PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on August 16, 2025, 12:54:43 PM
-
Putin told Trump, “You can’t have a fair election with mail in voting, 2020 was stolen. If you had won, I would not have invaded Ukraine.”
I mean, we all know that. It’s good to hear Putin knows it too. It’s because these are all facts.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1956529655785115837
-
Putin told Trump, “You can’t have a fair election with mail in voting, 2020 was stolen. If you had won, I would not have invaded Ukraine.”
I mean, we all know that. It’s good to hear Putin knows it too. It’s because these are all facts.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1956529655785115837
The full interview (direct link):
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6376972615112 (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6376972615112)
This makes me feel very uneasy. We don't know that Putin said this because he knows it to be true. Those are two things that Trump "needs" to hear because most sources in the US believe them to be false. In other words, this could be a/the way Putin tries to butter Trump up.
If Putin is just pretending to be open to certain (unrevealed) concessions to stall for time, and Trump is letting him get away with it, then he's wasted an opportunity to slap on the secondary sanctions he's threatened against countries who buy Russian oil - and if the secondary meeting passes with no further progress, say Putin's terms continue to be all of the Donbas, then Trump looks naive and weak in the eyes of the world.
I hope I am wrong about this.
-
Those are two things that Trump "needs" to hear because most sources in the US believe them to be false.
“Most sources”???
You mean the ones you agree with.
-
“Most sources”???
You mean the ones you agree with.
Most sources = MSM. Or do you think there are a large number of independent sources outside the MSM?
-
Anyway, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. What matters is what Putin really believes.
Seriously, I would not take *anything* Putin said to Trump as representative of what he believes to be true. Putin plays to win and he will take advantage of his opponent's perceived weakness, wherever he sees it.
-
Anyway, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. What matters is what Putin really believes.
Seriously, I would not take *anything* Putin said to Trump as representative of what he believes to be true. Putin plays to win and he will take advantage of his opponent's perceived weakness, wherever he sees it.
isn't that pretty much the MO for everyone?
-
Just watched Washington Week from last night. David Ignatius had a rather reassuring take on the outcome: Trump still has the discipline to hold his cards close, and to emphasize that there's no deal until there's a deal. I agree: that's a good sign.
But I still wonder what progress was made. Putin hasn't shown any sign of softening his terms up until now, and the fact that he's resorting to commiserating with Trump about Russia, Russia, Russia and the 2020 election doesn't bode well.
I think Putin flatters others to manipulate them, but he's not himself vulnerable to flattery.
-
isn't that pretty much the MO for everyone?
For some value of "everyone". ;)
As an experienced negotiator, Trump *should* know this, and in particular, that Putin is trying to do it to *him*.
If he was simply playing along during the interview, to make Putin believe that he's fallen for Putin's line, then Trump is a *phenomenally* good actor.
-
Most sources = MSM. Or do you think there are a large number of independent sources outside the MSM?
If not for the independent news sources the MSM would be controlling the narrative. The internet has changed that dynamic and for the better. We are now seeing when the MSM is changing a story to fit their (and the democrat) narrative several independent sources come in with factual information that shows the truth. The smaller sources actually practice real journalism where the MSM practices propaganda.
-
The real wild card in the Russia Ukraine debacle is the little dictator Zelenskyy.
He has the popularity of herpes, has prevented elections (his term expired long ago) and with a peace deal he gets tossed out. More than likely he'll have to seek asylum in another country. And his money gravy train will end.
We'll see Monday. I will not be surprised to see him throw a monkey wrench in the works.
-
If not for the independent news sources the MSM would be controlling the narrative. The internet has changed that dynamic and for the better. We are now seeing when the MSM is changing a story to fit their (and the democrat) narrative several independent sources come in with factual information that shows the truth. The smaller sources actually practice real journalism where the MSM practices propaganda.
I think you misread my use of the word "independent". I didn't just mean independent from the MSM, but also independent from each other. In today's world, I don't see any other way to gauge accuracy in journalism except by the degree to which independent (in that sense) sources agree with each other.
I have nothing against nonpartisan small sources, I'm more concerned with highly partisan sites, sometimes run by one or two people, who have day jobs and whose livelihood doesn't depend on their holding to any standard of accuracy. Sites like that may well practice propaganda every bit as much as the MSM.
-
The real wild card in the Russia Ukraine debacle is the little dictator Zelenskyy.
He has the popularity of herpes, has prevented elections (his term expired long ago) and with a peace deal he gets tossed out. More than likely he'll have to seek asylum in another country. And his money gravy train will end.
We'll see Monday. I will not be surprised to see him throw a monkey wrench in the works.
He gets tossed out if he agrees to Putin's original terms, that's for sure. Also: he's (understandably, I think) declared martial law, that's the reason elections haven't been held. So he has a very strong incentive to tow the line and not agree to anything that would raise the ire of his countrymen.
-
He gets tossed out if he agrees to Putin's original terms, that's for sure. Also: he's (understandably, I think) declared martial law, that's the reason elections haven't been held. So he has a very strong incentive to tow the line and not agree to anything that would raise the ire of his countrymen.
He's already raised the ire of his countrymen. They are tired of the war, tired of watching men get dragged out of their homes and conscripted, plus older men marched to the front lines with little to know training.
He's shut down any media that is critical of him. He imprisons political rivals. He damn well knows once an election happens he's toast
-
He's already raised the ire of his countrymen. They are tired of the war, tired of watching men get dragged out of their homes and conscripted, plus older men marched to the front lines with little to know training.
He's shut down any media that is critical of him. He imprisons political rivals. He damn well knows once an election happens he's toast
Yes they are tired of the war. But the process you describe is a better description of what happens in Russia. Ukraine hasn't been throwing men at the Russians so much as trying to outmatch them in technical prowess. But there's only so much they can do against Russia's seemingly unlimited supply of soldiers.
What evidence do you have of Zelensky's shutting down the free exercise of journalism? That he's imprisoned rivals for political reasons?
Zelensky is probably toast, as you say, but mainly because there seems to be insufficient support from the West to enable Ukraine to force Putin to the table on terms favorable to Ukraine. And so Zelensky is probably going to have to cave, eventually, and agree to terms that will seal his defeat in the next election.
-
-
“Most sources”???
You mean the ones you agree with.
"Most Sources" are Legacy corrupt Leftist Media outlets. AP, Reuters, NBC, MSNBC (Comcast), ABC (Disney), CBS, CNN, Washpo, NYT, etc.
Why people still believe them is beyond me. 2020 was stolen. It's obvious. But, in hindsight, we're better off with Trump now, than then.
-
"Most Sources" are Legacy corrupt Leftist Media outlets. AP, Reuters, NBC, MSNBC (Comcast), ABC (Disney), CBS, CNN, Washpo, NYT, etc.
Why people still believe them is beyond me. 2020 was stolen. It's obvious. But, in hindsight, we're better off with Trump now, than then.
You left out NPR/PBS. But what about WSJ? Do you consider them "leftist" and "corrupt"?
-
"Most Sources" are Legacy corrupt Leftist Media outlets. AP, Reuters, NBC, MSNBC (Comcast), ABC (Disney), CBS, CNN, Washpo, NYT, etc.
Why people still believe them is beyond me. 2020 was stolen. It's obvious. But, in hindsight, we're better off with Trump now, than then.
When the biden/obama cabal 'gifted' lame stream media millions upon million of dollars to massage the message, those media outlets became even more corrupted and strayed farther from any semblance of integrity. Their idiocy was easily identified when a pathetic CNN reporter sttod in front of burning cars proclaiming that the riots were mostly peaceful.
