acknowledge Biden's election, and that the Republican leadership are acting like members of the Trump cult by denying reality. But nothing nervous or suspicious about it.
My understanding is that due process is, well, due process.
No amount of intimidation, from the media and/or elsewhere, is going to change that.
So far, all their claims are being found to be frivolous. Sure, every person is worthy of due process in court, but that was never meant to be used to try legally enforcing a narcissist's tantrums when he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Team Trump is abusing this legal right.
I have heard differently.
Not "all their claims are being found to be frivolous."
Perhaps Brictoria can enlighten us.
I haven't followed all the cases (many of which have been filed by "third parties", rather than the Trump campaign), so not certain what basis they were framed around.
I have a suspicion that there will be some commencing in the near future and lodged by the Trump campign related to signature verification (and whether it took place\was adequately performed), coupled with the affect of including improperly verified votes on the total and the dilution of the value of legitimate votes as a result.
Little hints I have heard relate to details such as return envelopes (which have voter signature and are legally required to be retained) having been discarded, preventing the lawfully required ability to confirm a match with the signature on file, along with the fact that this year a significantly greater number of postal votes were submitted (up to 10x previous elections, I believe), yet the number that failed signature checks decreased from an average of around 2-3%, down to 1/10 of that this year. Based on previous "failure" rates on the checks, 2-3% of the vote potentially being rejected (based on levels historically recorded) could alter the results in many of the swing states.
There may also be something related to late votes (which were required to be seperated from those which arrived before a specific time) being intermingled with those that arrived prior, potentially diluting the "value" of legitimate votes should it be determined that they were not to be counted.
There are a few other details as well (One state potentially assisting voters with incorrect signatures to "cure" the issue for those voting for\in a county likely to vote for Mr Biden, while not allowing the same option to those more likely to vote for Mr Trump), but I'll wait to see whether they are referenced.
On a side note, the challenges aren't only being raised with regards to the current election, but also to set a precedent so that in future elections the process will be better defined and requirements are followed, which would assist in reducing the potential areas which an unsuccessful candidate could find potential problems.
There was something/k on The Bolt Report about a high profile lawyer looking into a number of avenues, one involving the "Smartmatic" voting machine software.
16 Nov 2020, 5:39 am
TheRobotLives wrote:
Trump ‘has told aides he’ll announce 2024 candidacy as soon as Biden certified winner’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-told-a ... 10258.html
"Mr Trump is also reportedly considering starting his own streaming media channel to compete directly with Fox News"
TRUMP TV :_)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-told-a ... 10258.html
"Mr Trump is also reportedly considering starting his own streaming media channel to compete directly with Fox News"
TRUMP TV :_)
I have heard it said, that Trump is stirring up feelings, of his supporters, to further his TV venture.
It has also been said that he is fighting Fox because he wants to compete with them.
So I heard.
16 Nov 2020, 5:44 am
cyberdad wrote:
There's a great documentary on Hillary Clinton doing the rounds on SBS TV, must watch it.
BTW, Hillary urged Biden to stall, and go through every legal avenue, if Biden was loosing.
Just as Trump is doing now.
Goose and gander, again.
16 Nov 2020, 5:49 am
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
There's a great documentary on Hillary Clinton doing the rounds on SBS TV, must watch it.
BTW, Hillary urged Biden to stall, and go through every legal avenue, if Biden was loosing.
Just as Trump is doing now.
Goose and gander, again.
Pelosi too as I remember. They were planning on putting up a fight.
16 Nov 2020, 5:51 am
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
There's a great documentary on Hillary Clinton doing the rounds on SBS TV, must watch it.
BTW, Hillary urged Biden to stall, and go through every legal avenue, if Biden was loosing.
Just as Trump is doing now.
Goose and gander, again.
Pelosi too as I remember. They were planning on putting up a fight.
Oh no!
16 Nov 2020, 6:02 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Nov 2020, 6:16 am
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
There's a great documentary on Hillary Clinton doing the rounds on SBS TV, must watch it.
BTW, Hillary urged Biden to stall, and go through every legal avenue, if Biden was loosing.
Just as Trump is doing now.
Goose and gander, again.
But who says he would have?
