(12-16-2020 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2020 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2020 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2020 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2020 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Not trying to offset anything. I was sharing a pretty nutzo story related to the claims of election fraud with local ties to the Houston area.
If I wanted to draw a larger point, I would have done so. If anything, I see this as a potential problem with the continued propping up of these massive election fraud stories by those in power. They feed into people who want to believe in conspiracy theories and then some of them take action.
Like I said in the other thread, you gotta feel for that technician. Scary **** for him.
But then again this is coming from the guy that apparently believes that *no* fraud took place.
No offense, but the Democrats did *everything* in their power to loosen any and all safeguards they could re: fraud in this cycle -- they did nothing to minimize the threat of such fraud in each and every case.
I am sure that no one took advantage of that situation. /sarcasm off
Again, having lived for significant amounts of time in political machine cities, one has to be either clueless or stunningly naive not to think that large amounts of fraud actually took place. But please try and wipe the damage to any safeguard the Democrats had a chance to do (and did) to those systems.
The amount of fraud may or may not have been dispositive.
If you actually took off your blue colored glasses and note what and how Democratic legislatures (and in some cases solely governors and/or state Supreme Courts) damaged the vote integrity in those jurisdictions, you might be a little aghast. Not to mention the blatant violations of local rules at the actual tally centers. But I am sure that doesnt register in your view.
Don't speak in platitudes - give specific examples of what fraud you're alleging.
Also, do me the favor and tell us whether or not any Republicans similarly loosened the safeguards you're alleging that Democrats loosened.
And then do me the favor again of telling me whether those safeguards that only Democrats loosened have been loosened in other states before without evidence of fraud.
It's like you ignore that the election took place during a world-wide pandemic, and states (both Dem and Rep) took actions to try and provide safe and secure voting methods for their constituents - across the board.
I've still seen 0 evidence of fraud presented by anyone on this board. I've seen people suggest that fraud is actually defined differently (and that it isn't an intentional act of deception) and I've seen people post very poorly executed evaluations of statistical anomalies, but I've seen 0 specific accusations of actual fraud.
But back to the story I posted, scary **** for that guy. Surprised your response isn't at least to agree that things sucked for that technician.
No smoke at all from the lad. Glad we got that out of the way and buried. /sarcasm off
Again, read the many, many affidavits -- not direct proof, but in any viewpoint at least circumstantial evidence of actual physical activities that tend to indicate fraud. But in lad-world, those affiants really dont amount to a hill of beans. That is your prerogative, not mine but it apparently does you well.... (wink)
But, watch lad jump up and down and scream about how much smoke there is in Russiagate. Apparently even at this late date.
Note how you cant even admit that when legislatures (and sometimes governors and state courts such as Pennsylvania) changed the voting rules to allow expanded mail-in voting, and the cascade of related vulnerabilities that followed, that that in no way maximized the window of fraud. You cant even admit to the very basic, and absolutely true, first premise there.
It truly is laudable how any and all smoke in your worldview is tinted blue. Lolz.
What are the allegations? You seem to have read the affidavits, can you summarize the evidence here?
And you're 100% right that changes by Republican AND Democrats to expand voting access (which I noted above) increased the vulnerability of the system. I hadn't "admitted" that because we weren't talking about that - we were talking about actual fraud. So while there are more chances for systems to be taken advantage of, that increase in risk doesn't inherently mean there was an increase in fraud. And since both parties expanded voting, I don't see why that is even related to Democrat-induced voter fraud.
Take the last Wisconsin lawsuit for example --- only in the Democratic strongholds the receiving clerks were told, and did, and in contravention of state law, that they were to 'correct and fill in' any deficient addresses of mail in votes.
The processes were legislatively expanded in many Democratic (and some Republican) legislatures, but the addition of 'on the ball local clerk offices' to do like the above (or, in some cases mass mailing ballots where a request was needed) exacerbated the loosened legislative standards.
And yes, when a ballot is 'corrected' by a third party, and when the law says a deficient ballot is not to be considered, there *is* a fraud. No matter how you jump it.
And in the case of Pennsylvania, the Democratic governors sua sponte rewrite of the election code, and the Democratic Supreme Court there upholding in light of contravening law from the legislature is, again, an act of fraud.
Republicans in Pennsylvania were negligent in not making an issue of the above sooner.
There are replete cases in the suits detailing both the 'governmental maneuvers' to loosen the checks, and many issues detailing lower level functional 'irregularities' within the tally offices in at least 14 jurisdictions in 9 states.
But, I doubt you have read a single complaint, or for that matter a complete decision in any of the cases. So be it.
But, dont tell me (or anyone else) for that matter that there is no evidence of fraud. I will agree that the evidence is not sufficient to overturn the results in the minimum of three states needed to turn the election -- especially when the complained of items occur either at the moment the tally is done, or when delivering ballots via 'harvesting' with massively loosened checks at that juncture.
In fact, many of the Democratic jurisdictions seemed to think the election was their version of a Juarez whorehouse in the lax stringency in the invitation to 'come one, come all' when it dealt with the franchise. But, political machine cities are set up to do that -- they have been doing so for 150 years.
It is ludicrous to think that the invitation wasnt taken up at the first invitation by the brothel owner to not just keep doing, but not massively expand the activity.