(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

EDIT: And if the only question on the table is ACB's confirmation, you're almost certainly correct that it can be fit in with most of what has happened historically. The question is really about how it matches the Senate's approach in 2016. It requires some extra explanation to differentiate those two, and the events I mentioned are those that don't appear to fit that extra explanation.

(11-12-2020 12:52 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

We go another one .reeeeeeeeee

(11-12-2020 12:55 PM)shere khan Wrote:  We go another one .reeeeeeeeee

You'll have to elaborate. If the point is that I need to just shut up and let this be a safe space, I can do that, but I'd like to give others a chance to answer my question, as they did earlier when I asked about what it would take to abandon a belief in widespread voter fraud.

(11-12-2020 12:00 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 01:00 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(11-11-2020 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  lullz, Tom is sh*tting his pants today.....

No he's not. However, if GA finds a larger than normal difference AND it is enough to swing the winner to Trump, the pressure on NV, MI, PA and WI will be far greater and that may make Democrats (and independent's [wink]) a little nervous.

The bigger hope is that the recount can get Perdue over 50% so there is no runoff in that race.

Are they recounting that race, or only president?

(11-12-2020 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:05 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Per Trump today... (he'll have to be able to prove this)

Dominion deleted 2.7M Trump voted nationwide.

Data analysis found 221,000 Pennsylvania votes switched from Trump to Biden.

States using Dominion voting system switched 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden.

Thats why Antrim county MI was so devastating to dominion. They already have proof it happened. If you start seeing these systems, during examination of fraud, not being turned over or otherwise having been altered since the election, you can legally make the assumption that it was for nefarious reasons.

This is complete nonsense. It was an error by a staffer. It was not an issue directly with any Dominion software. Antrim is a red county. They have not made any claims of the sort of which you're alleging. NONE!

Quote:"All ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."

Antrim County uses voting machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. The same equipment is used by most Michigan counties, especially smaller ones. But the state said the software problem was not related to the Dominion voting equipment. Antrim receives programming support from another company, Election Source, the agency said.

J. Alex Halderman, the U-M professor and voting systems expert, said he has looked into the incident and determined that the problem arose because Antrim officials made a mistake before the election when they loaded a new version of the "election definition" — the data that is similar to a spreadsheet describing the races and candidates on the ballot.

According to the state, the new "election definition" was loaded in October after county officials learned of two local races in which ballot information had to be updated.

County officials correctly loaded the new version onto the scanners for the affected precincts, but left the old version on scanners for precincts where the ballot was not affected by the late change, Halderman said.

So although the scanners in the tabulators counted all the votes in each precinct correctly, the different versions of the ballot resulted in problems and erroneous vote totals when the precinct results were combined in the election management system, a separate software package used to manage and consolidate results before they are reported to the state, he said.

"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."

Antrim vote glitch: Expert shares how county mistakenly flipped from red to blue

Quit making stuff up.

(11-12-2020 12:52 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

EDIT: And if the only question on the table is ACB's confirmation, you're almost certainly correct that it can be fit in with most of what has happened historically. The question is really about how it matches the Senate's approach in 2016. It requires some extra explanation to differentiate those two, and the events I mentioned are those that don't appear to fit that extra explanation.

Precedent doesn't mean "x" happens in 100% of previous cases.

The only 'anomaly' in 2016 was the Senate chose not to take up Obama's nominee for 'advice and consent' presumptively because they feared defectors (looking at you Collins, Murkowsy, etc). Republican controlled Senate in 2016 chose to not take up Obama's nominee, a de-facto "no" vote. So the precedent, "MOST of the time a presidential nominee does not pass the senate if controlled by the opposing party" holds true.

(11-12-2020 12:52 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

EDIT: And if the only question on the table is ACB's confirmation, you're almost certainly correct that it can be fit in with most of what has happened historically. The question is really about how it matches the Senate's approach in 2016. It requires some extra explanation to differentiate those two, and the events I mentioned are those that don't appear to fit that extra explanation.

