PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on January 27, 2021, 03:03:28 PM
-
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/most-important-question-about-2020-election-dennis-prager/
The Most Important Question About the 2020 Election
Is it really a "lie" or a "conspiracy theory" to wonder about the integrity of the election?
Since the day after the 2020 presidential election, I have said I am agnostic with regard to whether the election was honestly or dishonestly decided.
The primary reasons for my agnosticism are the usual ones:
The anomalies:
In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016 — and lost.
Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans regard as the "bellwether" counties that virtually always go with the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.
He won four bellwether states — Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost.
Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.
Add the following to the anomalies:
Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to change election laws.
Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them.
Voting began in some states six weeks before Election Day.
People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night.
But all these things would matter little if Democrats involved in ballot-counting felt morally compelled to count votes honestly.
So, then, there is one question I have never heard posed that trumps all other considerations: Would moral considerations prevent Democrats from cheating to oust Trump? Or, to put the question in the positive: Would Democrats deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Joe Biden?
The answer to the first question is no: Moral considerations would not prevent decent Democrats from cheating to prevent Trump's reelection. The answer to the second question is yes: Decent Democrats would deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Biden.
For four years, the media and their party, the Democrats, told us every day that Trump is a fascist, a dictator, a racist and a white supremacist; that he was an agent of the Russian government — a real-life Manchurian candidate. We were also repeatedly told by the lying media (Trump's accurate description of the mainstream media) that in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there are "very fine" Nazis (see the PragerU video, "The Charlottesville Lie"). Yes, the media told us with a straight face that a man with a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren said there are fine Nazis. Biden said he decided to run for president because of this lie.
So, then, here is the question: Why would anyone who sincerely believed Trump is a white-supremacist fascist dictator not cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming or remaining president of the United States?
Let me sharpen this question: Isn't someone who could prevent a fascist, white-supremacist, Nazi-defending dictator morally obligated to cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming president?
I certainly would. If I were in a position to cheat in order to prevent a fascist from becoming president, why would I not cheat? I think of the most relevant example: the Nazis in the 1932 elections, Germany's last free election until after World War II. Though the Nazi Party did not receive a majority of votes, the Nazis held the most seats in the Reichstag, and the head of the party, Adolf Hitler, was named chancellor of Germany. If I were in a position to have prevented the Nazis from coming to power by cheating in the vote-count, wouldn't I have been morally obligated to do so — and therefore done so? The answer is obvious.
To repeat, I have never said Biden did not win the election. And even if there was considerable fraud, that doesn't mean the election result would have been different.
But there are consequences to beliefs. Unless Democrats knew they were lying for four years when they labeled Trump a fascist, racist, Nazi, dictator, etc., were they not duty-bound to cheat on Biden's behalf? So, then, when you have circumstantial evidence (not proof), combined with opportunity, desire, motive and, most important, no moral argument against cheating and a strong moral argument for cheating, it isn't a "lie," and it isn't a crackpot conspiracy theory, to wonder about the integrity of America's 2020 presidential election.
-
This is exactly what happened. It’s how they got hundreds of low level poll workers to do the things they did. All these individuals acted alone, or in small local groups, because they all felt this. I think there was also higher level fraud, such as with the Dominion machines, and there was fast and loose playing with the law such as SOS extending deadlines. But those people too did it for this reason.
-
I'm quite sure that if you were able to examine the ballots (you can't), you'd find some subset of voters that voted mostly Republican, but did not vote for Trump. The margin was very, very small despite the electoral vote margin. Something like 29,000 voters across 4 states decided the election.
-
I'm quite sure that if you were able to examine the ballots (you can't), you'd find some subset of voters that voted mostly Republican, but did not vote for Trump. The margin was very, very small despite the electoral vote margin. Something like 29,000 voters across 4 states decided the election.
Yep. When they first got the vote machines they promised we’d always have paper ballots to back up the results. And yes, they cheated just enough to get Biden over the top.
-
I'm quite sure that if you were able to examine the ballots (you can't), you'd find some subset of voters that voted mostly Republican, but did not vote for Trump. The margin was very, very small despite the electoral vote margin. Something like 29,000 voters across 4 states decided the election.
Utter bullshit.
Nothing but your usual utter bullshit.