Those same lying scumbags claimed that protestors quielty walking through the capitol were violent insurrectionsist an every single scum bag outlet used the exact same phrases, just as they were sent to them.
Pretending that they weren't a paid propaganda outlet for the communist democrat party is just lying to yourself, as is pretending the 2020 election wasn't stolen.
-
When the biden/obama cabal 'gifted' lame stream media millions upon million of dollars to massage the message, those media outlets became even more corrupted and strayed farther from any semblance of integrity. Their idiocy was easily identified when a pathetic CNN reporter sttod in front of burning cars proclaiming that the riots were mostly peaceful.
Those same lying scumbags claimed that protestors quielty walking through the capitol were violent insurrectionsist an every single scum bag outlet used the exact same phrases, just as they were sent to them.
Pretending that they weren't a paid propaganda outlet for the communist democrat party is just lying to yourself, as is pretending the 2020 election wasn't stolen.
We saw this when USAID was broken up and the enormous payouts that were filtered through NGO's that eventually found there way to various news organizations.
These news organizations weren't generating revenue through traditional means and were getting money, so they had money to lavish on their writers and talking heads who in turn were towing the democrat talking points and propaganda.
Now we see these same outlets cutting salaries, firing host and are on the chopping block.
Remember the government subscriptions for Politico? At an enormous expense? That was nothing but a back door payment for even more democrat propaganda.
The MSM is dying because they are playing to a very small segment of the population and they are still invested in propaganda over actual news.
-
Putin said this because he's clearly Trump's stooge. You have not heard about the Americagate scandal that almost cost Putin his election?
-
You left out NPR/PBS. But what about WSJ? Do you consider them "leftist" and "corrupt"?
Thanks for reminding me of those. Yes, WSJ now leans left due to their ownership.
-
Thanks for reminding me of those. Yes, WSJ now leans left due to their ownership.
Did their ownership change recently? That's news to me. As far as I can tell their editorial page is generally sympathetic to Trump, and they've printed guest opinion pieces from people in his administration (e.g. Pete Hegseth, if memory serves).
Just this weekend, the editorial "The Real House Democratic Nightmare" puts the blame squarely on the Democrats for the gerrymandering arms race that's about to break out and predicts that the Republicans will win more seats in the long run, largely because of demographic trends.
Sure doesn't sound left-leaning to me.
-
It’s an issue. Smart people realize it. ;D
https://x.com/atensnut/status/1957429521709252824
-
Nice coincidence! (see my response to Bob Noel on the other thread)
I'm in favor of it, even though I don't think the election was stolen. We need a system that everyone can have confidence in.
-
Nice coincidence! (see my response to Bob Noel on the other thread)
I'm in favor of it, even though I don't think the election was stolen. We need a system that everyone can have confidence in.
That I agree with. Loss of trust in our institutions is the lethal problem, more than whether or not the election was fraudulently stolen.
Either real fraud, or the perception of fraud and the lack of trust in those charged with overseeing it; if either persists our democracy will fall.
Universal mail in ballots simply cannot be assured of being secure.
-
That I agree with. Loss of trust in our institutions is the lethal problem, more than whether or not the election was fraudulently stolen.
Either real fraud, or the perception of fraud and the lack of trust in those charged with overseeing it; if either persists our democracy will fall.
Universal mail in ballots simply cannot be assured of being secure.
Yes - that and, just as importantly I think, the widespread lack of trust in reporting of politically sensitive events by mainstream industry journalists. It IS partly their fault for spinning the news instead of reporting it, as they so often do. For example: over the weekend and today, PBS/NPR were casting Trump's going all out to win an actual peace deal, instead of a ceasefire followed by negotiations, as a capitulation to Putin. This because on Wednesday, all the parties agreed that a ceasefire has to precede serious bilateral negotiations. In fact, I think this is a case of Trump thinking on his feet and going with his instincts. He could be right, or he could be wrong - we'll see. But these reporters are framing it as Trump falling back into Putin's orbit, which doesn't square with all the details that have emerged. It's spin, generated by anti-Trump bias.
-
Yes - that and, just as importantly I think, the widespread lack of trust in reporting of politically sensitive events by mainstream industry journalists. It IS partly their fault for spinning the news instead of reporting it, as they so often do. For example: over the weekend and today, PBS/NPR were casting Trump's going all out to win an actual peace deal, instead of a ceasefire followed by negotiations, as a capitulation to Putin. This because on Wednesday, all the parties agreed that a ceasefire has to precede serious bilateral negotiations. In fact, I think this is a case of Trump thinking on his feet and going with his instincts. He could be right, or he could be wrong - we'll see. But these reporters are framing it as Trump falling back into Putin's orbit, which doesn't square with all the details that have emerged. It's spin, generated by anti-Trump bias.
Correct, as Trump explained today, a ceasefire is just an opportunity for one side to build up for a renewed attack. He’s aiming for a permanent peace.
-
We're a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is just Mob Rule.
-
We're a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is just Mob Rule.
Someone, somewhere had a signature that I liked:
Paraphrasing: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner".
-
We're a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is just Mob Rule.
And elected representatives don’t understand this, or are just lying. I understand you can refer to us a little ‘d’ democracy but this absolute lawn flamingo* also doesn’t know what an absentee ballot is.
https://x.com/RepDebDingell/status/1957469871479881919
*I stole that from some random person on X.
-
debbi dingle makes stupid seem like a bridge too far for her to climb.
She will always be a moron controlled by soros and company.
-
Mail-in voting is necessary for those who cannot otherwise vote in person. Disabled, military, whatever. But it must be a documented good reason other than "there's a terrible virus that has a 0.00001% death rate so everyone must vote by mail without any restrictions or proof that they are indeed the ones who voted."
Yeah, 2020 was stolen from Trump. No way did the delaware state vegetable (Thanks!) get 81M votes when in every other elections the democrats never get more than 65M. There was cheating. No, I can't prove it. But the facts speak for themselves.
And on a totally different subject... what happened to FJB's Stage 4 cancer and such?
And Newscum saying that most of the murders are in red states. Yeah, that's true. But look at it in finer detail. They are done in the tiny blue counties with big cities within the red states.
My allergies are going wild. Can't think.... rambling. Out.
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-say-mail-in-ballot-ban-will-place-undue-hardship-on-dead-voters
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As President Donald Trump continues to hint at taking action to require in-person voting in U.S. elections, Democratic leaders warned that a mail-in ballot ban would place undue hardship on dead voters.
Ever the champions of the rights of deceased voters, Democrats alleged that any move to ban mail-in ballots would disenfranchise millions of dead people who vote Democrat in every American election.
"We can't allow President Trump to alienate our dead voters like this," said Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. "Our late supporters are vital to the success of any Democratic campaign. Banning mail-in ballots will make it far more difficult — if not impossible — for our vast crowds of departed base to make it to the polls in person and cast their votes for Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party itself would be as dead as our supporters."
Other Democrats warned that dead voters are almost completely reliant upon mail-in voting to make their voices heard. "This is such a large pillar of our support," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "President Trump continues to search for ways to rig elections in his favor, but we cannot let him cut off such a large portion of our perished constituents. To all of our dead supporters out there — we will continue to stand up for your right to mail in your votes for Democrats."
At publishing time, Democrats urged the Supreme Court to intervene by ruling that all of their supporters who live in other countries and are not legally allowed to vote be allowed to vote legally.
-
One has only to look at the counties where MORE people voted for the Delaware state vegetable than were registered to vote there.
Then there were the counties where 126% of the registered voters all voted for salad accoutrements.
-
One has only to look at the counties where MORE people voted for the Delaware state vegetable than were registered to vote there.
Then there were the counties where 126% of the registered voters all voted for salad accoutrements.