If your argument is hypocrisy--you win---on BOTH sides. The same people saying ACB should NOT be confirmed in 2020 said it was the Senate duty to hold hearings to confirm Garland in 2016. Its politics folks---but if your looking for who to blame over politics entering the confirmation of the qualifications of judicial nominees (which used to be restricted to simply insuring that the candidates were qualified)--then its the democrats that broke with previous precedent with the massive politicizing of the Bork hearings. The insane lengths that the Democrats went to in order to attempt to derail the Kavennah nomination raised this behavior to new levels of insanity. The steadily increasing level of partisanship confirmation nastiness exhibited by Democrats since the original Borking (Thomas and Kavannah being among the most stunning examples) has completely changed the character of these hearings and made what happened in 2016 and 2020 the rule rather than the exception. Under the current highly politicized nature of SC confirmation hearings---if you can get an appointee through the process--then your going to do it--regardless of when it occurs within a presidential term. It is now an exercise of pure power.

(11-12-2020 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:52 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

EDIT: And if the only question on the table is ACB's confirmation, you're almost certainly correct that it can be fit in with most of what has happened historically. The question is really about how it matches the Senate's approach in 2016. It requires some extra explanation to differentiate those two, and the events I mentioned are those that don't appear to fit that extra explanation.

If your argument is hypocrisy--you win---on BOTH sides. The same people saying ACB should NOT be confirmed in 2020 said it was the Senate duty to hold hearings to confirm Garland in 2016. Its politics folks---but if your looking for who to blame over politics entering the confirmation of the qualifications of judicial nominees (which used to be restricted to simply insuring that the candidates were qualified)--then its the democrats that broke with previous precedent with the massive politicizing of the Bork hearings. The insane lengths that the Democrats went to in order to attempt to derail Kavennah nomination raised this behavior to new levels of insanity. The steadily increasing level of partisanship confirmation nastiness exhibited by Democrats since the original Borking (Thomas and Kavannah being among the most stunning examples) has completely changed the character of these hearing and made what happened in 2016 and 2020 the rule rather than the exception. Under the current highly politicized nature of SC confirmation hearings---if you can get an appointee through the process--then your going to do it--regardless of when it occurs within a presidential term. It is now an exercise of pure power.

Alito got 42 no votes for no legitimate reason. Trump's appointees have gotten 45, 48 and 48 no votes for no legitimate reasons.

Note that Scalia got 0 no votes in 1986, but then the Borking started. Things would have been a lot different if Bork were approved instead of Kennedy. Republicans didn't Bork Clinton's nominees. RBG got 3 no votes and Breyer only 9.

(11-12-2020 02:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:52 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.

It's unclear which point you're talking about that I may have been referring to you. If it's about tagging on an insult, I don't know, I haven't really been keeping score. If you're the one who made the "Maddow's ass" comment, then yeah, you may have come across as a bit of a presumptuous internet ahole. I don't really hold that against anyone personally, as that's what happens on message boards, it just seems like this thread sees a lot of that, which is why I wondered about it.

On the precedent question, I guess it's clear I was addressing BlazinBham, but I'd be happy for anyone to explain how the cases I brought up fit into the precedent that we've been told the Republican Senate followed in 2016 and this year. There may be some circumstances I'm not familiar with, but more than once now, it's been implied that history makes the precedent very clear, so I'm asking for someone to address the events that appear to be contrary to that precedent.

EDIT: And if the only question on the table is ACB's confirmation, you're almost certainly correct that it can be fit in with most of what has happened historically. The question is really about how it matches the Senate's approach in 2016. It requires some extra explanation to differentiate those two, and the events I mentioned are those that don't appear to fit that extra explanation.

If your argument is hypocrisy--you win---on BOTH sides. The same people saying ACB should NOT be confirmed in 2020 said it was the Senate duty to hold hearings to confirm Garland in 2016. Its politics folks---but if your looking for who to blame over politics entering the confirmation of the qualifications of judicial nominees (which used to be restricted to simply insuring that the candidates were qualified)--then its the democrats that broke with previous precedent with the massive politicizing of the Bork hearings. The insane lengths that the Democrats went to in order to attempt to derail Kavennah nomination raised this behavior to new levels of insanity. The steadily increasing level of partisanship confirmation nastiness exhibited by Democrats since the original Borking (Thomas and Kavannah being among the most stunning examples) has completely changed the character of these hearing and made what happened in 2016 and 2020 the rule rather than the exception. Under the current highly politicized nature of SC confirmation hearings---if you can get an appointee through the process--then your going to do it--regardless of when it occurs within a presidential term. It is now an exercise of pure power.

