FN Herstal Firearms banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
Glowing your claim of "lost the election Bigly" does not really hold water. Trump dominated the polls everywhere except major metropolitan areas. The vast majority of the country would of preferred him to serve a second term. In the large population centers where there is alot of "free cheese" at stake and the swamp is very deep- and the validity of the vote is more difficult to confirm, a very thin margin of total votes changed the overall outcome of the election. We can both agree that the Left has some very scary intentions on their agenda that could be very bad for alot of hard working Americans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
According to 60 minutes who interviewed the Georgia SoS, those were ballots placed in containers after the polling people were told that vote counting would stop for the night. But after the SoS said no, we will continue to count the votes, and they removed the vote containers from under the tables and counted the votes, so says the SoS of Georgia.

But I have yet to see anyone debunk the multiple runs of the same ballots through the tabulation machines.
Would this help?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
Isn't the "of significant voter fraud" concerning? And what was said was "...of significant voter fraud to change the outcome...", but there was an admission of voter fraud and that is what has people pissed about this entire election. This in itself is a statement that says that millions of votes were fraudulent across the nation that may have been spread around up to 6 states if not more. So what I see is an admission of voter fraud, not enough to change the outcome of the election, but enough that if you look at the total votes, potentially millions of votes were fraudulent. And it is mind boggling that people sprout the "most free and fair election" blah blah blah, when it obviously was not.

When courts come in and change election law arbitrarily by stealing the authority from the State Legislatures as happened in PA to adjust voter laws that only the State Legislatures has authority over is very disconcerting. Activist judges screwing with the election laws.....

When the SoS of Georgia changed the rules to favor the less stringent Democratic verification of voter discrepancies but left the more intrusive and stringent Republican verification in place, to settle a Democratic lawsuit, that was also against the law.

However, when lawsuits were filed on these very subjects, they were thrown out - not because there was evidence heard - but because there was "no standing".... ie You have no voice in this regardless what the evidence you want to produce is because "the Courts do not want to hear it". This in itself is a verification of what I said long before the election.....the courts will find every avenue to NOT get involved in this election process.

The cheese can be cut 14 different ways but it still stinks. But when election laws are violated and courts do nothing to curb it..... That is a problem.

People contesting the "free and fair election" are not some stupid class of citizens.... and I am appalled that there is not more concern shown for election integrity. The Democratic Party does not want election integrity - by their very statements they want EVERY VOTE COUNTED, not every legal vote counted.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm sure you are aware, HK, that there is fraud in EVERY state-wide election. That's just a sad commentary on human nature. However, we're talking about a few fraudulent votes here and there, not "millions". You make a stupendous leap going from a few isolated instances to millions. What evidence do you have for that incredible claim? None, I'll wager! If you (or anyone else did), it would have been all over the "mainstream" media--instead of just the right-wing propaganda outlets.

As to activist courts and the GA SoS, guess what? Neither one arbitrarily changed election laws! You just don't agree with their decisions! Neither of our opinions matters a whit on the matter. The opinions of the Courts are what matters, and they have been unanimous on these issues.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "standing" means in a legal sense. In order to entertain a case against someone in a court of law, you have to show that you have personally suffered a real and tangible harm, that is, you have to have "standing". Many of the lawsuits brought on behalf of team trump were dismissed because of lack of standing. The suing party was not able to show that they had sufficient connection to a verifiable harm under the laws of our Nation. It's not that the courts and all the judges and justices on them just suddenly decided to conspire to deny team trump their rights. Rather, team trump's legal arguments were laughably insufficient and amateurish and so were booted out.

Many lawsuits were also tossed, with prejudice, because of an utter lack of evidence. Take the opinion from Judge Bibas of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (who was a Trump appointee, BTW), "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Let that sink in for a second. You don't have specific allegations and you don't have proof! Repeating your baseless claims of voter fraud over and over and over does not make it so--no matter how fervently you believe them or how many people agree with you.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
According to 60 minutes who interviewed the Georgia SoS, those were ballots placed in containers after the polling people were told that vote counting would stop for the night. But after the SoS said no, we will continue to count the votes, and they removed the vote containers from under the tables and counted the votes, so says the SoS of Georgia.