Actual data, please. Most sources I've found dispute this; PolitiFact rates this and similar claims "pants on fire".
Yes, PolitiFact is left-leaning. Nevertheless, a claim like this needs evidence.
-
According to Grok... no county had more votes than registered people. HOWEVER, in many counties there are more registered voters than those eligible. There is massive registered voter bloat and those rolls need to be purged. So while it is technically true that there are not more votes than people registered, there are more people registered than are eligible. Many people don't bother to vote. Those non-voters are replaced by dead, moved, ineligible registered voters. Those are the ones that get ballots and do vote. That's what put the delaware state vegetable and his crouton to the win.
-
According to Grok... no county had more votes than registered people. HOWEVER, in many counties there are more registered voters than those eligible. There is massive registered voter bloat and those rolls need to be purged. So while it is technically true that there are not more votes than people registered, there are more people registered than are eligible. Many people don't bother to vote. Those non-voters are replaced by dead, moved, ineligible registered voters. Those are the ones that get ballots and do vote. That's what put the delaware state vegetable and his crouton to the win.
Agreed that the voter rolls need to be purged. But what evidence is there (I mean, hard evidence) that fraud involving dead or ineligible voters gave Biden the win?
-
Agreed that the voter rolls need to be purged. But what evidence is there (I mean, hard evidence) that fraud involving dead or ineligible voters gave Biden the win?
It should be quite clear. He won therefore he cheated.
Seriously, I have a hard time believing that he got 81M votes in 2020 when historically democrats get in the mid-60s. Something is amiss. Just what it is, I don't know. And people seem to be very interested in not finding something.
-
It should be quite clear. He won therefore he cheated.
Seriously, I have a hard time believing that he got 81M votes in 2020 when historically democrats get in the mid-60s. Something is amiss. Just what it is, I don't know. And people seem to be very interested in not finding something.
There were so many abnormalities in the 2020 election vote details. It would be one thing if it was just one or two, but the list was long and statistically almost impossible.
and the democrats went to great lengths to shut down any and all discussion around it.
-
There were so many abnormalities in the 2020 election vote details. It would be one thing if it was just one or two, but the list was long and statistically almost impossible.
and the democrats went to great lengths to shut down any and all discussion around it.
Sigh. It sounds like more discussion is needed then.
The high voter turnout can be explained by extreme discontent among Democrats, plus the easy availability of mail-in voting that facilitated voting by lots of people that normally wouldn't. There was a huge push on the left to get out the vote that wasn't matched by the right.
The reverse of that was almost certainly a factor in Trump's 2024 victory. Kamala Harris ran one of the worst campaigns in history, and there was widespread discontent (for good reason I'd add) with Biden's handling of the economy. Lots of people who voted D in 2020 switched to the R column in 2024 (or else didn't vote or voted 3rd party).
My opinion is the Dems sealed their fate by circling the wagons for years as Biden's cognitive impairment became more and more noticeable. The June 27, 2024 debate was the clincher, and the Dems had no credible candidate to take Biden's place - and to make matters worse, Biden kept insisting he could still beat Trump.
I hate to put a positive spin on such a terrible event, but Butler, PA was a factor too. I was about 95% certain that Trump would win after seeing that iconic photo of Trump with his fist raised after being shot. He became an instant folk hero, for better or for worse.
-
Sigh. It sounds like more discussion is needed then.
The high voter turnout can be explained by extreme discontent among Democrats, plus the easy availability of mail-in voting that facilitated voting by lots of people that normally wouldn't. There was a huge push on the left to get out the vote that wasn't matched by the right.
I think you're exactly right, to a point. When Obama came about there was widespread discontent with Bush, and a LOT of interest in seeming to be not racist by electing the first (half) Black president. That did produce a bump in his numbers. FJB would have done about the same vs Trump. He might have even won considering how unpopular Trump was among the democrats. And fighting against sooooo many dirty tricks.
The difference is indeed the mail-in voting. The vast majority of that went democrat vs. republican. Why was it not split along the same lines as in-person voting? Do democrats not vote unless it's easy? It is possible that democrats were much more effective in getting people who don't normally vote to vote by mail.
Then what was the difference in 2024? Why didn't vote by mail deliver the election to the Salad Shooter? More controls? Less interest? Dunno.
But either way, I think we're far better off now than if Trump had won in 2020.
-
I think you're exactly right, to a point. When Obama came about there was widespread discontent with Bush, and a LOT of interest in seeming to be not racist by electing the first (half) Black president. That did produce a bump in his numbers. FJB would have done about the same vs Trump. He might have even won considering how unpopular Trump was among the democrats. And fighting against sooooo many dirty tricks.
The difference is indeed the mail-in voting. The vast majority of that went democrat vs. republican. Why was it not split along the same lines as in-person voting? Do democrats not vote unless it's easy? It is possible that democrats were much more effective in getting people who don't normally vote to vote by mail.
Then what was the difference in 2024? Why didn't vote by mail deliver the election to the Salad Shooter? More controls? Less interest? Dunno.
But either way, I think we're far better off now than if Trump had won in 2020.
That's my guess. The difference in 2024 may have been multifactorial, but I suspect the most important factors were (1) the Biden administration's mismanaging of the economy and (2) the lack of a credible candidate at the top of the ticket. (I hate to admit that the fact that the candidate was a Black woman might have been a factor... but yeah, it might have been.)
Well, we had four years of progressive rule and out of control government spending, an extra round of stimulus checks that contributed to inflation, and a president who was little more than a figurehead toward the end. So I'm not sure we're better off - but Trump is definitely showing that he's capable of governing and his foreign policy ventures have either been successful or still show great promise. So while I'm not entirely happy with everything Trump is doing (particularly the culture war stuff), we're definitely better off with him than we would have been with the alternative.
-
I think you're exactly right, to a point. When Obama came about there was widespread discontent with Bush, and a LOT of interest in seeming to be not racist by electing the first (half) Black president. That did produce a bump in his numbers. FJB would have done about the same vs Trump. He might have even won considering how unpopular Trump was among the democrats. And fighting against sooooo many dirty tricks.
The difference is indeed the mail-in voting. The vast majority of that went democrat vs. republican. Why was it not split along the same lines as in-person voting? Do democrats not vote unless it's easy? It is possible that democrats were much more effective in getting people who don't normally vote to vote by mail.
I believe that is largely explained by cities leaning Democrat and rural areas leaning Republican. Actually showing up in person to vote is a vastly different experience between the two, one involving standing in line for hours, maybe parking problems, and the other easy peasy in and out.
It’s possible this explains some of the additional 20 million votes, as many in the inner cities simply historically never bother to vote at all, possibly because of this logistical difficulty. Or from a feeling that their vote doesn’t matter anyway. But in 2020 you had a huge step up in “ballot harvesting”, paid operatives going into the hood, and nursing homes and the like, getting people to fill out a mail in ballot.
Then what was the difference in 2024? Why didn't vote by mail deliver the election to the Salad Shooter? More controls? Less interest? Dunno.
The RNC was wise to the fraud by 2024 and had time to assemble a massive team that closely watched all these corrupt swing districts. They couldn’t carry out the same bullshit they did in 2020 like ejecting Republican watchers from the counting room, boarding up windows so no one could see what was going on inside. They kept a keen watch for trucks to arrive with bales of paper ballots that hadn’t had a chain of custody, set up cameras at drop boxes, and when they caught a hint of attempted fraud, lawyers immediately filed suits putting the perpetrators on the immediate receiving end of judicial attention.
It was very effective. The Dems simply couldn’t pull it off again.
But either way, I think we're far better off now than if Trump had won in 2020.
Immensely. It really worked out for the best.
