1,600 voters born 1900 or earlier voted in NC alone
-
ManHandler I complete agree with you - if their birth certificate says they are born in 1800, we can be pretty sure they shouldn’t be voting. So do you have these birth certificates? Have you checked them personally and confirmed that they are indeed the persons you claim?
I also hope you mean post 1900, not pre… as pre would make them old indeed...
They are there on the government link that you thought was a data breach and had it flagged
Um, no… they weren’t. A birth certificate is a physical document - which certainly could be scanned in, but that would be an image. That list was just a list... no images attached. No scanned documents. I could have made a list like that up... easily. (To be fair, I could also doctor an image of a birth certificate). But this is why you would need to go and do the research - you would need to take your list (I would recommend taking only a sample of the items on said list... else you’ll be at this a while), ascertaining whether the person in your sample on the list voted, then finding their birth certificate... and then coming to a conclusion.
Without any of those steps... it’s just a list... with claims of validity around it that are unproven.
-
Indeed so! These things, as you say, have been going on for ages… and don’t swing elections. They’re well known about, usually get caught (as your own knowledge of them shows) and are not the sort of mass conspiracy that would be required to make an electoral change of president.
You can find the data that the OP is referring to here in a way that’s acceptable to share: https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm
As you can see, right at the top, there’s yet another reason for why the DoB on these lists is listed as 1800.
In short, I’m sure there was voter fraud... to a very small extent, as there always is in every election. It’s tiny, will be caught, and won’t make any difference to the election result. It’s not close enough that this small number of votes will make a difference. If I’m wrong and it’s proven in court, fantastic! But I will need that level of proof to believe anything other than the norm happened. Republican and Democrat election officials have both said that this was one of the best elections they have ever had in terms of fraud.
Let's go on a hunt for crystals. Let me check my pocket! Nope… no crystals in there... I guess crystals don't exist. Yea this is what you're doing. You're pretending that the evidence isn't in your face and acting like it's harmful. It's so transparent and pathetic and lame. Hmmm... I don't see any China collusion under THIS rock... I guess it doesn't exist. Shut up. We know what you're doing.
We're talking about just one of the examples. 1600 in North Carolina. Imagine how many more there are, and people who died in 1920, 1930, 1940. I guarantee it's more than 1600. Interesting that number.
This is spurious… you’re creating a straw man (another logical fallacy... doesn’t look good for your argument). Indeed it rather makes you look like you don’t have an argument and are getting desperate... so, I really wouldn’t do that if I were you...
You have provided no evidence at all so far. Just a list of voter data. That’s not evidence... and would get thrown out of any court in any decently developed legal system. I would encourage you not to take that to court on it’s own... the other side would be able to tear it apart very very easily. And you don’t want that! You want to win, don’t you? So I’ve explained in another post above the way you do that... so once you have done that and collected actual evidence, let me know!
Contrary to what you think, I would very much like that any voter fraud is identified and gotten rid of. But, at the moment, I have no evidence to suggest there is - only your not-backed-up claims.
And your last claim... you “guarantee” it... great! Then you must have evidence to support this. Please provide it... and bear in mind it must be actual evidence. So if you, when you’re checking your own evidence, can pull it apart with a few simple questions... then I wouldn’t run with it as your support. I would get more evidence and share it (and you might think about taking it through your courts... as you should if you have full evidence that is irrefutable, as you claim! You would make a fortune!)
-
Pennsylvania counts votes where the signature doesn't match or the postmark is missing or unclear and other (lawd, please forgive me) problematic things.
Even during Obama, the Carter/Baker commission on voting clearly found that the system of just sending out ballots was the worst way to do it. And here we are with it being the DNCs voting method of choice.
Remember, the DNC claims we must do exactly what Faucci says, but we can ignore him as the village idiot when he says that voting in person is safe if masks are required.
Could you back this up with evidence please? I’ve done a quick check about the claim that Pennsylvania votes were counted when the signature doesn’t match… and it was debunked. So need evidence to support this...
Likewise, with regards the postal mark missing or unclear... they have said that they don’t want to penalise voters for problems with the Postal system... surely that’s fair?
Also, neither of these two things would, inherently, mean that more votes would go to Trump or Biden... indeed they would both be affected by this equally, no?So please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Carter-Baker report said that mail in voting has the highest potential for voter fraud...? That doesn’t mean it has voter fraud... just the risks are greater. If you’re taking a sensible approach to this then, you would put in place effective risk mitigations and controls, which surely must be what was done for this election? If you can point to this not having been done, that would indeed be very interesting! (Again, evidence please... not just a random claim!)
