Moderated: 2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

They would have produced it in court. There have been 28 opportunities so far in just the last fortnight. So far, zip. Unless you think the 29th time will be a charm?

It was announced today

Im guessing your sources did not tell you.

But why would national MSM report it anyway??

After all, its only the first time in history a president's lawyers are claiming millions of votes were flipped by products deigned to flip foreign elections.


If you believe that is not newsworthy, I understand completely.

[Resume]

wrong thread

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Bubba

The MSM sure has convinced believers that Biden won fair and square.


Will you be among the enraged peaceful protestors destroying, burning, and maiming, should the faithful be told Biden cheated, and Trump wins??

Well, that depends, I suppose.

If I am convinced that Biden cheated, then no. If I believe that the results of a free and fair election were overturned, and a usurper was put in his place? I suppose I would be. Nothing peaceful about it.

However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. I think we will let the law play out, and see what happens. As long as we have a government of laws and not of men, we have America.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

Well now one of the bits I did see was of a lawyer, Jenna I think was her name. The blonde one who spoke after Powell. I only watched for a couple of minutes, but I think she was saying that of course there wouldn't be evidence presented today. That was for the courtroom. This was all opening statements. They were just telling us that evidence would be presented later. At least, that's what I inferred from the time I watched her.


And so, I was confused when I heard people saying that they did present evidence today. It's difficult to tell who is telling the truth here.


Saying "We have an affidavit." isn't evidence. The contents of the affidavite might be, but a claim that it exists isn't very impressive. If we read one that says, "I was at station 3, and I saw a man in his 40s look at ballots, and destroy any that were marked for Trump." that would be evidence.

And it would be great evidence because it could be compared to a lot of different artifacts and verified. Now that would be evidence.

[Meadmaker]

I should add to an earlier reply that if we find that Joe Biden cheated, and he was installed as President anyway, I would be doing just as much protesting and burning and whatever.

I want fair and free elections. I think we just had one, and I think the winner will be the next President. If I become convinced it did not happen, I would do whatever possible to restore democracy.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

They had more unevidenced claims. Seeing a pattern here.

Quote:

After all, its only the first time in history a president's lawyers are claiming millions of votes were flipped by products deigned to flip foreign elections.

Oh dear, even the oily Tucker Carson isn't buying this trash.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

Fox News Host Tucker Carlson tonight critiqued Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell for not providing any evidence in her claim that votes and machines were taken and flipped from Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Even Tucker Carlson realizes that their claims are doing damage to America, and that if you make big claims you have to provide evidence: “But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people with positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence of either, nor has she provided any today at the press conference.”

Also. Politifact:

Quote:

Since Election Day, voting technology companies have been the subject of disinformation that seeks to undermine confidence in the integrity of the vote.

Dominion and Smartmatic make electronic voting systems. Neither was created for “changing the results of elections.”

Smartmatic technology was not used in any of the battleground states won by Biden where Trump allies are disputing the results.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history.” That finding has been affirmed by at least one independent audit of voting machines.

See the sources for this fact-check.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I should add to an earlier reply that if we find that Joe Biden cheated, and he was installed as President anyway, I would be doing just as much protesting and burning and whatever.

I want fair and free elections. I think we just had one, and I think the winner will be the next President. If I become convinced it did not happen, I would do whatever possible to restore democracy.

Sounds reasonable enough.


If Sidney Powell is right about computer vote flipping, I'd be surprised if Biden had knowledge of it.

Time will tell.

[Bubba]

Here it is, from Resume.

More slam dunk proof we have nothing to worry about.

The especially most proofiest part is that Sidney Powell disappointed Tucker.

She should have told him everything. What more do we need to know??

Close the hood. Joe is good.

Originally Posted by Resume

They had more unevidenced claims. Seeing a pattern here.

Oh dear, even the oily Tucker Carson isn't buying this trash.

Quote:

Fox News Host Tucker Carlson tonight critiqued Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell for not providing any evidence in her claim that votes and machines were taken and flipped from Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Even Tucker Carlson realizes that their claims are doing damage to America, and that if you make big claims you have to provide evidence: “But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people with positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence of either, nor has she provided any today at the press conference.”

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Here it is, from Resume . . .

Claims are not evidence. Especially claims that have no corroboration; especially claims that have been debunked. I am sorry you do not understand this, but that is not my failure, but yours.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Bubba

If Sidney Powell is right about computer vote flipping . . .

But she has no evidence, none. Judge Janine would thrown her out of court, and may yet. These laughable claims will fade into oblivion along with Hunter Biden's laptop, OBAMAGATE!!, PIZZAGATE!!, WAYFAIRGATE!!, frogmarching, gitmo, and all the other CT nonsense.