-
Actual data, please. Most sources I've found dispute this; PolitiFact rates this and similar claims "pants on fire".
Yes, PolitiFact is left-leaning. Nevertheless, a claim like this needs evidence.
Don’t you get it, yet?
When you read politically correct news services you get carefully altered results. Otherwise why would the democrat communist party be so intent on censorship of independent news (citizen journalism)?
Of course when you prearrange the news reports and collect millions thru USAID for doing so…
-
Don’t you get it, yet?
When you read politically correct news services you get carefully altered results. Otherwise why would the democrat communist party be so intent on censorship of independent news (citizen journalism)?
Of course when you prearrange the news reports and collect millions thru USAID for doing so…
Like I said, Politifact is nothing but another data point. My main point is that a highly disputed claim like this needs solid evidence, not just empty assertions. Proof that what you're saying is factually correct.
-
Like I said, Politifact is nothing but another data point. My main point is that a highly disputed claim like this needs solid evidence, not just empty assertions. Proof that what you're saying is factually correct.
When offered proof you pointedly ignore it choosing to constantly pretend that either the republicans might have done it too, or the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen posted, which is that the msn all say the same exact thing which makes their bullshit the gospel.
Reasoning with you is about as useful as trying to throw a one hundred dollar bill oast a democrat politician.
-
When offered proof you pointedly ignore it choosing to constantly pretend that either the republicans might have done it too, or the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen posted, which is that the msn all say the same exact thing which makes their bullshit the gospel.
Reasoning with you is about as useful as trying to throw a one hundred dollar bill oast a democrat politician.
What PROOF have you offered?
-
What PROOF have you offered?
You continue to demand more and reject every offering because your mind is a closed space incapable of honest evaluation.
It’s the oldest scam progressives employ, demand more, reject everything and pretend you were offered nothing.
Intellectual dishonesty at its best.
-
What PROOF have you offered?
back at ya.
what PROOF do you have that mail-in voting was secure.
-
back at ya.
what PROOF do you have that mail-in voting was secure.
Progressiveconstantly demand that which they will never provide, because they can’t. Progressives believe that if they are always demanding proof, o one will realize they have offer any.
-
Absentee Ballots can be used for military and others that can't vote in person, but a good reason and documentation is needed. We've always had them. Why loosen the standards?
-
back at ya.
what PROOF do you have that mail-in voting was secure.
I don't claim that it is. I said, a few posts back, that I agree that it is probably LESS secure than mail-in voting.
The proof I'm asking for is that massive fraud actually DID occur in the 2020 election, not that it theoretically COULD HAVE occurred. That IS the claim that people here are making, is it not?
-
Absentee Ballots can be used for military and others that can't vote in person, but a good reason and documentation is needed. We've always had them. Why loosen the standards?
I agree. The standards were loosened during the pandemic - justifiably, I think - but it's time to return to in-person voting for those who can, with the absentee ballot option available for those who NEED it, if only to stop the squabbling about this. Everyone agrees that in-person, paper ballots are as secure a form of voting as any we have, right? So why not just do it that way?
Vermont's Gov. Phil Scott yesterday opined that he does not support such a move because - well, it's not clear why, but apparently because it would be a lot of work, and expensive, to switch the whole system back. Maybe the controversy hasn't gotten too heated here - this is a state where way left progressives and MAGA people live, work, and eat side by side in a live and let live atmosphere. I can live with that - we'll probably never see a situation where VT's 3 electoral votes are crucial in a major election. But states that have become, or recently were, swing states should definitely consider it, imo.
-
A big problem in 2020 was the wat several states went about changing the laws to allow vote by mail. These laws were changed by governors and judges which bypassed the legislatures.
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
These states used the pandemic as their reason, however no where in the constitution does it give such relief. It was clearly a case of electioneering.
-
I don't claim that it is. I said, a few posts back, that I agree that it is probably LESS secure than mail-in voting.
The proof I'm asking for is that massive fraud actually DID occur in the 2020 election, not that it theoretically COULD HAVE occurred. That IS the claim that people here are making, is it not?
No we, or at least me, are claiming that massive fraud DID occur in the 2020 election, not just theoretically, but did in fact, but that it may or may not have swung the election.
There were other factors that “rigged” the election FOR CERTAIN that were not technically voter fraud. Censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story comes to mind as the biggest single thing. Polls show that 17% of Biden voters would not have pulled the lever for him if they had known about the laptop before the election, more than enough to swing the result. Yet it was suppressed by the Democratically controlled agencies and White House.
-
A big problem in 2020 was the wat several states went about changing the laws to allow vote by mail. These laws were changed by governors and judges which bypassed the legislatures.
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
These states used the pandemic as their reason, however no where in the constitution does it give such relief. It was clearly a case of electioneering.
Correct! This was another example of illegal election rigging that doesn’t necessarily require outright vote creation, just takes advantage of the huge proportion of mail-ins that are Democrat for whatever reason.
All of this is why I posted that Time article about the organized conspiracy (their own words) to “ensure a fair election”. The argument that this means actual “fair” is shown to be a lie in that none of what they did helped the Republican side, only the Democrats.
-
Correct! This was another example of illegal election rigging that doesn’t necessarily require outright vote creation, just takes advantage of the huge proportion of mail-ins that are Democrat for whatever reason.
All of this is why I posted that Time article about the organized conspiracy (their own words) to “ensure a fair election”. The argument that this means actual “fair” is shown to be a lie in that none of what they did helped the Republican side, only the Democrats.
I'm having a hard time seeing that as electioneering. Ideally, elections are decided by the majority of ALL eligible voters. But in practice, only those voters who take the trouble to actually vote have a voice, because voting is voluntary. There are lots of reasons why people don't vote - apathy, inability to research the candidates, family responsibilities (e,g, caregiving), lack of transportation to the polls, perhaps personal or health issues to name a few. In 2020 states like Vermont adopted universal mail-in voting so as not to encourage people to expose themselves to the virus, though the polls were still open for those who preferred to vote in person. A side-effect, of course, is that a lot of the people who were otherwise too apathetic or ill-informed to bother to vote filled in those ballots that everyone received.
If the majority of eligible people who fail to vote happen to be ones who would tend to vote Democrat, then all that means is that the Democrat vote would have been undercounted due to the choice of eligible voters to not vote. Giving those people an easy way to vote just brought the election closer to the ideal case where all eligible voters vote. I don't see that as election rigging at all - even if the decision was made knowing it would tend to boost the Democrat vote, and I'm not convinced anyone knew that for certain in advance.
-
I'm having a hard time seeing that as electioneering.
Then why not the legislature amend the law as set forth in the constitution? Why did judges and even governors feel they could just usurp the law? The governor could have called a special session of the legislature, had them create a bill and he could have signed it. So why bypass that process if everything was on the up and up?
Ideally, elections are decided by the majority of ALL eligible voters. But in practice, only those voters who take the trouble to actually vote have a voice, because voting is voluntary. There are lots of reasons why people don't vote - apathy, inability to research the candidates, family responsibilities (e,g, caregiving), lack of transportation to the polls, perhaps personal or health issues to name a few.
States make different methods to vote for those who truly can't get to the polls, and none of it is insurmountable. But those mail in ballots have layers of security and require signatures, and must be postmarked before no later than election day.
When the 2020 free for all mail in voting went into effect, ballots were mailed to everyone on the voter rolls. Didn't matter living or dead or had long moved away. Then requirements for signatures were relaxed. Several states even accepted mail in ballots passed election day or even no post mark.
Now enters the "ballot harvesters". These activist would go door to door offering to pick up ballots. Someone have several ballots mailed to their address for people that previously lived there? No problem, the ballot harvester would take them off your hands. See where this is going? And it was all "legal".
