Liberal science deniers

4,026 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by unmade bed
thirdcoast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He says "I witnessed" and "our affidavits". Your refusal to acknowledge the transcript shows how dense and biased you are. Keep grasping at straws trying to claim these guys are making stuff up.

Just shows how absolutely weak your counter argument is in the face of damming these written allegations submitted under oath are.
unmade bed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
thirdcoast said:

He says "I witnessed" and "our affidavits". Your refusal to acknowledge the transcript shows how dense and biased you are. Keep grasping at straws trying to claim these guys are making stuff up.

Just shows how absolutely weak your counter argument is in the face of damming these written allegations submitted under oath are.


Okay, first I will apologize and admit my fault in the misunderstanding between me and you earlier today. Because someone on this thread had called Gregory Stenstrom a "data scientist" or something like that, I misunderstood and thought this was one of the guys Rudy hired to do the data analysis (I thought this was the guy that said there was a 600,000 to 3,000 Biden vote batch and that is what I was trying to find out about).

Now that I had some time to actually watch and listen to his entire testimony, I see that my assumption was incorrect. He was a poll watcher. Now it makes sense what you were saying about the affidavits. I thought this guy was just analyzing the data, which is why I thought he was talking about other peoples affidavits.

I agree with you now that this guy probably has signed an affidavit and is subjecting himself to perjury for lying. I don't have any reason to suspect he is lying and I found his testimony to be credible (although a bit hard to follow at times. His testimony would definitely need to be subject to cross examination to clear up some of the things he said - I.e the whole 50,000 votes for Biden thing, etc). It sounded to me like he was witnessing a process that he personally felt was insecure and flawed but others, including an attorney that they had "secured" did not seem to concerned about. I also think at times he was a little confused about the process- not lying, but when he was talking forensic destruction going on with the ballots being separated from the envelopes, that is actually part of the process. The votes are supposed to be private. There was nothing sinister about that but he interpreted it as being a problem.

But now that I have actually done the homework and we are speaking the same language, I'm willing to have a rational conversation about his claims and the items you listed as troubling, without assuming he is lying or you are being duped...

#1 - 60-70k unopened mail in ballots in a back room. I have no reason to doubt that he saw a box of unopened envelopes that he believes to be unopened mail in ballots. Maybe as many as 70,000. I can't say that I am 100% confident that this is what it was though. I think this is something that definitely needs to be further investigated by either Rudy's team or these state Senators if they choose to do so. They need to contact the Democrat guy to get his impression as to what was seen and they need to get someone who was running the show at that center (sounds like County Solicitor was there, wouldn't be hard to get him to answer some questions about what it was).

But here goes the problem with jumping to the conclusion that this shows there was fraud. First of all about 128,000 mail in ballots were counted in Delaware County (https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyBreakDownResults?officeId=1&districtId=1&ElectionID=undefined&ElectionType=undefined&IsActive=undefined)

The witness acknowledges that when he was there 120,000 had already been counted and 6,000 were left to be counted. That seems to be pretty darn close to the ~128,000 that were eventually counted.

So if in fact 70,000 mail in ballots were unopened and not counted that would mean there really should have been 200,000 mail in ballots counted in Delaware County. Well the mail in ballots were breaking in favor of Biden and Delaware County ended up going to Biden 63% to 36%, so uncounted mail in ballots would actually have hurt Biden not helped him. His testimony is those ballots were "unopened" so no one should know who those votes were for, so it's not like they were purposes hiding Trump votes.

The vote count in Delaware County is somewhat consistent with 2016.

2020
Biden 206,000 - 63%
Trump 118,000 - 36%

2016
Clinton 169,000 - 59%
Trump 106,000 - 37%

Biden did over-perform Clinton but not by huge margins that would immediately suggest fraud.

#2 - Why would harvested or unenveloped mail in ballots be anywhere near a vote counting facility?

I think what you are talking about here is the unopened 60-70k ballots he was talking about seeing? If so, as pointed out above that would be suspicious, but I'm not sure that was what he saw. If 120k mail in ballots had already been counted, I have a hard time believing there would be 70k more ballots to be counted. As you can see from the numbers above, the vote count in Delaware was already increased quite a bit from 2016. If there were really another 70k ballots uncounted you are making that increase 100x larger. Just doesn't seem plausible.

#3 - How did the 120k vote count go to 200k at that same location after the vote counting ended?