[The Great Zaganza]

What evidence?
She wouldn't give her 'evidence' to the Courts, or to the Trump Campaign or Tucker Carlson.
She got nothing, but that is all the evidence you need to support extraordinary claims.

[Robin]

I assume that one of Powell's affidavits is from a right wing activist who claims to have infiltrated antifa and claims to have heard someone in a telephone conversation claim that Eric Coomer had told him that he had fixed the election.

I would be hoping that her other affidavits will be a little more convincing than that.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Bubba

B+ for bravado !


But fail


We need a stronger, unified strategy to make it go away !

I award you an A without embellishment for cluelessness.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

You are lying again Bubba.

What court is this "29th" application being heard in?

As everyone has pointed out to you, people with actual evidence go to court. People attempting to start a right wing media network make unsubstantiated claims at a press conference to find a future audience.

oh, and by the way......


"New York's attorney general has sent a subpoena to the Trump Organisation for records related to consulting fees paid to Ivanka Trump as part of a broad civil investigation into the president's business dealings, a law enforcement official said on Thursday.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-ne...6-3d115aafdd4a

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

Im guessing your sources did not tell you.

But why would national MSM report it anyway??

After all, its only the first time in history a president's lawyers are claiming millions of votes were flipped by products deigned to flip foreign elections.


If you believe that is not newsworthy, I understand completely.

A lunatic said lunatic stuff on national TV. This is your standard of "evidence"? You know that could have been a satire show, right?

Seriously, if she has anything worth while, let's see how she goes with it in court.

[Robin]

And I suppose it has been noticed that the woman who lodged the "pristine ballots" affidavit was the Fulton County Republican Party Executive Director and also Georgia State President of the Eagle Forum.

I assume that these alleged "suspiciously pristine ballots" are designed to explain why the hand count came up with the same number as the allegedly fraudulent electronic count.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

Yup.

Quote:

US President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Georgia has been confirmed by a recount, as legal efforts by Donald Trump's allies to challenge his defeat were dismissed in three states.

On Thursday, Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, said the hand audit of ballots had not altered Mr Biden's victory in the state.

"Georgia's historic first statewide audit reaffirmed that the state's new secure paper ballot voting system accurately counted and reported results," Mr Raffensberger, a Republican, said in a statement.

In a matter of hours on Thursday, Mr Trump's allies were dealt legal setbacks in Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Republicans lost their final lawsuit in Georgia as a court rejected their effort to block the results' certification, which is due to happen on Friday. The judge who dismissed the case was appointed by Mr Trump last year.

In Arizona, a judge rejected a lawsuit filed last week by the state Republican Party seeking a new audit of ballots in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix - the state capital and largest city.

In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign lost their bid in state court to throw out more than 2,000 postal ballots.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

They would have produced it in court. There have been 28 opportunities so far in just the last fortnight. So far, zip. Unless you think the 29th time will be a charm?

They're waiting to dramatically reveal the evidence at the last minute, like they do on TV and in the movies. The judge's gavel is in mid-swing, about to dismiss the case. Someone suddenly bursts through the door and shouts "Wait! I have new evidence!", and the entire case turns around.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

They're waiting to dramatically reveal the evidence at the last minute, like they do on TV and in the movies. The judge's gavel is in mid-swing, about to dismiss the case. Someone suddenly bursts through the door and shouts "Wait! I have new evidence!", and the entire case turns around.

Nah, I think at the last moment we'll learn that the dog ate it.

[gmanontario]

Originally Posted by Resume

No, she's been consuming the Kraken.

1 for 28.

If you "have" something, you take to court, not to a half-assed presser featuring lunatic Ghooliani*. Oh, that's right, they lose in court.

306 - 232. Landslide.
'
Done.



* Maybe we call him Leakin' Looney Ghooliani.

1 for 32 or 33 now. Winning! Their only win was to get poll watchers closer to the counting.

I call him CUR for Crazy Uncle Rudy.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by gmanontario

1 for 32 or 33 now. Winning! Their only win was to get poll watchers closer to the counting.
.

No, that one was overturned. The only remaining win was getting the date for voters to ‘cure’ faulty votes was kept to its original date. It affected something like a dozen votes.

[Meadmaker]

Hey, Bubba. Since we're doing hypotheticals and what ifs and such, I have one for you.