In 2020 states like Vermont adopted universal mail-in voting so as not to encourage people to expose themselves to the virus, though the polls were still open for those who preferred to vote in person. A side-effect, of course, is that a lot of the people who were otherwise too apathetic or ill-informed to bother to vote filled in those ballots that everyone received.
Or a ballot harvester got them.
If the majority of eligible people who fail to vote happen to be ones who would tend to vote Democrat, then all that means is that the Democrat vote would have been undercounted due to the choice of eligible voters to not vote. Giving those people an easy way to vote just brought the election closer to the ideal case where all eligible voters vote. I don't see that as election rigging at all - even if the decision was made knowing it would tend to boost the Democrat vote, and I'm not convinced anyone knew that for certain in advance.
See above. The activist behind the free for all mail in voting knew exactly what they were doing.
-
You nicely outlined my major issues with how 2020 was handled. The courts artificially changing the laws regarding when ballots are to be accepted when it's clearly against the law to do so.
And the ballot harvesting. Although technically legal, with the huge number of ballots sent to all registered voters then harvested from primarily democrat areas, this swung the election to FJB. What the courts did was illegal and fraud. The harvesting (as far as I know) was legal.
Then there's the barring of republican poll watchers from counting the ballots.
Lots of shenanigans going on. Some legal, some illegal. But all on the left.
-
Then why not the legislature amend the law as set forth in the constitution? Why did judges and even governors feel they could just usurp the law? The governor could have called a special session of the legislature, had them create a bill and he could have signed it. So why bypass that process if everything was on the up and up?
Expediency, would be my guess. The pandemic didn't really become a thing until spring 2020, when the election was only a few months away. Amending the constitution is a long process. The easiest and quickest way was by asking the courts to greenlight it.
States make different methods to vote for those who truly can't get to the polls, and none of it is insurmountable. But those mail in ballots have layers of security and require signatures, and must be postmarked before no later than election day.
When the 2020 free for all mail in voting went into effect, ballots were mailed to everyone on the voter rolls. Didn't matter living or dead or had long moved away. Then requirements for signatures were relaxed. Several states even accepted mail in ballots passed election day or even no post mark.
Now enters the "ballot harvesters". These activist would go door to door offering to pick up ballots. Someone have several ballots mailed to their address for people that previously lived there? No problem, the ballot harvester would take them off your hands. See where this is going? And it was all "legal".
Again, the question in my mind was never "could it have happened". I agree that universal mail-in voting has security holes and should be abandoned. The question was, did it? That's the crux of it, to me. Did this actually happen in 2020? Full stop. If you can't supply evidence that it actually did happen, then there is no point in discussing this further.
-
Expediency, would be my guess. The pandemic didn't really become a thing until spring 2020, when the election was only a few months away. Amending the constitution is a long process. The easiest and quickest way was by asking the courts to greenlight it.
Except there is NO legal avenue for the courts to "green light" it. We don't give the judicial the rights to over ride the legislative just because they feel it needs to be expedited. Nor does the constitution grant such powers.
Again, the question in my mind was never "could it have happened". I agree that universal mail-in voting has security holes and should be abandoned. The question was, did it? That's the crux of it, to me. Did this actually happen in 2020? Full stop. If you can't supply evidence that it actually did happen, then there is no point in discussing this further.
Again, while this was happening there were countless affidavits, legal briefs and investigations detailing how all of this was going down. The courts played legal jujitsu with standing in order to shut down lawsuits and even went after people for daring to bring these issues up. So yes, there is a ton of information out there for those willing to do the research and find it. Much of it was even discussed on this forum while it was happening.
You play the card " If you can't supply evidence that it actually did happen, then there is no point in discussing this further" which is an attempt to shut down debate and discussion. This is straight out of the liberal play book. The next step is when someone submits evidence, then attack the source of the evidence. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
-
Expediency, would be my guess. The pandemic didn't really become a thing until spring 2020, when the election was only a few months away. Amending the constitution is a long process. The easiest and quickest way was by asking the courts to greenlight it.
Again, the question in my mind was never "could it have happened". I agree that universal mail-in voting has security holes and should be abandoned. The question was, did it? That's the crux of it, to me. Did this actually happen in 2020? Full stop. If you can't supply evidence that it actually did happen, then there is no point in discussing this further.
I keep repeating YES. It happened and there is plenty of evidence it happened. What is not certain is whether it was enough vote fraud via mail in ballots to swing the election. That’s what we don’t have sufficient evidence of afaik. But we do have evidence that when combined with other means of tampering with the election, on the whole they DID swing the election, such as implementing mail in ballots in the first place, not reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, lying to the public about just about everything via a Democrat controlled MSM, etc. etc.
-
I keep repeating YES. It happened and there is plenty of evidence it happened. What is not certain is whether it was enough vote fraud via mail in ballots to swing the election. That’s what we don’t have sufficient evidence of afaik. But we do have evidence that when combined with other means of tampering with the election, on the whole they DID swing the election, such as implementing mail in ballots in the first place, not reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, lying to the public about just about everything via a Democrat controlled MSM, etc. etc.
Ok. So please, where is this evidence? I mean, that fraud occurred on a massive scale? Seriously, I will re-evaluate my position if I see credible evidence. That's all I ask for here. Not statements that there WAS plenty of evidence, but the evidence itself, or links to it.
-
Ok. So please, where is this evidence? I mean, that fraud occurred on a massive scale? Seriously, I will re-evaluate my position if I see credible evidence. That's all I ask for here. Not statements that there WAS plenty of evidence, but the evidence itself, or links to it.
Internet searches are really difficult huh? Even this forum has a search function, and if you could figure that out you would find numerous links of such information.
-
Internet searches are really difficult huh? Even this forum has a search function, and if you could figure that out you would find numerous links of such information.
Sure. But I'm looking for the evidence that convinced people here. I can find lots of claims and allegations, mostly on far-right sites. But I'm not sure how much of that is credible, and everything I've found so far is either hotly disputed or has been "debunked".
-
Sure. But I'm looking for the evidence that convinced people here. I can find lots of claims and allegations, mostly on far-right sites. But I'm not sure how much of that is credible, and everything I've found so far is either hotly disputed or has been "debunked".
Yep, left wing MSM sites will dispute and debunk anything that doesn’t fit a narrative. They’ll play games such as “this was tossed out by the court” without going into detail, such as the judge tossed it without looking at evidence using a standing claim. So it was tossed on the merits of evidence.
There were several left wing “fact checkers” going so far as to claim affidavits were not proof and not admissible in court as evidence. Of course they are a part of the evidence as it allows the prosecutorial side to depose those as well as the defense.
Legal jujitsu was running amuck during this time and had the full protection of the MSM.
-
Yep, left wing MSM sites will dispute and debunk anything that doesn’t fit a narrative. They’ll play games such as “this was tossed out by the court” without going into detail, such as the judge tossed it without looking at evidence using a standing claim. So it was tossed on the merits of evidence.
There were several left wing “fact checkers” going so far as to claim affidavits were not proof and not admissible in court as evidence. Of course they are a part of the evidence as it allows the prosecutorial side to depose those as well as the defense.
Legal jujitsu was running amuck during this time and had the full protection of the MSM.
But there are sites, news sources, that are fairly neutral - I'd put WSJ in that category. It helps that their editorial page is generally sympathetic to Trump. But I wasn't a subscriber in 2020, and all the articles on the subject that I've found from the "interregnum" say things like "there is no corroborated evidence of widespread voter fraud".
I'm looking for neutral sites with evidence from multiple sources that points to widespread fraud - and so far I haven't found any.