Alito got 42 no votes for no legitimate reason. Trump's appointees have gotten 45, 48 and 48 no votes for no legitimate reasons.

Note that Scalia got 0 no votes in 1986, but then the Borking started. Things would have been a lot different if Bork were approved instead of Kennedy. Republicans didn't Bork Clinton's nominees. RBG got 3 no votes and Breyer only 9.

After Scalia the Democrats decided NEVER AGAIN

An alternative history of what if Bork was confirmed would be fascinating

(11-12-2020 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If your argument is hypocrisy--you win---on BOTH sides. The same people saying ACB should NOT be confirmed in 2020 said it was the Senate duty to hold hearings to confirm Garland in 2016. Its politics folks---but if your looking for who to blame over politics entering the confirmation of the qualifications of judicial nominees (which used to be restricted to simply insuring that the candidates were qualified)--then its the democrats that broke with previous precedent with the massive politicizing of the Bork hearings. The insane lengths that the Democrats went to in order to attempt to derail Kavennah nomination raised this behavior to new levels of insanity. The steadily increasing level of partisanship confirmation nastiness exhibited by Democrats since the original Borking (Thomas and Kavannah being among the most stunning examples) has completely changed the character of these hearing and made what happened in 2016 and 2020 the rule rather than the exception. Under the current highly politicized nature of SC confirmation hearings---if you can get an appointee through the process--then your going to do it--regardless of when it occurs within a presidential term. It is now an exercise of pure power.

Probably the fairest answer I could hope for. I appreciate it. I'm certainly with any of you who are indicating that the Bork proceedings were a bad sign of things to come. (Insult to injury that year was the confirmation that you can't smoke weed and later become a SC justice. It'll be a few more generations before we get past that.)

(11-12-2020 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:05 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Per Trump today... (he'll have to be able to prove this)

Dominion deleted 2.7M Trump voted nationwide.

Data analysis found 221,000 Pennsylvania votes switched from Trump to Biden.

States using Dominion voting system switched 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden.

Thats why Antrim county MI was so devastating to dominion. They already have proof it happened. If you start seeing these systems, during examination of fraud, not being turned over or otherwise having been altered since the election, you can legally make the assumption that it was for nefarious reasons.

This is complete nonsense. It was an error by a staffer. It was not an issue directly with any Dominion software. Antrim is a red county. They have not made any claims of the sort of which you're alleging. NONE!

Quote:"All ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."

Antrim County uses voting machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. The same equipment is used by most Michigan counties, especially smaller ones. But the state said the software problem was not related to the Dominion voting equipment. Antrim receives programming support from another company, Election Source, the agency said.

J. Alex Halderman, the U-M professor and voting systems expert, said he has looked into the incident and determined that the problem arose because Antrim officials made a mistake before the election when they loaded a new version of the "election definition" — the data that is similar to a spreadsheet describing the races and candidates on the ballot.

According to the state, the new "election definition" was loaded in October after county officials learned of two local races in which ballot information had to be updated.

County officials correctly loaded the new version onto the scanners for the affected precincts, but left the old version on scanners for precincts where the ballot was not affected by the late change, Halderman said.

So although the scanners in the tabulators counted all the votes in each precinct correctly, the different versions of the ballot resulted in problems and erroneous vote totals when the precinct results were combined in the election management system, a separate software package used to manage and consolidate results before they are reported to the state, he said.

"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."

Antrim vote glitch: Expert shares how county mistakenly flipped from red to blue

Quit making stuff up.

Even if that was the case, then that means testing protocols were not followed. You dont find out that the machines were capable of given Trump votes to Biden AFTER the election. That should have been determined to be possible before hand.