Let's suppose that Sydney Powell gets her day in court, and presents all the evidence, and the judge yawns and throws out the case. This happens in whatever courts they try. i.e. the Supremes either take the case but throw it out, or they don't even look at it. Meanwhile, people in the press examine it, and amateurs like us examine it, and the evidence consists of a bunch of people saying that they saw something they didn't understand, but it sure looked suspicious to them. Or maybe they find that there were two guys in Philadelphia who were seen tearing up Trump ballots and, sure enough, the ballot counts for those precincts were five votes short.

In other words, suppose that this mountain of evidence turns out to be nothing worth mentioning. Suppose it shows no significant fraud, or that the little bit of insignificant fraud was isolated actions by a couple of lone actors. It is thrown out of every court it's brought to, and not taken seriously by anyone except the people at NewsMax and OAN. It doesn't make the cut of credibility at Fox News, with the exception of Tucker and Sean.

What then? What would be your reaction?

I know hypotheticals are difficult, but you asked us about what would happen if Trump were declared the winner. I'm turning the tables. What if, after all the evidence is presented, all the courts declare Trump the loser. What would you do? What would you advise the President to do? How would you look at this failed attempts?

[eerok]

This quote is pretty funny

Quote:

Trump chose to put Giuliani in charge of his legal battle last Friday following a string of courtroom losses. People close to the president saw Giuliani’s promotion as a tacit admission that Trump was going to lose and that he was more interested in pushing a PR narrative that the election was being stolen from him than pursuing further lawsuits.

Go Rudy! You're Trump's only hope, lol.

Giuliani and fellow Trump lawyers crank out conspiracies as legal challenges implode [politico.com]

[gmanontario]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

No, that one was overturned. The only remaining win was getting the date for voters to ‘cure’ faulty votes was kept to its original date. It affected something like a dozen votes.

Well then Rudy has shown he is a top notch legal mind and clever strategist. He should stop skimping on hair products though.
Trump is a possible 12 votes closer to victory!!

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It was announced today

Im guessing your sources did not tell you.

But why would national MSM report it anyway??

After all, its only the first time in history a president's lawyers are claiming millions of votes were flipped by products deigned to flip foreign elections.


If you believe that is not newsworthy, I understand completely.

Then why not produce the "evidence" in court? It's not like they haven't had many chances to do that.

It's newsworthy that Trump and his "lawyers" are trying to steal the election. It would be newsworthy that votes were changed if there was evidence to support that claim. The claim itself is nothing.

[Meadmaker]

Absolute proof that citizens of Minnesota voted in Michigan!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-are-doing.php

(I suspect that most readers of this forum already know about the Michigan/Minnesota mixup in Sydney Powell's evidence. The above blog post gives a lot of details.)

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Absolute proof that citizens of Minnesota voted in Michigan!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-are-doing.php

From the blog post:

Quote:

There is circumstantial evidence of more than a normal amount of voter fraud in this year’s election, […] I hope their claims turn out to be well-founded and provable.

This is a serious Trump fanboy site, and even they have to facepalm over this:

Quote:

This is a catastrophic error, the kind of thing that causes a legal position to crash and burn.

The schadenfreude is particularly tasty from this one.

Dave

[Meadmaker]

Then there's this piece from The Onion:

https://politics.theonion.com/your-h...lli-1845716203


The interesting thing about The Onion's take on things is that, normally, The Onion's humor formula is to take something that sounds a little bit like a normal headline, but twist it with some sort of ironic element. They can't really do that with Giuliani. He has already done that to himself. He and his cohorts already sound like something out of The Onion, so The Onion has to descend into full fledged farce, more like something from Monty Python than the dry form of humor that is their more normal fare.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

He and his cohorts already sound like something out of The Onion, so The Onion has to descend into full fledged farce, more like something from Monty Python than the dry form of humor that is their more normal fare.

I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's famous quote, "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” I have a feeling that Guiliani's current trajectory will take it beyond obsolete into the realms of the actually impossible. I saw an article in another online satire magazine trying to satirise Trump for conning his supporters by setting up fundraising efforts for his lawsuits that were then diverted to pay off his campaign debts, which as far as I could tell failed as satire because it was entirely factually true. The whole MI/MN confusion reads like an Onion article, and there was the recent Daily Kos "Biden holds Normal Press Briefing" diary that felt like satire but was actually sincere. Is it possible actually to satirise the Trump administration any more?

Dave

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Well now one of the bits I did see was of a lawyer, Jenna I think was her name. The blonde one who spoke after Powell. I only watched for a couple of minutes, but I think she was saying that of course there wouldn't be evidence presented today. That was for the courtroom. This was all opening statements. They were just telling us that evidence would be presented later. At least, that's what I inferred from the time I watched her.


And so, I was confused when I heard people saying that they did present evidence today. It's difficult to tell who is telling the truth here.


