I use Chrome as well. NYT is still asking me for a log in. Is it possible I've had too many free views, but you haven't hit that limit yet?
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
You're going to have to show evidence for any of that beyond bald assertion.
That's the problem, isn't it? No one has shown anything other than asserting it "smells funny".
Have you READ some of the affidavits? They're a joke.
I'll indulge you.
Let's go 1 by 1
1) statistically improbable turnout numbers in key Democrat counties
-- Give an example. Turnout was high everywhere. What is "improbable" here other than "I don't like that so many people came out to vote against Trump"?
2) uniform Democrat "comebacks" in swing states based on submitting counts from Democrat strongholds long after Republican counties were finished counting,
- Entirely expected and discussed months in advance due to the split in the use of mail in and early voting. In fact, deliberately engineered in many cases by Republicans to create a narrative of suspicion.
4) large batches of votes which, improbably, were all cast for Biden,
- Democrats cast votes for Biden? That's suspicious!!!
5) vote updates overnight solely in favour of Biden when counting had, apparently, be stopped,
- Votes counts are batched and reported later. This has happened in every election.
6) objectively proven unlawful resistance to party oversight of the tabulation process in Democrat strongholds,
- This should be good. "You are allowed to be 6 feet instead of 10" is not proof of resistance to party oversight. Please show this objective proof. (I have seen judges point out that the GOP complaints they didn't have people observing were false and then dismiss the case, though.)
7) use of machinery for signature comparisons (in states that even required it) that had inexplicably low rejection rates,
- "I don't like that they aren't rejecting Democratic voters" is not "inexplicably low rejection rates"
8) a media which is aware of all of these concerns, but calls election challenges "unsubstantiated" and calls someone who has neither been certified by any state, nor by the electoral college, "President Elect" despite the absence of any concession by his opponent. Only a fool wouldn't insist on proof that all of these things have an innocent explanation.
- A media that follows the norm of calling someone "President Elect" when they appear to have won the election is not suspicious. These kinds of crackpot theories come up every election, they just usually don't have the losing incumbent trying to fundraise and organize resistance off of them, aided quietly by GOP power brokers who figure if he fails they can blame him and say they didn't really do anything and if they succeed they get to overturn the will of the people they don't think deserve to vote anyway.
Let's go 1 by 1
1) statistically improbable turnout numbers in key Democrat counties
-- Give an example. Turnout was high everywhere. What is "improbable" here other than "I don't like that so many people came out to vote against Trump"?
2) uniform Democrat "comebacks" in swing states based on submitting counts from Democrat strongholds long after Republican counties were finished counting,
- Entirely expected and discussed months in advance due to the split in the use of mail in and early voting. In fact, deliberately engineered in many cases by Republicans to create a narrative of suspicion.
4) large batches of votes which, improbably, were all cast for Biden,
- Democrats cast votes for Biden? That's suspicious!!!
5) vote updates overnight solely in favour of Biden when counting had, apparently, be stopped,
- Votes counts are batched and reported later. This has happened in every election.
6) objectively proven unlawful resistance to party oversight of the tabulation process in Democrat strongholds,
- This should be good. "You are allowed to be 6 feet instead of 10" is not proof of resistance to party oversight. Please show this objective proof. (I have seen judges point out that the GOP complaints they didn't have people observing were false and then dismiss the case, though.)
7) use of machinery for signature comparisons (in states that even required it) that had inexplicably low rejection rates,
- "I don't like that they aren't rejecting Democratic voters" is not "inexplicably low rejection rates"
8) a media which is aware of all of these concerns, but calls election challenges "unsubstantiated" and calls someone who has neither been certified by any state, nor by the electoral college, "President Elect" despite the absence of any concession by his opponent. Only a fool wouldn't insist on proof that all of these things have an innocent explanation.
- A media that follows the norm of calling someone "President Elect" when they appear to have won the election is not suspicious. These kinds of crackpot theories come up every election, they just usually don't have the losing incumbent trying to fundraise and organize resistance off of them, aided quietly by GOP power brokers who figure if he fails they can blame him and say they didn't really do anything and if they succeed they get to overturn the will of the people they don't think deserve to vote anyway.
Curiousity is not the same as certainty. I think you're conflating the two.
I have read the affidavits that are available. Very interesting stuff. Makes me want to know more, not less.
Sometimes, in a very dark place, you have no choice but to follow your nose. That's what this election is - a big, skinking, totally opaque, pit!
Your explanations are unconvincing, and often intentionally avoid the central point of why these facts raise concerns to any reasonable objective person. So obviously so, that it seems like trolling to me. I won't do the whole list, because that would be punishing myself for the approach you took. Just one example - the point of 4 is not that MORE people would vote for Biden in some polling batches in Democrat strongholds, it's that EVERYONE voted for Biden in some large polling batches. That's just statistically impossible. For the rest, just wait for the reporting.
Lastly, if you don't understand that motive + opportunity ALWAYS leads to cheating, I just hope no one ever tries to swindle you. And the motive of Democrats to get rid of Trump, as your own posting demonstrates, is OFF THE CHART!
Last edited:
1- I'm not sure what you mean by "statistically improbable turnout numbers", there was more voters than eligible voters?
2-the comebacks were explained by the large amount of mail-in voting that was counted after the polls closed and the mail-ins were overwhelmingly Democratic.
4-the claim that 130,000 votes came in on one batch and they were all Biden is hard to believe and unproven that it happened.
5-mail-in ballots were counted overnight.
6-no idea what you mean by that.
7-that is not evidence of wrong doings, Trump votes were treated the same.
8-media is correct to call election challenges "unsubstantiated".
In time, we will see who the fool is...
Not really. The time to be curious is now. Without curiousity now, the result of the investigation would be meaningless. Kind of like congratulating yourself for not investigating why one of your tires looked so low because it didn't blow out during your trip.
The only surprise is that there was as many Trump votes, not for the dems.
The dems were polling really high, they were all very pissed and very motivated to vote.
So they voted and Trump lost.
Suck it up, honeybunch.
Common sense is often not good sense.
I'll follow my nose until I find out for certain that bad smell is just a spoiled egg and not a dead body.
Then what we should be really curious about is how Trump got more votes than the polls suggested he would.
The dems voted as we knew they would, it was where all those mystery Trump votes came from that should raise your curiousity.
If you were objective, of course.
I am curious about how the polls got it so wrong, and have already said so. I'm not curious about Trumps vote tallies, since EVERYONE seems to be saying these ballots were cast overwhelmingly in person on election day.
So you're curious about how there were more Trump votes than the polls said but still believe that the only fraud happened on the numbers we all expected?
Your logic here is even worse than in Charlottesville.
First one term president who lost the popular vote twice, with bonus points for being impeached.
He has nowhere near the love of the people of Mitch.
I never know who this "we" is that you are always talking about. LOL! Your perception that others are like minded to you is not based in any reality.
I expected the election to be extremely close, and said so. Now that it is close, just as I expected, the task is make sure the correct victor is declared. I haven't heard any voter fraud or irregulaties complaints from Joe Biden's camp (yet). I'm sure they will emerge if Trump succeeds in any of his litigation.
306 likely total at the EC, as big as Trump's 2016 'landslide'
5 million more votes for Biden
Suck it up, honeybunch.
Stop making excuses and try to be objective for once.
Objectively, you're never right, but you keep trusting your own judgement. Objectively, that's a serious life problem.
Anyway, back to the focus of the thread.
