Artorias said:
As soon as you explain these...
Honest question for election deniers
18,788 Views |
325 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by notex
Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.TxAgPreacher said:Artorias said:
As soon as you explain these...
Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.
FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."
The point of the graph, since you clearly cannot deduce, is it is statistically improbable to have 100,000+ votes for one person and not a single one for the opponent. Nice swing and a miss at a gotcha. Furthermore, LOL referencing 538
When you fall to your knees and ask God for help, don’t forget to fall back on your knees and say ‘thank you’ when He answers.- Steve Torrence
1. Paper BallotsAggieCo2023 said:
I know most of you strongly disagree with me but I'm actually curious and wanted y'all's opinion.
1. If the Democratic Party is so powerful and rife with corruption to the point they were able to "create" 81 million votes, why do they only use this power on selective occasions. Why did they elect to lose house seats in 2020, keep a tie in the senate, and lose most state wide elections such as Governors. If they're able to defraud their way to victory with ease why not do it more often?
2. I also hear many people on here complain on how all the institutions are overrun with liberals from the schools to the colleges to Big Business to the government. Y'all say the highly populated cities are packed with ignorant liberals. My question is if you believe there are so many liberals in every position of power and in the major cities why would it be a surprise that Democrats get a lot of votes for the Presidency?
2. Extremely limited Absentee and/or Mail in voting.
3. Required voter id to vote tied to biometric data.
That will restore faith in elections.
Until then, any election that Democrats win by stuffing the ballot boxes, illegally, in elections is illegitimate.
Artorias, Those charts, combined with the evidence from True the Vote make a very compelling case that is impossible to ignore. Soon after the election Barr said there was no credible evidence and from that time until I saw 2000 mules, I just assumed that there was nothing to it. "Mules" completely blew me away. I would REALLY LIKE TO SHARE THOSE CHARTS with some doubters I know. Where did you find those charts? PM me if you prefer. Thanks
Crown
Nitro Power said:
The point of the graph, since you clearly cannot deduce, is it is statistically improbable to have 100,000+ votes for one person and not a single one for the opponent. Nice swing and a miss at a gotcha. Furthermore, LOL referencing 538
Right, but that never happened. Every GOTCHA that Trump supporters came up with in 2020 ended up being a nothingburger with the courts ruling against their cases and State Election Commissioners (most of them Republican) laying out all the evidence on their websites. Courts went so far as noting that most cases did not meet legal standards of evidence and IIRC some lawyers were sanctioned too.
Oh, and I forgot to mentioned all the audits that came up with nothing. 2020 was likely the most audited election in U.S. history and they proved none of the wide-spread fraud accusations, including yours.
It was widely reported to be true. Care to post evidence that the 100K + dump (all for Xiden) didn't happen, or are YOU going to continue and deny reality?
When you fall to your knees and ask God for help, don’t forget to fall back on your knees and say ‘thank you’ when He answers.- Steve Torrence
Nitro Power said:
It was widely reported to be true. Care to post evidence that the 100K + dump (all for Xiden) didn't happen, or are YOU going to continue and deny reality?
Are you going to continue to deny reality and pretend like the election commission hasn't addressed the accusation?
Fact Check from USA Today....
When you fall to your knees and ask God for help, don’t forget to fall back on your knees and say ‘thank you’ when He answers.- Steve Torrence
Old McDonald said:
the extent to which people believe 2020 was "stolen" varies from person to person
some believe the dems took advantage of covid to illegitimately change voting laws in favor of dems (arguably true)
some believe covid was specifically created and maliciously released to accomplish that (looney bin conspiracy)
some believe the dems specifically targeted high population areas in swing states to manufacture votes to tip the scales (little to no evidence for this but i suppose i can understand how they arrive at that)
some believe the dems manufactured millions of fake votes without getting caught (lol)
it's not one size fits all
Do any of these options come with any proof at all or does it just make losing hurt less?
I knew you were going to make that illogical comment. ROFL!!!Nitro Power said:
Fact Check from USA Today....
Don't be obtuse. Abby Bowen is the source. She's a Shiawassee County election clerk.
Typo...LOL. OK, then where is the correction? If the 100,000 ballot dump was an error, then there should be a -100,000 correction in the data. Where is it?Jmiller said:Nitro Power said:
It was widely reported to be true. Care to post evidence that the 100K + dump (all for Xiden) didn't happen, or are YOU going to continue and deny reality?
Are you going to continue to deny reality and pretend like the election commission hasn't addressed the accusation?