But I have yet to see anyone debunk the multiple runs of the same ballots through the tabulation machines.
Just because you haven't seen anyone debunk these claims doesn't mean they haven't been debunked multiple times.

Think about it, for just a minute or two. Just for kicks, let's say you're right and some nefarious election worker ran multiple ballots through the machines multiple times. That would mean there were more votes tallied then the records of votes cast, which would have been easily identified. ALso, those same ballots would have to be illegally run through on each of the two independent recounts! It's just not possible.

In the end, you have incomplete and non-definitive evidence that something happened. But what exactly happened isn't clear. You jump straight to laud cries of "Fraud!", but there are many other possible, simpler and non-nefarious, interpretations of the events you mention.

Needless to say, the election experts looked into it and found nothing wrong. People who do this for a living, literally the professionals. Yet, you ignore their results because it doesn't fit with your worldview. (I use the word "you" in a general sense, not at you, HK, specifically).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
I am sorry but you lost me after I read "According to 60 minutes".

The video doesn't lie. You don't push everyone out then start counting votes in a free and fair election. Both sides should be present to ensure free and fair.

I am asking Glowing Plasma to CONDEMN running the same ballots through multiple times.

Otherwise we can all assume without any doubt that Glowing Plasma is pushing a false narrative and has zero credibility. Running the same ballot through multiple times is FRUAD and if he refuses to Condemn it then he has no credibility.
A priori, I DO NOT condemn running the same ballots through multiple times., because I do not know what happened--and neither do you. Perhaps the ballots did not scan properly, so the clerk had to scan them again. Perhaps, the clerk was just testing the machine and no results were recorded. You don't KNOW what actually happened! You take an ambiguous video and assume that your speculation as to what happened is not only possible but is the only possible explanation. That is ridiculous.

As it happens, poll watchers from both sides were present to help ensure the election count was free and fair, but you just dismiss that inconvenient fact and instead bring up these kind of speculative claims.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
Glowing your claim of "lost the election Bigly" does not really hold water. Trump dominated the polls everywhere except major metropolitan areas. The vast majority of the country would of preferred him to serve a second term. In the large population centers where there is alot of "free cheese" at stake and the swamp is very deep- and the validity of the vote is more difficult to confirm, a very thin margin of total votes changed the overall outcome of the election. We can both agree that the Left has some very scary intentions on their agenda that could be very bad for alot of hard working Americans.
So, you're saying that Trump dominated the polls--except in places that had a lot more population than the rural areas where he was popular? Yeah, I'd agree with that. Other than the significant majority of people who don't like trump, almost everybody else loved him. There is a strong urban-suburban/rural divide when it comes to support for Trump. The vast majority of the country clearly DID NOT prefer to give him a 2nd term. That's why he lost the popular election by 7 million votes. The majority of the country DID NOT prefer to give him a 1st term. That's why he lost the 2016 popular election by 3 million votes. He has never consistently polled above 50% approval at any point during his presidency.

Just FYI, there is more "free cheese" that goes to rural areas and red states than goes to urban areas and blue states on a per-capita basis.

Finally, no, we do not agree on the left. I think the Left has a lot of great ideas that will profoundly help working Americans and indeed all Americans in general. YMMV.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,725 Posts
And when the SoS of Texas joined with other States to sue the PA SoS for the unilateral actions he took without the authority of the PA Legislature, they were denied process due to lack of standing. I know exactly what lack of standing is.

I know that some lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing and some for other reasons. I have read the decisions as to why, have you?

When you talk an election of 159,633,396 votes (compared to 136,669,276 in 2016) a mere 1 million is essentially much less than a percentage point. So no, 1 million is not out of the realm of reality and neither is 2 million. Double counts, etc also played a role.