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Maybe this part of his testimony:

Quote:

When we finally got into the back room where the votes were being ingested, as a data scientist, I want to see where the data's coming in. And I wanted to know the universe of the votes. Well, the universe of the votes was only supposed to be 120,000 mail-in ballots. We were told there were 6,000 ballots remaining. So, I said, "Okay, we have a universe of 126,000 votes." And then, when I get back there, the universe wasn't 126,000 votes. The universe was 200,000 votes. So, that's a problem.


So as I posted about there ended up being 128,000 mail in ballots counted according to what was submitted to SoS. That seems to line up with what he was told so I'm not sure where he is coming up that the universe wasn't 126,000. The only thing I am thinking is that he was adding in the 70,000 "unopened ballots" he saw to get to 200,000 number, but that is not what was reported to SoS. This further leads me to believe that the stacks of 500 neatly packaged unopened mail in ballots that he saw were in fact something else.

#4 - USB drives - I got nothing on this one. It does sound like he reported this to several people that night including an attorney and no one seemed to find it suspicious. He also said he told US Attorney McSwaim about it, so I can only assume that McSwaim will appropriately direct investigations and if something was not done correctly it will come to light.


Anyhow sorry for the long rambling message, I felt bad about the dust up we had earlier today. We were on two different pages and it was my fault. I should have watched the 15 min video you post entirely before posting. I just saw data scientist and made an incorrect assumption.

FWIW, you make good points about auditing elections, but you run into the usual issues of money and time and government is going to do both of those things worse than private business all day long.

I have the same concerns you do. Hell in Texas we don't even get a paper trail. It's 100% electronic. I'm assuming it's all secure and accurate but how do we really know?

RGLAG85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
unmade bed said:

thirdcoast said:

When the affidavits are presented to you, what is next? Will you accept the hearing as legit and credible? No. No, you will not.

Its a waste of time, as you people always find another excuse. Its just like the whole "Trump was not spied on". That evidence was provided and it just generated more excuses, denial, and red herings. You probably still won't admit the Russia collusion nonsense was part of the "insurance policy" to remove a duly elected POTUS.


Well I would have to read the affidavit(s) first to see what they say. Not really trying to get into your Russian spying derail attempt.

Where I am at now is trying to look at the claims you have made on your OP.

Later in the post you said this about the guy in the video:

Quote:

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.


I wasn't aware that those witnesses were sworn in. You then told me the guy had signed an affidavit. That is all I'm asking about.

It's not a trick question.
You're not trying to "understand" anything, you're just spewing talking points that constantly change when the last one comes into question. The sad, but humorous, irony is you think you're truly this intelligent.
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gaius Rufus said:

Conservative Ag said:

Jmiller said:

SpreadsheetAg said:

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.


If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.


There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.


Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?


Glad you could join us, rook. Nice timing
thirdcoast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well thought out post. I agree what has been claimed in hearing probability isnt 100% air tight. Yes, the 200K count came from Greg's testimony and maybe he was misinformed as he was provided that number. I also noticed in hearing, one guy claiming that the PA gov refused ballot bar codes, but the Delaware County website claims there are bar codes on both ballot and envelope. So maybe its just the ballot barcode link to voter registration ID that is missing...or maybe other counties in state refused bar codes....or maybe the Gov refused bar codes in bill bc they were already on ballots.

Regardless, with so much clear irregularity in a NEW irregular election process, differing by states, managed by a bunch of volunteers who aren't exactly cream of the crop, we should ALL want to get to bottom of this BEFORE a new POTUS is sworn in.

The clear evidence from 2016 of gov officials spying on Trump and trying to execute an "insurance policy" via known Dem funded dossier, has only strengthened the likliehood that there has been unethical or fraudulent activity in 2020. Especially when the same media/politicians denying unethical behavior by CIA/FBI are the same ones denying election fraud.
unmade bed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's a conundrum for me on getting to the bottom of it before POTUS can be sworn in. There is just not enough time. We are setting ourselves up for a crisis.

What I would like to see happen is a Special Prosecutor get appointed (we are probably to the point that every president just needs to have a special prosecutor appointed regardless) and Biden get the same treatment Trump got for 2 years (of course media wouldn't cover it the same, but still all of the allegations could be investigated). If people committed election fraud (and without a doubt some people did) they need to go to jail. If Biden campaign was involved, Biden and Harris should be impeached.

I think the key differences between where you are and where I am looking at this stuff is you see the result and you are willing to assume the actions that led to the result (probably based on your life experiences and opinions). I on the other hand see the result and may have some questions but I don't want to assume the action as that led to the result. Not saying that either of us is wrong in our approach, just that's the difference.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.