-
Did this actually happen in 2020? Full stop. If you can't supply evidence that it actually did happen, then there is no point in discussing this further.
And this is where you and I disagree.
Absent evidence that the mail-in voting was secure, nobody can claim the results were valid. I don't have to show any fraud occurred, I'm not making the claim, without evidence, that the election was valid.
but you are right, there is no point in discussing this with someone who is willing to accept unsecure voting.
-
Ok. So please, where is this evidence? I mean, that fraud occurred on a massive scale? Seriously, I will re-evaluate my position if I see credible evidence. That's all I ask for here. Not statements that there WAS plenty of evidence, but the evidence itself, or links to it.
But there are sites, news sources, that are fairly neutral - I'd put WSJ in that category. It helps that their editorial page is generally sympathetic to Trump. But I wasn't a subscriber in 2020, and all the articles on the subject that I've found from the "interregnum" say things like "there is no corroborated evidence of widespread voter fraud".
I'm looking for neutral sites with evidence from multiple sources that points to widespread fraud - and so far I haven't found any.
I didn't say massive or widespread. All that was needed was a tiny amount of targeted fraud.
Massive, widespread fraud is not needed, nor even attempted. Out of the 3580 voter districts total in the U.S., only 19 of them controlled the outcome; in the 6 swing states, in the 2020 election. Those swing states and their key counties and districts were very easily identified and targeted leading up to the election.
That's ALL they had to target. 19 out of 3580 is one half of one percent. 0.53% to be exact.
The less massive and widespread it is, the easier to cover up and hide the evidence after the fact. You see lots of debunking of fraud claims, but most of it is debunking claims everywhere else, or generally as a whole, not those swing districts, and there were a lot of red herrings. So a lot of debunking is correct, but irrelevant.
A conspiracy theorist might even think that was deliberately orchestrated to drown out the real fraud in an ocean of fake claims and debunkings.
-
"Debunking"? I hear that word bandied about, without evidence, all the time. If two fact-checkers close their eyes and say "Pants on fire", that seems to constitute debunking.
-
I didn't say massive or widespread. All that was needed was a tiny amount of targeted fraud.
Massive, widespread fraud is not needed, nor even attempted. Out of the 3580 voter districts total in the U.S., only 19 of them controlled the outcome; in the 6 swing states, in the 2020 election. Those swing states and their key counties and districts were very easily identified and targeted leading up to the election.
That's ALL they had to target. 19 out of 3580 is one half of one percent. 0.53% to be exact.
The less massive and widespread it is, the easier to cover up and hide the evidence after the fact. You see lots of debunking of fraud claims, but most of it is debunking claims everywhere else, or generally as a whole, not those swing districts, and there were a lot of red herrings. So a lot of debunking is correct, but irrelevant.
A conspiracy theorist might even think that was deliberately orchestrated to drown out the real fraud in an ocean of fake claims and debunkings.
Yes, *targeted* fraud is easier to perpetrate. But consider - in e.g. GA, the margin was something like 11,800 votes. That's still a pretty massive fraud. So the question is, was there *that* much fraud? That's what I would need evidence for.
And the other question, and I recall raising this before, is whether those 19 districts were *known beforehand*. In order to perpetrate targeted fraud, you have to know which districts to target. My recollection (vague) is that the polls had the candidates within the margin of error over many more districts than that. So I'm not sure that a limited, targeted fraud operation could have been designed based on what was known before the election. It may have required a much larger and more difficult operation.
-
"Debunking"? I hear that word bandied about, without evidence, all the time. If two fact-checkers close their eyes and say "Pants on fire", that seems to constitute debunking.
Hence the scare quotes. I take claims of debunking with a grain of salt, too. But if the validity of a piece of evidence is hotly disputed, and I have no wait to tell which side in the dispute has the better argument, then it stays as an unproven claim as far as I'm concerned.
-
Yes, *targeted* fraud is easier to perpetrate. But consider - in e.g. GA, the margin was something like 11,800 votes. That's still a pretty massive fraud. So the question is, was there *that* much fraud? That's what I would need evidence for.
And the other question, and I recall raising this before, is whether those 19 districts were *known beforehand*. In order to perpetrate targeted fraud, you have to know which districts to target. My recollection (vague) is that the polls had the candidates within the margin of error over many more districts than that. So I'm not sure that a limited, targeted fraud operation could have been designed based on what was known before the election. It may have required a much larger and more difficult operation.
Oh okay, you mean massive in a relative sense. 11K votes doesn't seem massive to me but alright.
From memory, those six states were accurately identified as swing but there were a couple more, maybe North Carolina and Ohio, bandied about before the election. The key districts within those states are predictable: the most densely populated, hence the easiest to scare up extra votes, and also usually already heavily Democratic which might mean more Democrats in control of the polls and the process.
-
So, what was happening here?
-
we all know that video can be faked...
-
Locker up.
-
we all know that video can be faked...
That's not the problem - the problem is the images are so blurry you really can't tell what she's doing.
If this is Ruby Freeman (I think that was her name), I recall reading that she and her daughter were accused by Rudy Giuliani, and they sued Giuliani for libel or defamation and won a judgment.
-
And this is where you and I disagree.
Absent evidence that the mail-in voting was secure, nobody can claim the results were valid. I don't have to show any fraud occurred, I'm not making the claim, without evidence, that the election was valid.
but you are right, there is no point in discussing this with someone who is willing to accept unsecure voting.
I'm on record as favoring a return to in-person voting (with an absentee option for those with a documented need), so I definitely am not willing to "accept unsecure voting".
What I disagree with is the statement that "nobody can claim the results are valid". If all or even much of the alleged fraud was investigated and found to not have happened, or to have been orders of magnitude smaller than what would be needed to sway the election, then the claim is justified. Certainly at that point the burden of proof falls on someone claiming that the election actually was stolen.
What I'm willing to accept is that the security holes in mail-in voting didn't result in THAT election being rigged - given that none of the claims of fraud that I'm aware of have panned out.
-
Thought experiment:
Imagine a vaccine has been developed. In order for the vaccine to be effective it must be cooked for exactly 60 minutes at 195 deg F (+/1 1 deg F).
Unfortunately, the equipment monitoring the temperature was inop for the entire 60 minutes.
Do you use the vaccine even though you don't have proof that the temperature wasn't 195 deg F?
-
Thought experiment:
Imagine a vaccine has been developed. In order for the vaccine to be effective it must be cooked for exactly 60 minutes at 195 deg F (+/1 1 deg F).
Unfortunately, the equipment monitoring the temperature was inop for the entire 60 minutes.
Do you use the vaccine even though you don't have proof that the temperature wasn't 195 deg F?
Bingo! This was exactly the case in the forensic analysis of the Dominion machine. The pertinent files had been deleted. Not proof of fraud, but the proof of “monitoring” was missing, so no proof of no fraud.
Because of many similar “smoke but no fire” scenarios, trust is destroyed.
What is the appropriate response when trust is destroyed? Whether or not it’s justified? The appropriate response according to the left is to call us Nazis. Yeah, like that’ll make us trust the system again, as they insist on keeping universal mail in ballots and no voter ID.
-
Thought experiment:
Imagine a vaccine has been developed. In order for the vaccine to be effective it must be cooked for exactly 60 minutes at 195 deg F (+/1 1 deg F).
Unfortunately, the equipment monitoring the temperature was inop for the entire 60 minutes.
Do you use the vaccine even though you don't have proof that the temperature wasn't 195 deg F?
A better thought experiment:
Your scenario, but there is no option to get another batch of vaccine and cook it properly, BUT there is a way to test the vaccine to make sure that it is effective. The vaccine tests ok. In that case, yes, use it.