I am not going to get into a long diatribe about this again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
As it happens, poll watchers from both sides were present to help ensure the election count was free and fair, but you just dismiss that inconvenient fact and instead bring up these kind of speculative claims.
That is a lie. There were not poll watchers from both sides present when the video clearly shows the poll workers running the same ballots through multiple times.

You should immediately apologize to the forum for lying. Everyone can see that you are lying by watching the video. The video shows the poll workers pulling hidden box from under a table after everyone but them leave. It clearly shows them running the ballots multiple times.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,725 Posts
.......

Think about it, for just a minute or two. Just for kicks, let's say you're right and some nefarious election worker ran multiple ballots through the machines multiple times. That would mean there were more votes tallied then the records of votes cast, which would have been easily identified. ALso, those same ballots would have to be illegally run through on each of the two independent recounts! It's just not possible.

......
Think about this. Once a mail in fraudulent vote is separated from the oath envellope, no matter if you count the fraudulent vote 1 million times, the count will be correct. A fraudulent vote counted once or 1 thousand times in recounts is still a fraudulent vote.

The place to catch this was before the votes were separated from the envelopes. And there was a lawsuit about vote signature verification machines, dismissed.

And I want to know how PA was able to verify oath signatures against voter rolls of 2.6 million mail in ballots in less than 72 hours when they were not even able to open the outer envellope to get to the oath envellope until after 7pm on election might.

The only plausible explanation is that this process was minimized to get the count done.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mailed ballots, prohibiting counties from rejecting them if the voter’s signature on it does not resemble the signature on the voter’s registration form.

“County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the justices wrote.

Yup.....vote integrity. Let's just throw out that process of voter verification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Think about this. Once a mail in fraudulent vote is separated from the oath envellope, no matter if you count the fraudulent vote 1 million times, the count will be correct. A fraudulent vote counted once or 1 thousand times in recounts is still a fraudulent vote.

The place to catch this was before the votes were separated from the envelopes. And there was a lawsuit about vote signature verification machines, dismissed.

And I want to know how PA was able to verify oath signatures against voter rolls of 2.6 million mail in ballots in less than 72 hours when they were not even able to open the outer envellope to get to the oath envellope until after 7pm on election might.

The only plausible explanation is that this process was minimized to get the count done.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mailed ballots, prohibiting counties from rejecting them if the voter’s signature on it does not resemble the signature on the voter’s registration form.

“County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the justices wrote.

Yup.....vote integrity. Let's just throw out that process of voter verification.
I’m saying this from recent memory, but it’s the only way it makes sense to me. I voted by mail. Of course I am in Montana, not Pennsylvania.
There are two envelopes. The innermost one is the privacy envelope. It has no markings on it to identify the voter. That’s to protect the anonymity of the voter.
The outer envelope is the one with the oath/signature on one side and the address and postage on the other. So, my signature was on the outside of the envelope as it made its way through the mail. I voted three weeks or so before Election Day. My signature was verified and I was able to see that my envelope had been received safely at a website maintained by the Montana Secretary of State. So, at least for my state verification of ballots happened throughout the period leading up to Election Day which would greatly reduce the urgency.
Unless three envelopes were nested within each other I don’t see how the signature/oath would be concealed and voter privacy assured, thereby forcing verification into a 72 hour period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
I know that some lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing and some for other reasons. I have read the decisions as to why, have you?
Some. Not all.

When you talk an election of 159,633,396 votes (compared to 136,669,276 in 2016) a mere 1 million is essentially much less than a percentage point.
1 million is approximately 0.6 of one percentage point, because Math! Obviously, 0.6 < 1. Although there isn't a standard, quantitative definition of "much less", in most standard circumstances 0.6 is not considered "much less" than 1.0.