Saying "We have an affidavit." isn't evidence. The contents of the affidavite might be, but a claim that it exists isn't very impressive. If we read one that says, "I was at station 3, and I saw a man in his 40s look at ballots, and destroy any that were marked for Trump." that would be evidence.

And it would be great evidence because it could be compared to a lot of different artifacts and verified. Now that would be evidence.

Given that Rudy is now in charge (because Trump hires good people), I suspect the evidence will be of the same quality as the evidence that Hunter Biden is a pedophile, i.e. nonexistent (or maybe UPS will lose it).

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I know I should be more high-minded about this but I just really love drinking in all this Trump supporter suffering. Their pain, it just makes me so happy.

Have you checked out this comment section over at OANN?

https://www.oann.com/lin-wood-presid...ectoral-votes/

The Trumpers are getting pummeled. I almost feel sorry for them.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Hey, Bubba. Since we're doing hypotheticals and what ifs and such, I have one for you.


Let's suppose that Sydney Powell gets her day in court, and presents all the evidence, and the judge yawns and throws out the case. This happens in whatever courts they try. i.e. the Supremes either take the case but throw it out, or they don't even look at it. Meanwhile, people in the press examine it, and amateurs like us examine it, and the evidence consists of a bunch of people saying that they saw something they didn't understand, but it sure looked suspicious to them. Or maybe they find that there were two guys in Philadelphia who were seen tearing up Trump ballots and, sure enough, the ballot counts for those precincts were five votes short.

In other words, suppose that this mountain of evidence turns out to be nothing worth mentioning. Suppose it shows no significant fraud, or that the little bit of insignificant fraud was isolated actions by a couple of lone actors. It is thrown out of every court it's brought to, and not taken seriously by anyone except the people at NewsMax and OAN. It doesn't make the cut of credibility at Fox News, with the exception of Tucker and Sean.

What then? What would be your reaction?

I know hypotheticals are difficult, but you asked us about what would happen if Trump were declared the winner. I'm turning the tables. What if, after all the evidence is presented, all the courts declare Trump the loser. What would you do? What would you advise the President to do? How would you look at this failed attempts?

In my experience, fake skeptics usually have difficulty responding to hypotheticals.

If Trump takes it to court and it fails, so be it. Get over it. We move on.

On the other hand, if Trump prevails, hopefully the war will be short lived.

Do you trust the party that screwed Bernie? They, and the unemployed warmongering neocons who lied us into Iraq will be in power.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

A lunatic said lunatic stuff on national TV. This is your standard of "evidence"? You know that could have been a satire show, right?

Seriously, if she has anything worth while, let's see how she goes with it in court.

Thats what I say.

Suppose she has something worthwhile and prevails. Would you retract "A lunatic said lunatic stuff"


Please show proof she is a lunatic.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bubba

In my experience, fake skeptics usually have difficulty responding to hypotheticals.

If Trump takes it to court and it fails, so be it. Get over it. We move on.

On the other hand, if Trump prevails, hopefully the war will be short lived.

Do you trust the party that screwed Bernie? They, and the unemployed warmongering neocons who lied us into Iraq will be in power.

Only Republicans trust and believe their leaders, even if they clearly lie and violate their oaths.

Democrats can freely criticize their chosen representatives.
And there will be plenty to criticize in a Biden Administration.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Thats what I say.

Suppose she has something worthwhile and prevails. Would you retract "A lunatic said lunatic stuff"


Please show proof she is a lunatic.

Ask Turker Carlson if she is creditable and sane. What happened when he invited her on his show to explain the evidence?

[Hans]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Only Republicans trust and believe their leaders, even if they clearly lie and violate their oaths.

Democrats can freely criticize their chosen representatives.
And there will be plenty to criticize in a Biden Administration.

I suspect like any administration it will do any number of prat falls, mistakes and near disasters. They all do.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Bubba

If Trump takes it to court and it fails, so be it. Get over it. We move on.

Since he's failed, what, 27 times already, why haven't you?

Dave

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Bubba

In my experience, fake skeptics usually have difficulty responding to hypotheticals.

If Trump takes it to court and it fails, so be it. Get over it. We move on.

On the other hand, if Trump prevails, hopefully the war will be short lived.

Do you trust the party that screwed Bernie? They, and the unemployed warmongering neocons who lied us into Iraq will be in power.

Cool.

As for the final question, sure.

[gmanontario]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since he's failed, what, 27 times already, why haven't you?

Dave

Any day now credules.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Bubba

In my experience, fake skeptics usually have difficulty responding to hypotheticals.

Skeptics review claims Bubba, not hypotheticals.