My understanding is that the machines in at least Georgia were checked by hand counting the ballots (a pretty relevant test, no?) and no significant discrepancy was uncovered that would have pointed to the machines having been tampered with. I think this was done for at least one other swing state - maybe Michigan, since I recall there was a big stink about whether the machines in Antrim County had been correctly tabulated.
-
The same counties have the same discrepancies in every election.
The instant people question out of control tabulations the left starts screaming racism, voter suppression, and my favorite, democracy is being destroyed.
because everybody knows insuring that the person registered to vote is the person voting is racist... But only if you're a communist democrat.
-
It's entirely possible to count the ballots by hand that was run through the machine and everything matches. But does that mean there was no fraud? Not at all.
The voter roll has 1,000 voters on it. Most alive, some dead and some moved.
1,000 ballots are mailed out to each voter on the roll. After election day all 1,000 ballots are returned and ran through tabulators. The election is over.
Was it fair? Each vote was counted by a tabulator, then hand counted. Some ballots didn't have a signature, some ballots had no post mark. Do we still have a fair election? How did those dead voters cast a ballot? Or those people that moved years ago, how did they get a ballot and get it back, oh, and why did they even vote there if they weren't a resident?
It's not about the votes. It's about ballots.
This is why the democrats cry and scream when mentioning cleaning up voter rolls. Getting these people off the rolls reduces the number of ballots. Remember, it's about the ballots.
During 2020 there were precincts that reported 100% voter participation. Think about that when the voter rolls are outdated.
Mail in voting is all about flooding the precincts with ballots.
-
we all know that video can be faked...
There are numerous videos of tampering with voting machines in several districts, in various States. It wasn't an isolated incident.
Add ballot harvesting and fraudulent mail in votes. That election was a disgrace.
-
What do we think of a national holiday for voting?
-
What do we think of a national holiday for voting?
I think we need to return to "election day", one day only. ID to vote, paper ballots only. We can still have absentee ballots, but with conditions and security.
If we did this above, just imagine what elections would look like. And imagine how much the landscape would change as you would get a better picture of the true political leanings of the country.
Exactly why the democrats oppose it.
-
@azure
You keep asking for evidence and in general I’m too busy to try to go back and find what I saw happening in real time but I was easily able to find this, which backs my memory of seeing a photo sample of the xerox duplication she was talking about:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/06/08/why_a_judge_has_georgia_vote_fraud_on_his_mind_pristine_biden_ballots_that_look_xeroxed_779795.html
Now before you tell me real clear investigations is a right wing biased source, the foundational facts are undisputed. She did make that claim, she was indeed fired, and so on. Here’s your credibility check for that source. It is right center but not far right:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/
But that article was written in 2021 so what happened since? I asked Grok for all the subsequent events and to conclude for me whether the allegations were PROVEN FALSE or NOT PROVEN TRUE, which as I hope you know as an intelligent individual, are two completely different things.
Grok wrote War and Peace about all what happened next but the long and short of it is that the fraud was NOT proven false. And also not proven true. The latter is what was emphasized to the public, but mischaracterized as the former, if you can follow that nuance.
The investigation was carried out by (allegedly) biased state officials (who had a vested interest in not being made fools of wrt election integrity) and the ballots were NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR BIPARTISAN INSPECTION. No independent third parties were allowed to inspect them.
The report concluded no fraud was found. However, they only looked at 1000 of them, out of 147,000. Proving no fraud in those 1000 says nothing whatsoever about whether there was fraud in all the rest, however, that conclusion was asserted to the public as “proof” there was no fraud period. That simply was not true.
How do we even trust what they said about the 1000? Or that they didn’t cherry pick those 1000?
This is the sort of thing that happened with many of these suspected fraud claims and the source of much of the “debunking” you read about in media sources, which don’t accurately discern the nuance between “no evidence of fraud” and “proof of no fraud”.
I believe the woman, who lost her job because what she saw was convincing enough to her. It’s also easy to believe in a strong motive to cover this up, many of whom - including many Republicans - honestly thought that even if there was enough fraud to steal the election that to avoid a hot civil war we need to just anoint Biden and move on. *
Over and over again we saw this happen in real time. Accusations of fraud being investigated by the same officials who were in charge of the process in the first place, denial of independent or bipartisan access, declarations of no fraud being found, and then a heavy campaign of censorship and persecution of “election deniers” - a very dystopian twist since the Dems had just spent half a decade denying the 2016 election. An Orwellian level of rhetoric reversal, absolute gaslighting.
* In their defense, some of them thought they were doing the right thing, and maybe they were. We can’t know what would have happened if Pence had failed to certify and Biden ended up not inaugurated; it was an alternate timeline we can’t see, but the end result in our timeline was the destruction of trust in the system, and we have talked enough about how dangerous that is. We need to fix that now. Nothing short of banning mail in ballots and vote machines, and requiring photo ID will come close to accomplishing that.
-
Elections and ballots.
If you want to open the system up for fraud, the way to do it is loosen the parameters.
Start with election day. Change it to election week or election month. Then, introduce more ways to vote and cloak it in "we need to make voting more accessible". Introduce voting machines (the type that tabulates without a paper document and purely electronic). Then expand mail in voting to anyone and everyone. Loosen requirements for signature verification. Drop requirements for postmarks.
Then refuse to clean voter rolls by using arguments of "infringement" or "it takes too long, it's too expensive" or "it could possibly prevent someone from voting".
To put this into hyperdrive then allow for ballot harvesting and drop boxes.
-
What do we think of a national holiday for voting?
Strongly in favor. I’m not opposed to early voting but only a very short timeframe, maybe a week. The longer you have early voting the more risk of late breaking news impacting the vote.
Early in-person voting with the same ID requirements should not be that much of fraud risk and might alleviate some of the logistics problems in densely populated areas.
-
Strongly in favor. I’m not opposed to early voting but only a very short timeframe, maybe a week. The longer you have early voting the more risk of late breaking news impacting the vote.
Early in-person voting with the same ID requirements should not be that much of fraud risk and might alleviate some of the logistics problems in densely populated areas.
The problem with expanding the vote to more than a day is it gives the opposition time to crank up a hoax and have their propaganda MSM run with it 24/7. A couple of days news cycle will do it.
Yes, they could do the same with a single election day but the impact is much greater over time, thus one reason of expanding election "season" from election "day".
We need to drop back to election day, paper ballots and voter ID with strict absentee ballot rules and clean voter rolls. This will be shocking to see the results.
-
Elections and ballots.
If you want to open the system up for fraud, the way to do it is loosen the parameters.
Start with election day. Change it to election week
One week is okay.
or election month.
Nope.
Then, introduce more ways to vote and cloak it in "we need to make voting more accessible". Introduce voting machines (the type that tabulates without a paper document and purely electronic). Then expand mail in voting to anyone and everyone. Loosen requirements for signature verification. Drop requirements for postmarks.
Then refuse to clean voter rolls by using arguments of "infringement" or "it takes too long, it's too expensive" or "it could possibly prevent someone from voting".
To put this into hyperdrive then allow for ballot harvesting and drop boxes.
No, no, no, no, no, and… no. If my count is correct.
But if you were king and banned even one week of early voting I’d not oppose you. I see your point about letting one foot in the door.
-
The problem with expanding the vote to more than a day is it gives the opposition time to crank up a hoax and have their propaganda MSM run with it 24/7. A couple of days news cycle will do it.
Yes, they could do the same with a single election day but the impact is much greater over time, thus one reason of expanding election "season" from election "day".
We need to drop back to election day, paper ballots and voter ID with strict absentee ballot rules and clean voter rolls. This will be shocking to see the results.
Cross post… you’re right they would crank the propaganda into overdrive.