So no, 1 million is not out of the realm of reality and neither is 2 million.
To evaluate whether your statement is reasonable, we need to know the rate of voter fraud. A large range of studies have concluded that it is "much less" than 1%. For example, a comprehensive review of the 2016 election found just 4 documented cases of voter fraud out of the 136,669,276 votes you report were cast. See link below and references therein. So yes, however you slice it, 1 million fraudulent votes is completely out of the realm of reality and 2 million doubly so!

www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

Double counts, etc also played a role.
That is a claim that can be verified or falsified. On the falsification side, all 50 SoS's certified that their election results were accurate. What evidence do you have that double counts actually played a role? Again, just because you claim fraud or malfeasance doesn't mean it happened.

I am not going to get into a long diatribe about this again.
Great!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
That is a lie. There were not poll watchers from both sides present when the video clearly shows the poll workers running the same ballots through multiple times.

You should immediately apologize to the forum for lying. Everyone can see that you are lying by watching the video. The video shows the poll workers pulling hidden box from under a table after everyone but them leave. It clearly shows them running the ballots multiple times.
Spiker, it is neither a lie nor an untruth. You should read the link steven.m.shannon posted in #22. Just because you think a video shows one thing does not mean you are correct. In fact, those who know much more about the situation than you do agree that the video is entirely benign.

"THE FACTS: The video doesn’t show evidence of any fraud, much less an illegal act “planned in advance.” Instead, election workers began packing up after a long night of counting, then got a call from a supervisor who instructed them to continue, according to Gabriel Sterling, a top official in the Georgia secretary of state’s office. Georgia law 21-2-408 permits observers to stay in the room the whole time, but doesn’t require it for counting to take place. After partisan observers, reporters and several staffers left, there was a short period when observers weren’t present. However, an independent state election board monitor and a state investigator both arrived within an hour and remained at the facility until the count concluded for the night, Sterling said. The ballot boxes brought out in the surveillance video had not been hidden all day, as the video suggests. They were the same boxes that had previously been opened earlier in the night, and all the ballots in them had already been prepared in front of observers. Investigators who reviewed the entire surveillance tape confirmed it showed “normal ballot processing,”
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,725 Posts
I’m saying this from recent memory, but it’s the only way it makes sense to me. I voted by mail. Of course I am in Montana, not Pennsylvania.
There are two envelopes. The innermost one is the privacy envelope. It has no markings on it to identify the voter. That’s to protect the anonymity of the voter.
The outer envelope is the one with the oath/signature on one side and the address and postage on the other. So, my signature was on the outside of the envelope as it made its way through the mail. I voted three weeks or so before Election Day. My signature was verified and I was able to see that my envelope had been received safely at a website maintained by the Montana Secretary of State. So, at least for my state verification of ballots happened throughout the period leading up to Election Day which would greatly reduce the urgency.
Unless three envelopes were nested within each other I don’t see how the signature/oath would be concealed and voter privacy assured, thereby forcing verification into a 72 hour period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I really do not think it matters if the signature is on the outside envellope or the mid envellope/sleeve or whatever. If the process of signature verification is removed like in PA where they could not even process the envellopes until after 8pm on election night, you have removed any integrity in the election process. All they could do is put the mail in ballots in boxes. They could not start the verification process by law which they abided by.

The entire signature process of mail in ballots with signature verification of the voter rolls is to ensure that ballots are valid votes.

When signature verification disappears, so does the integrity. And to further allow mail in ballots to be accepted after election night if postmarked within 3 days after the election fails all PA voting laws.

PA required all mail in votes be received by 8PM on election day per the Legislature.

The courts in PA overruled the legislature by removing the signature verification requirement.

The courts in PA overruled the legislature by removing the date deadline requirement.

If you wanted to vote by mail, you do not wait until election day to mail your ballot when the law says your ballot has to be received by 8pm on election night.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
Think about this. Once a mail in fraudulent vote is separated from the oath envellope, no matter if you count the fraudulent vote 1 million times, the count will be correct. A fraudulent vote counted once or 1 thousand times in recounts is still a fraudulent vote.
Obviously we should strive towards perfection, but that is unattainable. If there are just a handful of fraudulent votes--and there is absolutely no documented evidence that there are any more than a handful of fraudulent votes--does it really matter? If Donald Trump really got 74,223,700 votes instead of the 74,223,744 that were reported, what difference does it make? You assume both the existence of extensive voter fraud in the absence of evidence and that the voter fraud would primarily benefit Biden and not Trump. However, it was President Trump who literally encouraged his supporters to commit voter fraud by casting mail-in ballots and then also voting in person.