Elections aren't real.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
Its becoming that way. But it was `real' enough to elect Trump the first time, even blue states did.RockTXAggie said:
Elections aren't real.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
Can easily believe what you say is now true --- November will be the benchmark to determine. Not 2024.
titan said:Its becoming that way. But it was `real' enough to elect Trump the first time, even blue states did.RockTXAggie said:
Elections aren't real.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
Can easily believe what you say is now true --- November will be the benchmark to determine. Not 2024.
Even the Trump election was fake.
Politics is only meant to seem cyclical where one party wins one cycle and then the next party wins the next cycle. They do this to make it appear as though your vote matters and it's dictating policy.
The world, even politics, makes more sense when you look at everything through the prism of design. EVERYTHING is by design.
OMG! You're right! They left it in there even after everyone noticed and admitting their mistake on election night. And all those pesky audits didn't catch it. What a sham. But wait! That still doesn't get him to 270. whaa-whaa ROFL!coconutED said:Typo...LOL. OK, then where is the correction? If the 100,000 ballot dump was an error, then there should be a -100,000 correction in the data. Where is it?Jmiller said:Nitro Power said:
It was widely reported to be true. Care to post evidence that the 100K + dump (all for Xiden) didn't happen, or are YOU going to continue and deny reality?
Are you going to continue to deny reality and pretend like the election commission hasn't addressed the accusation?
Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
I don't buy the illogical argument that the integrity of the election can not be proven.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Jmiller said:I don't buy the illogical argument that the integrity of the election can not be proven.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Ok. Then let's hear how you can definitively prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur?
That's pretty incredible to allege. However, it would explain some of the odder `double result' moments of Trump's tenure. The will do this, but then this-- and its not always traceable to his enemies as just simply failure to do it. But not ready to go there at all yet. Your statement simply is provocative in what it suggests about the rollercoaster of contradictions of the 2017-2020 period.RockTXAggie said:titan said:Its becoming that way. But it was `real' enough to elect Trump the first time, even blue states did.RockTXAggie said:
Elections aren't real.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
Can easily believe what you say is now true --- November will be the benchmark to determine. Not 2024.
Even the Trump election was fake.
Politics is only meant to seem cyclical where one party wins one cycle and then the next party wins the next cycle. They do this to make it appear as though your vote matters and it's dictating policy.
The world, even politics, makes more sense when you look at everything through the prism of design. EVERYTHING is by design.
Btw, `design' -- you mean since Clinton or Bush43 (21st C)?
Where is the correction?Jmiller said:
OMG! You're right! They left it in there even after everyone noticed and admitting their mistake on election night. And all those pesky audits didn't catch it. What a sham. But wait! That still doesn't get him to 270. whaa-whaa ROFL!
Is there any US state that has not created a state constitution providing for a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and an executive branch? Is there any US state in which the state legislature has not created election laws under their state constitution that governs how elections work subject to their constitution?TomFoolery said:
Just dropping in a reminder that the real debate on the 2020 election should be the election clause and whether or not state legislatures have the sole authority to determine their elections... and the Supreme Court absolutely punted on making a decision which led to the majority of election debates we have to deal with now...
It all could have been so much simpler...
In creating the election laws in their respective states, they have created legal rules for how their elections are run. It would be illegal for the legislatures to decide to throw out the results of the elections that they created in order to overturn the election and dictate the results.
The legislatures have spoken. It is disingenuous to claim that they have any power to cast the law aside and change the results of an election in ways contrary to their own laws.
eric76 said:Is there any US state that has not created a state constitution providing for a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and an executive branch? Is there any US state in which the state legislature has not created election laws under their state constitution that governs how elections work subject to their constitution?TomFoolery said:
Just dropping in a reminder that the real debate on the 2020 election should be the election clause and whether or not state legislatures have the sole authority to determine their elections... and the Supreme Court absolutely punted on making a decision which led to the majority of election debates we have to deal with now...
It all could have been so much simpler...
In creating the election laws in their respective states, they have created legal rules for how their elections are run. It would be illegal for the legislatures to decide to throw out the results of the elections that they created in order to overturn the election and dictate the results.
The legislatures have spoken. It is disingenuous to claim that they have any power to cast the law aside and change the results of an election in ways contrary to their own laws.
Not what I was getting at, many of the states had their election rules changed by the executive branch in that state where there weren't explicit powers to do that given to the executive branch of that state. They did it under emergency powers due to COVID, and that's what needed to be ruled on. Whether or not the state executive branch had the authority to do so was the question.
Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.Jmiller said:Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.TxAgPreacher said:Artorias said:
As soon as you explain these...
Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.
FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."
You're not as smart as you think you are.
Let's hear how you can logically rectify the fact that even if there were a ballot harvesting scheme, it wouldn't invalidate legitimate ballots just because they were turned in by unauthorized individuals? Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:I don't buy the illogical argument that the integrity of the election can not be proven.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Ok. Then let's hear how you can definitively prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur?
Nearly all ballot harvesting is perfectly legal and legitimate.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:I don't buy the illogical argument that the integrity of the election can not be proven.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Ok. Then let's hear how you can definitively prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur?
Ballot harvesting occurs legally in nearly every state in EVERY election. When you mail in a ballot, the very act of the post office employees to deliver your ballots to the election officials is, by definition, ballot harvesting. If you allow someone else to deliver your ballots to the election officials or to mail it for you, they are ballot harvesting. Each state has election laws to regulate how and when ballot harvesting may be legally done.
So nobody can prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur because it must occur by the very nature of modern voting.
If you want to end ballot harvesting, then the only possibly way to do it is to eliminate all voting except at the polling place on election day. That would mean no absentee voting -- if you weren't in your precinct on election day, you would not be allowed to vote. It would mean no military voting unless you were stationed near your home so that you could go to your precinct to vote. Nobody who is shut in and unable to go to the polls would be able to vote.
Statistically impossible, you say? On what do you base that conclusion? Do you imagine that every precinct in every county should be uniform?TxAgPreacher said:Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.Jmiller said:Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.TxAgPreacher said:Artorias said:
As soon as you explain these...
Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.
FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."
You're not as smart as you think you are.
titan said:That's pretty incredible to allege. However, it would explain some of the odder `double result' moments of Trump's tenure. The will do this, but then this-- and its not always traceable to his enemies as just simply failure to do it. But not ready to go there at all yet. Your statement simply is provocative in what it suggests about the rollercoaster of contradictions of the 2017-2020 period.RockTXAggie said:titan said:Its becoming that way. But it was `real' enough to elect Trump the first time, even blue states did.RockTXAggie said:
Elections aren't real.
If you think American politics is run by Republican or Democrat politicians, you're very naive. Global elites determine elections, set policy, etc.
Politicians merely play the role of crowd-facing puppets.
The act of voting gives the public the illusion of control.
Can easily believe what you say is now true --- November will be the benchmark to determine. Not 2024.
Even the Trump election was fake.
Politics is only meant to seem cyclical where one party wins one cycle and then the next party wins the next cycle. They do this to make it appear as though your vote matters and it's dictating policy.
The world, even politics, makes more sense when you look at everything through the prism of design. EVERYTHING is by design.
Btw, `design' -- you mean since Clinton or Bush43 (21st C)?
I know my belief that EVERYTHING is by design is out there compared to conventional wisdom, for sure. And I think the "design" goes back way before Clinton or Bush 43.
Put simply, I believe the levers of power are pulled by people much more powerful than politicians.
It's the corporations, banks, big pharma and the people that control them that wield the power, drive policy, and even determine who gets elected.
For politicians, they get filthy ****ing rich in exchange for doing what the powers that be tell them. And anyone that dare stand in their way and strays from the path, they will be taken care of. See JFK as an example.
If you're willing to admit that corporations dictate policy, is it really that much of a stretch to believe they also control the elections themselves?
Florida tabulates mail in ballots before election day and they are added to the totals as soon as they start reporting. Maybe this is the way. Plus, there wasn't a lot of mail in ballots BEFORE 2020 (especially in blue city centers).Old McDonald said:
1. mail in ballots take longer to count and tabulate than in-person ballots
2. urban districts with high populations take longer to count and report mail ballots because of the sheer volume relative to other districts
3. due to partisan messaging, mail in ballots were disproportionately cast by people voting for democrats, and in-person disproportionately for republicans
4. republican state legislatures in MI and WI made it so mail ballots could not be counted until election day, thereby artificially making it so mail ballot tabulations would lag behind day-of in person ballots (and creating the impression of an early trump lead)
5. on election day, red districts with majority in-person and comparatively few ballots generally get reported faster. large urban districts with lots of mail ballots cast for democrats take longer to tabulate, then when they get reported it looks like a big blue jump because 1) there are a lot of votes in these districts and 2) they break overwhelmingly for dems
Then you call for an emergency decision from the state Supreme Court.and overrule the executive branch, if there is time to do so.TomFoolery said:eric76 said:Is there any US state that has not created a state constitution providing for a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and an executive branch? Is there any US state in which the state legislature has not created election laws under their state constitution that governs how elections work subject to their constitution?TomFoolery said:
Just dropping in a reminder that the real debate on the 2020 election should be the election clause and whether or not state legislatures have the sole authority to determine their elections... and the Supreme Court absolutely punted on making a decision which led to the majority of election debates we have to deal with now...