Therefore, everywhere these dominion machines were used should have their results audited. Sorry if I'm not going to simply believe the explanation that people who caused this fatal error to occur gives us. We need to go in and find out everywhere it affected the result.

The fact is you guys are all over the place on Antrim. What we DO KNOW AS A FACT is that 6000 votes for Trump were switched to Biden, in a county that only has about 20,000 registered voters. That is an error of enormous magnitude and the people in charge didnt find it. Thats inexcusable. It was a GLARING ERRROR and anyone there should have known was wrong. Dominion must be investigated everywhere.

(11-12-2020 02:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:05 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Per Trump today... (he'll have to be able to prove this)

Dominion deleted 2.7M Trump voted nationwide.

Data analysis found 221,000 Pennsylvania votes switched from Trump to Biden.

States using Dominion voting system switched 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden.

Thats why Antrim county MI was so devastating to dominion. They already have proof it happened. If you start seeing these systems, during examination of fraud, not being turned over or otherwise having been altered since the election, you can legally make the assumption that it was for nefarious reasons.

This is complete nonsense. It was an error by a staffer. It was not an issue directly with any Dominion software. Antrim is a red county. They have not made any claims of the sort of which you're alleging. NONE!

Quote:"All ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."

Antrim County uses voting machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. The same equipment is used by most Michigan counties, especially smaller ones. But the state said the software problem was not related to the Dominion voting equipment. Antrim receives programming support from another company, Election Source, the agency said.

J. Alex Halderman, the U-M professor and voting systems expert, said he has looked into the incident and determined that the problem arose because Antrim officials made a mistake before the election when they loaded a new version of the "election definition" — the data that is similar to a spreadsheet describing the races and candidates on the ballot.

According to the state, the new "election definition" was loaded in October after county officials learned of two local races in which ballot information had to be updated.

County officials correctly loaded the new version onto the scanners for the affected precincts, but left the old version on scanners for precincts where the ballot was not affected by the late change, Halderman said.

So although the scanners in the tabulators counted all the votes in each precinct correctly, the different versions of the ballot resulted in problems and erroneous vote totals when the precinct results were combined in the election management system, a separate software package used to manage and consolidate results before they are reported to the state, he said.

"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."

Antrim vote glitch: Expert shares how county mistakenly flipped from red to blue

Quit making stuff up.

Even if that was the case, then that means testing protocols were not followed. You dont find out that the machines were capable of given Trump votes to Biden AFTER the election. That should have been determined to be possible before hand.

Therefore, everywhere these dominion machines were used should have their results audited. Sorry if I'm not going to simply believe the explanation that people who caused this fatal error to occur gives us. We need to go in and find out everywhere it affected the result.

The fact is you guys are all over the place on Antrim. What we DO KNOW AS A FACT is that 6000 votes for Trump were switched to Biden, in a county that only has about 20,000 registered voters. That is an error of enormous magnitude and the people in charge didnt find it. Thats inexcusable. It was a GLARING ERRROR and anyone there should have known was wrong. Dominion must be investigated everywhere.

Canvas would have caught it. The republicans running Antrim county have said as much.

Move along.

(11-12-2020 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 02:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 12:05 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Per Trump today... (he'll have to be able to prove this)

Dominion deleted 2.7M Trump voted nationwide.

Data analysis found 221,000 Pennsylvania votes switched from Trump to Biden.

States using Dominion voting system switched 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden.

Thats why Antrim county MI was so devastating to dominion. They already have proof it happened. If you start seeing these systems, during examination of fraud, not being turned over or otherwise having been altered since the election, you can legally make the assumption that it was for nefarious reasons.

This is complete nonsense. It was an error by a staffer. It was not an issue directly with any Dominion software. Antrim is a red county. They have not made any claims of the sort of which you're alleging. NONE!

Quote:"All ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."

Antrim County uses voting machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. The same equipment is used by most Michigan counties, especially smaller ones. But the state said the software problem was not related to the Dominion voting equipment. Antrim receives programming support from another company, Election Source, the agency said.