The place to catch this was before the votes were separated from the envelopes.
Agreed. That's why there are procedures in place to verify the validity and integrity of mail-in ballots before they are separated from their secrecy envelopes, just as there are procedures in place to verify the validity and integrity of a ballot cast in-person.


And I want to know how PA was able to verify oath signatures against voter rolls of 2.6 million mail in ballots in less than 72 hours when they were not even able to open the outer envellope to get to the oath envellope until after 7pm on election might.
And I'm sure if you go looking round on the PA SoS's website you can find exactly that information. Not that you have standing to question how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducts its elections...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
PA required all mail in votes be received by 8PM on election day per the Legislature.

The courts in PA overruled the legislature by removing the signature verification requirement.

The courts in PA overruled the legislature by removing the date deadline requirement.

If you wanted to vote by mail, you do not wait until election day to mail your ballot when the law says your ballot has to be received by 8pm on election night.
And if the legislature disagreed with the lower court's rulings, they could have appealed to the State Supreme Court, which is what they did. The PA Supreme Court threw out their case stating:

“They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted,” Justice David Wecht wrote in a concurring opinion. That's pretty damning. The Legislature could have appealed to federal court, and so on all the way up to SCOTUS. At every step, they failed or were rejected.

We are a nation of laws. There has been just about every conceivable attempt to use the law and the Judicial branch to overturn the results of the election and they have all failed. With one minor exception in PA, not a single court anywhere in the land has found these challenges to have any legal merit, whatsoever! You may disagree, but that's just, like, your opinion, man!

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,725 Posts
.....
1 million is approximately 0.6 of one percentage point, because Math! Obviously, 0.6 < 1. Although there isn't a standard, quantitative definition of "much less", in most standard circumstances 0.6 is not considered "much less" than 1.0.
To evaluate whether your statement is reasonable, we need to know the rate of voter fraud. A large range of studies have concluded that it is "much less" than 1%. For example, a comprehensive review of the 2016 election found just 4 documented cases of voter fraud out of the 136,669,276 votes you report were cast. See link below and references therein. So yes, however you slice it, 1 million fraudulent votes is completely out of the realm of reality and 2 million doubly so!

www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

.....
Really.....the discussion on the security of whether the elections are "free and fair and ...." as you claim and you want to argue as to whether 0.626435% is

"Less" than 1% (> .75 but < .99999...)
"Much less" than 1% (> .50 but < .7499999...)
"Significantly less" than 1% (> .25 but < .499999...) or
"Overwhelming less" than 1% (> .0 but < .2499999...)

I did not realize that the term "much less" would offended you or irk you somehow? I mean why else would you have even commented on this?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
So glowing, what is your favorite FN weapon that you own? Which one due you like to shoot the most? How long have you been an FN fan? What other manufacturers do you own/shoot? Did you sell any of them when you fell in love with FN? Do you reload. This is important since this is an FN forum and your choices and those of others on this forum could likely be dependent on the leftist agenda that you promote and think is going to be so great for America (as stated in one of your prior post) and the fallout of the debated presidential election.

Oh, wait- I just hit the "ignore" button.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
690 Posts
Really.....the discussion on the security of whether the elections are "free and fair and ...." as you claim and you want to argue as to whether 0.626435% is

"Less" than 1% (> .75 but < .99999...)
"Much less" than 1% (> .50 but < .7499999...)
"Significantly less" than 1% (> .25 but < .499999...) or
"Overwhelming less" than 1% (> .0 but < .2499999...)

I did not realize that the term "much less" would offended you or irk you somehow? I mean why else would you have even commented on this?????
Because you often pick at unimportant nits in my posts. I am returning the favor.
 
21 - 40 of 82 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top