It all could have been so much simpler...
In creating the election laws in their respective states, they have created legal rules for how their elections are run. It would be illegal for the legislatures to decide to throw out the results of the elections that they created in order to overturn the election and dictate the results.
The legislatures have spoken. It is disingenuous to claim that they have any power to cast the law aside and change the results of an election in ways contrary to their own laws.
Not what I was getting at, many of the states had their election rules changed by the executive branch in that state where there weren't explicit powers to do that given to the executive branch of that state. They did it under emergency powers due to COVID, and that's what needed to be ruled on. Whether or not the state executive branch had the authority to do so was the question.
One thing they aren't going to do is disenfranchise their voters because they followed the rules set forth by those with the apparent authority to set those rules.
TxAgPreacher said:Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.Jmiller said:Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.TxAgPreacher said:Artorias said:
As soon as you explain these...
Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.
FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."
You're not as smart as you think you are.
Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.
Not really so huge a stretch. From the entities descrbed just by going by when they did get powerful, vs a date prior where they were not so, can get an idea then when. But your suggestion that even Trump was `selected' defies ready acceptance. Its easy enough to believe of more milquetoast moments like 41, W, and Zero. And definitely this guy. Okay.
eric76 said:Nearly all ballot harvesting is perfectly legal and legitimate.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:I don't buy the illogical argument that the integrity of the election can not be proven.Stinky T said:Jmiller said:Stinky T said:1876er said:
Cheating so obvious it can't be proved.
See, this is just lazy posting and really serves no purpose. By design, there is no way to tie a ballot to a person after it has been submitted and tabulated. So there really is no way to go back and prove that a person's ballot was submitted or tabulated correctly. So yes, there is no way to "prove" it definitively after the fact. But that doesn't mean you can't use your brain, look at anomalies, and weird results and draw some conclusions to what may have happened.
And because it cannot be proven due to our anonymous election procedures does not mean it did not happen. Doesn't mean it did either. Wise people can consider both options.
But that's just it, people have proven those anomalies and weird results were not anomalies or weird results at all.
Then you need to consider the impracticality of the overarching claim that 'Trump would have been the winner if he had won these districts in these key states' when those districts wound not have gotten him to 270.
Statistical reasoning is not proof of it not occurring anymore than it is that it did. My point - you can't concretely "prove" anything, either way, through analysis of facts due to the nature of the process. So we are left with a bunch of statistics dorks pointing fingers in opposite directions.
My responses are not to say cheating happened or it didn't. More to say since we cannot prove anything after the fact, the process needs to be tighter than a gnat's ass leading up to an election. Anyone that tries to argue that the processes were anything but loose in some states in 2020 is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Ok. Then let's hear how you can definitively prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur?
Ballot harvesting occurs legally in nearly every state in EVERY election. When you mail in a ballot, the very act of the post office employees to deliver your ballots to the election officials is, by definition, ballot harvesting. If you allow someone else to deliver your ballots to the election officials or to mail it for you, they are ballot harvesting. Each state has election laws to regulate how and when ballot harvesting may be legally done.
So nobody can prove that ballot harvesting doesn't occur because it must occur by the very nature of modern voting.
If you want to end ballot harvesting, then the only possibly way to do it is to eliminate all voting except at the polling place on election day. That would mean no absentee voting -- if you weren't in your precinct on election day, you would not be allowed to vote. It would mean no military voting unless you were stationed near your home so that you could go to your precinct to vote. Nobody who is shut in and unable to go to the polls would be able to vote.
The fact that you use the word nearly so many times proves my point. You have absolutely no idea what actual percentage of ballots harvested are done so illegally. If you don't know what that percentage is, then by logical reasoning you cannot determine if it affects the outcome of any given election or not, unless the margin of victory exceeded the total number of ballots harvested.
Now imagine you have an election where harvested ballots becomes an enormous percentage of the total number of ballots cast. Does the opportunity for illegally harvested ballots increase or decrease? Can you tell me what that exact percentage is? Did your election get more or less secure?
Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.