J. Alex Halderman, the U-M professor and voting systems expert, said he has looked into the incident and determined that the problem arose because Antrim officials made a mistake before the election when they loaded a new version of the "election definition" — the data that is similar to a spreadsheet describing the races and candidates on the ballot.

According to the state, the new "election definition" was loaded in October after county officials learned of two local races in which ballot information had to be updated.

County officials correctly loaded the new version onto the scanners for the affected precincts, but left the old version on scanners for precincts where the ballot was not affected by the late change, Halderman said.

So although the scanners in the tabulators counted all the votes in each precinct correctly, the different versions of the ballot resulted in problems and erroneous vote totals when the precinct results were combined in the election management system, a separate software package used to manage and consolidate results before they are reported to the state, he said.

"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."

Antrim vote glitch: Expert shares how county mistakenly flipped from red to blue

Quit making stuff up.

Even if that was the case, then that means testing protocols were not followed. You dont find out that the machines were capable of given Trump votes to Biden AFTER the election. That should have been determined to be possible before hand.

Therefore, everywhere these dominion machines were used should have their results audited. Sorry if I'm not going to simply believe the explanation that people who caused this fatal error to occur gives us. We need to go in and find out everywhere it affected the result.

The fact is you guys are all over the place on Antrim. What we DO KNOW AS A FACT is that 6000 votes for Trump were switched to Biden, in a county that only has about 20,000 registered voters. That is an error of enormous magnitude and the people in charge didnt find it. Thats inexcusable. It was a GLARING ERRROR and anyone there should have known was wrong. Dominion must be investigated everywhere.

Canvas would have caught it. The republicans running Antrim county have said as much.

Move along.

Its worth noting the canvasing stage is only now just starting in many states.

Lindy is really confused right now.

More bad news for president-reject Biden. Michigan Senate wants a full audit of the vote.

Dear prog filth:

Biden* is still not president elect.

Sincerely,
Patriots

This is huge. PA Democrats submit sworn affadavits from democratic voters who testified that they "cured" their ballot after they mailed it in and DEMAND Trump's team not allow it to be rejected.

The issue here is that it is ILLEGAL in PA to cure these ballots ahead of election day, because PA law explicitely states that those ballots are NOT TO BE OPENED prior to election day. So the democrats own filing admits fraud.

If Michigan and Georgia do full audits, and Trump still loses, then I'll sit down and shut up. I'm not sure I'll believe it, but I'll sit down and shut up.

(11-12-2020 05:47 PM)Claw Wrote:  If Michigan and Georgia do full audits, and Trump still loses, then I'll sit down and shut up. I'm not sure I'll believe it, but I'll sit down and shut up.

And Wisconsin

Interesting stories coming out of the White House. Trump is fully aware he lost, knows the legal challenges are a joke. Contesting all of 600 ballots in PA but lost by 46,000 votes; court expected to throw out the lawsuit today or tomorrow. Similar in Michigan, contesting a few thousand ballots but lost by over 100,000 votes. No path to victory.

Trump is talking openly not of a 2nd term but running in 2024 and starting a TrumpTV Network. Fund raising for legal fees are being used instead to mostly retire debts. Meanwhile commercials are being run to sell of stocks of Trump paraphernalia; seeing "Trumpty Bear" commercials for example.

One former insider is predicting Trump will go to Mar-a-Lago during Christmas and stay there through the inauguration. This actually seems plausible.

A note on the challenged ballots in PA, 266 are people who put their address on the front of the envelope instead of in the designated line on the back, and 243 are missing an address. Fewer than 50 have signature problems. It's a complete joke. There is ZERO evidence of any vote fraud. Certainly every state has some dead people on the rolls who have not been purged. But no evidence many voted (certainly there are a few uncle Bernie cases, there always are). Nothing in any of this that comes close to impacting an election. The courts will thus throw these frivolous cases out.

So we watch the sulky loser Trump sulk and whine on twitter fraudulently about fake fraud. Sadly many of his supporters believe loser Trump's drivel. Flim Flam Trump and his Trumpy Bear losers are on the way out. I hope none of you are losers who believe his frauds.