Try and find a new fucking lie. This one is tapped out.
-
I'm quite sure that if you were able to examine the ballots (you can't), you'd find some subset of voters that voted mostly Republican, but did not vote for Trump. The margin was very, very small despite the electoral vote margin. Something like 29,000 voters across 4 states decided the election.
I'd be willing to bet you would find more democrats that voted for Trump than republicans that voted for Biden.
-
I'm quite sure that if you were able to examine the ballots (you can't), you'd find some subset of voters that voted mostly Republican, but did not vote for Trump. The margin was very, very small despite the electoral vote margin. Something like 29,000 voters across 4 states decided the election.
Why can't you examine the ballots? That's exactly what Garland Favorito is working toward here in Fulton County.
-
I'd be willing to bet you would find more democrats that voted for Trump than republicans that voted for Biden.
and maybe more than the number of dead people that voted for the fake?
-
Why can't you examine the ballots? That's exactly what Garland Favorito is working toward here in Fulton County.
You and I can’t. But if that’s what you took away from the post, you missed entirely.
-
You and I can’t. But if that’s what you took away from the post, you missed entirely.
As an aside to that, when I do vote my ballot prints out and I put that in the device that looks like a big trash bin. The have me watch the little counter number and tell me when that increments it means by ballot was cast. There is a QR Code on that ballot and I have to take it on faith that the data in that QR code matches what I actually voted for as the QR Code is what will be counted. Why not provide a QR scanner so I can see what is encoded on my ballot?
-
As an aside to that, when I do vote my ballot prints out and I put that in the device that looks like a big trash bin.
That was a trash can.
And that "scanner" was actually a shredder with an optical reader and a printer built in. It scans the QR code and prints a new ballot in your name with predefined choices. During the recounts, it is that reprinted ballot that gets counted.
(I started to make that green, because I know it is wrong, but I'm not sure how wrong it really is).
-
That was a trash can.
And that "scanner" was actually a shredder with an optical reader and a printer built in. It scans the QR code and prints a new ballot in your name with predefined choices. During the recounts, it is that reprinted ballot that gets counted.
(I started to make that green, because I know it is wrong, but I'm not sure how wrong it really is).
No, that’s pretty much what the Dominion machines do.
-
Just wrote my State Senator and Representative and asked them several questions I doubt they can answer.
The first was the fact that I have no confidence the information in the QR Code matches the printed information on the ballot.
Second, I have no idea what happens when the ballot is fed into the big trash bin.
Third, my ballot can be adjudicated without my knowledge and my vote changed without my knowledge.
Quite a secure system
-
Just wrote my State Senator and Representative and asked them several questions I doubt they can answer.
The first was the fact that I have no confidence the information in the QR Code matches the printed information on the ballot.
Second, I have no idea what happens when the ballot is fed into the big trash bin.
Third, my ballot can be adjudicated without my knowledge and my vote changed without my knowledge.
Quite a secure system
Gov Abrams doesn't want you to question their actions. The state senator and representative will send you back a form letter.
-
Why can't you examine the ballots? That's exactly what Garland Favorito is working toward here in Fulton County.
Just FYI - I have been trying to follow Garland’s lawsuit. This rather long update was posted today and includes some status on challenges still active around the country (I’m listening at double speed just now and not able to provide a summary - sorry):
-
I know she had him on yesterday at 4:00 EST. I haven't had a chance to listen yet. I expect to do it this morning.
-
Just FYI - I have been trying to follow Garland’s lawsuit. This rather long update was posted today and includes some status on challenges still active around the country (I’m listening at double speed just now and not able to provide a summary - sorry):
Just finished listening to it. A couple of things I gleaned from it. Apparently 60 Minutes ran a segment with either Raffensberger or Sperling. Garland pointed out things that were wrong and not pointed out in the segment. Binkley, the young man on the far right, has done research on Raffensperber and pointed out that his family seems to have a history of hating Trump. It was mentioned why would Raffensberger, who apparently has money, would have wanted to run for SoS in Georgia and why would he have spent a million dollars to do so. Garland seems to have spent the weekend in Arizona working with the folks there. It is interesting how much time and effort Fulton County is putting itto not wanting to have the ballots audited and analyzed.