-
I see your point about letting one foot in the door.
Exactly. And that's what has been happening. Slowly but surely the parameters have been opening up, like boiling the frog. Election 2020 an the scamdemic opened it up to epic proportions, and that level the communist democrats want to keep.
Keep voting strict and the shenanigans can't take hold.
-
What do we think of a national holiday for voting?
I like that idea. There are several current national holiday's that I would be happy to trade for a voting holiday.
But I don't think there are any laws that say private employers have to observe national holidays. There are just too many jobs that just have to be staffed all the time.
But I think a two-day voting period would work. Or perhaps make voting "day" last 24 hours. Few people work 24 hour shifts, except maybe firemen.
How about this: Make the First Friday in November a holiday, and make that Friday and the following Saturday the voting window. Almost ANYBODY should be able to find some time to vote during that window.
-
Azure, have you watched the videos that Eppy and Rush posted? (and there are MANY more just like them from other precincts).
Even if you don't believe what they say, can you at least admit that you can see why some people really do believe the election was stolen?
And if you can, then what do you think would be an appropriate response to a stolen election if the courts block hearing the evidence due to "Standing"?
Should people just sit back and accept it?
-
That's not the problem - the problem is the images are so blurry you really can't tell what she's doing.
If this is Ruby Freeman (I think that was her name), I recall reading that she and her daughter were accused by Rudy Giuliani, and they sued Giuliani for libel or defamation and won a judgment.
I can’t tell if she is rescanning the stack or there was a jam and she removed to scan. Some were indeed scanned twice for legitimate reasons, but supposedly those were identified and the duplicates not counted as per protocol. Claims are this footage was edited, cut and pasted to make it appear she was scanning multiple times but the entirety of the footage doesn’t. As for the suitcases under the table, those had been previously opened (while Republicans were there) and signature verified and were stowed for later counting, or so the counter claim.
The problem again, is that independent investigation and disclosure was never made. The same election officials did all the recounting and investigation, and we are told to STFU and take their word for it. So once again: No proof of fraud but also no proof of no fraud.
If there is no fraud and nothing to hide, what's with denying the other side participation in the investigation?
For what it’s worth, I am firmly against what happened to Freeman; doxing her, repeatedly accusing her publicly as Giuliani and Trump did, mobs harassing her at her home, death threats, causing her to close her business, basically ruining her life, when it remains possible she is innocent. I do not know if she is guilty, but neither does anyone else based on that video.
There is a pervasive pattern accompanying all the suspected fraud allegations, that is, partisan investigation, biased judges, case dismissals before considering evidence, denial of access to ballots and recounts, and brutal media control of the narrative.
There is no way to prove whether it is a massive coverup of fraud, (note: I said massive coverup of fraud, not coverup of massive fraud), or a massive government led operation to squelch dissent in the interest of avoiding violent riots and even open civil war.
I think it is one or the other, or both. What it is not is an open honest straightforward bipartisan effort to address the reasonable concerns of those of us who saw huge statistical anomalies in the results. That’s the bottom line underlying all the individual suspicions of fraud. In normal elections it is statistically impossible for Biden to have won. But in normal elections we have never had universal mail in ballots.
It is more than fair to ask for a deep dive into whether the mail ins could reverse decades if not centuries of statistics. And that can’t happen without proving as much as possible that the results were not due to fraud. And it is self evident that any deep dive into that would need to be open and bipartisan.
THAT is what the J6ers wanted. It wasn’t an insurrection. It wasn’t an attempted coup. It was merely a demand for answers to the above. How do I know this? Because I was one of them. I came close to being there myself. I followed all the online rhetoric building up to it and was of the same mind: It was a rage about a perceived stolen election and perceived cover-up, and a demand for transparency and answers. A temporary delay in certification while an honest investigation was carried out would have been nice. That’s it. Nobody wanted to kill anybody, nobody wanted to overthrow the government, nobody wanted to overthrow the Constitution.
I made plans to travel there and attend that rally but quickly came to terms with the fact that my age, arthritis, and old lady bladder would not tolerate it. For the best as it turns out, or I’d have probably spent the last few years in prison.
-
I like that idea. There are several current national holiday's that I would be happy to trade for a voting holiday.
But I don't think there are any laws that say private employers have to observe national holidays. There are just too many jobs that just have to be staffed all the time.
But I think a two-day voting period would work. Or perhaps make voting "day" last 24 hours. Few people work 24 hour shifts, except maybe firemen.
How about this: Make the First Friday in November a holiday, and make that Friday and the following Saturday the voting window. Almost ANYBODY should be able to find some time to vote during that window.
I’d be okay with a law mandating private employers take the holiday. Exceptions to be made for first responders, hardship cases, jobs requiring 24/7 plant operation, healthcare and so on. These can be handled by absentee ballots, maybe splitting shifts between employees so each can have a half day off.
Such a law is federally authoritarian but in the interest of what’s actually right, not an example of malicious authoritarianism. Like the fucking federal government telling us we can’t flush down our poop with more than 1.6 gallons of water, may they rot in Hell for all eternity.
Maybe a two day period as a compromise with Lucifer’s one week is too much. I like your 24 hour idea, although it would be tough to work a 12 hour shift then stand in line to vote.
-
Just watched this Mike Rowe interview with NHick Searcy about the movies he's done.
-
ALWAYS seems to happen when democrats count ballots.
MN Dems Yank Socialist Mayoral Candidate’s Endorsement After Major Vote Counting Failures
The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party has nullified the results of the Minneapolis DFL’s July 19 endorsement convention after the party’s Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee (CBRC) found “substantial failures” in the convention’s voting process.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/22/mn-dems-yank-socialist-mayoral-candidates-endorsement-after-major-vote-counting-failures/
-
Gee… it looks like the people working for whomever was running the government for the delaware state vegetable had burn bags full of eveidence of vote fraud and suppressed it from coming to light.
I’m sure those who claim that it never happened because it didn’t happen in front of them will make up a brand new excuse to pretend it didn’t happen.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/dni-tulsi-gabbard-uncovers-burn-bags-documents-tied/
-
Gee… it looks like the people working for whomever was running the government for the delaware state vegetable had burn bags full of eveidence of vote fraud and suppressed it from coming to light.
I’m sure those who claim that it never happened because it didn’t happen in front of them will make up a brand new excuse to pretend it didn’t happen.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/dni-tulsi-gabbard-uncovers-burn-bags-documents-tied/
They need to stop with the teases, since the Epstein file disaster. Just don’t say anything until you’re ready to release all of it publicly. It’s going to be bad if they never follow up with this.
-
They need to stop with the teases, since the Epstein file disaster. Just don’t say anything until you’re ready to release all of it publicly. It’s going to be bad if they never follow up with this.
I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. As it is, I have zero faith that this will pan out as described. I have seen this movie way too often.
-
I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. As it is, I have zero faith that this will pan out as described. I have seen this movie way too often.
It’s perplexing that they don’t seem to understand they’re being Lucy and the football. The last thing they need to do is damage our trust. They’ve come too far to lose momentum now. We are far from out of danger of the opposition taking back control.
This one better pan out.
-
This one better pan out.
Don't hold your breath Charlie Brown.
-
(https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/vote-by-fail-768x909.jpg)
-
Now why on earth would he be doing that?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/report-broward-county-fl-officials-caught-adding-100000/
Florida GOP Chairman Evan Power sounded the alarm Monday on the alleged “voter fraud” taking place in Broward County Florida.
According to Power, the Broward County Supervisor Joe Scott reportedly added 100,000 ineligible voters back into the voter rolls recently.
-
Broward has a horrible reputation for voting chicanery.
Nothing you hear about them is too far out to be impossible.