I’m pretty sure masks are not yet required in the USA... as Trump didn’t want to make that mandatory? So... they couldn’t exactly go down that route...
-
I'm not sure who debunked it, but I'm guessing it's some leftist outlets.
What precautions were taken to prevent fraud? I see none, especially in light of Pennsylvania.
Governors coulld require masks. It's blamed on Trump because the liberal media doesn't want DNC governors to get the blame for C-19 numbers.
-
I'm not sure who debunked it, but I'm guessing it's some leftist outlets.
What precautions were taken to prevent fraud? I see none, especially in light of Pennsylvania.
Governors coulld require masks. It's blamed on Trump because the liberal media doesn't want DNC governors to get the blame for C-19 numbers.
Apologies - I meant debunked in the sense that it doesn't mean there was fraud and signature comparison has never been part of the electoral system. The High Court ruling on it was unanimous (including Democrats and Republicans). This doesn't support any case that there was fraud, doesn't mean there was fraud and is not one of the controls/mitigations for fraud that was used.
Here is a better article on it: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794
Again, if an outlet is left leaning or right leaning is irrelevant to a debunking. You have to look at the information that is provided to debunk the claim. This is not a reason to dismiss a claim - it's an ad hominem logical fallacy. Making these fallacies undermines your argument (it doesn't mean your argument is wrong, it just makes it look weaker than it need do).
Governors could have indeed required masks. But as Trump was fond of encouraging people NOT to wear them… and many of his supporters are anti-mask wearing, it was feared that if ballots insisted on mask wearing, there would either be unrest at the ballots or Trump voters wouldn't turn up. This was seen as too partisan and so they decided not to do it... A tricky situation to be sure. But I'm certain that neither of you want to have had even fewer votes for Trump/unrest at ballot boxes... would you? And yes, I'm certain the Democrats would equally not like to be blamed for higher COVID-19 numbers... although, if what you're claiming is true (that masks would provide sufficient protection), then this claim doesn't really make sense... as they would have felt that the numbers wouldn't have gone up.
So I think your gist is that: Democrats ignored evidence that masks would prevent COVID-19 from spreading, instead preferring mail-in ballots so that they could 'rig' an election...
I hope you feel that this is an extraordinary claim - and so would require extraordinary proof? There's a few things that immediately make one think this might not be reality... such as... how come the Democrats, if they have the ability to create a nation wide coup like this, didn't simply win hands down? Surely they would have made it unequivocal? Another area that this has a problem with is that there is demonstrable counter narratives which would easily provide explanation for these events... which also feel more believable? And don't raise follow-on questions like this? -
Pennsylvania is a pretty crap state when it comes to voter fraud, even before Trump ran for President. It's also traditionally a DNC state.
It does matter when outlets like CNN constantly lie about things, such as Chris Cuomo having C-19 only to be busted out jogging and getting into an argument with a cyclist because Cuomo was in the cycling lane, faked a protest in London and countless other things.
We discussed that fat black chick "fact checker" from The New Yorker a while back who lied about a disabled vet having nazi tattoos. They were US military tattoos of awards he won (2 Navy Crosses and others) plus places he went to, etc. On social media, she constantly bragged about lying in her fact checking to suit her liberal narrative. She wasn't fired when this all came out. She is also part of the social media fact checkers used by Facebook and Twitter.
The NYT still insists that Sarah Jeong isn't a racist, despite her massive amount of anti-white racist social media posts.
I posted after the election about Wikipedia and it not being trustworthy. I pointed to the fact that they clearly don't post facts. I proved this with the last member of the Kennedy clan in public office.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia has annual feminist edit-athons to make articles have a feminist slant.
Snopes has also been caught lying.
++++
Trump could have encouraged masks, sure.
Pelosi could have not gone to China Town and told people to hug a Chinese person. She also could have not declared Trump racist for shutting down flights from China.
Even the WHO has flip-flopped on masks, as has the CDC and countless other organizations. Let's not forget that China and the WHO kept C-19 secret for 6 months.
The DNC has constantly been about whatever is the opposite of what Trump wants.
++++
The DNC is dirty. We know that from 2016 and what happened to Bernie.
We also know that Obama and Biden knew from the beginning that Hillary was using fake Russian crap against Trump.
Also, a victory like you are saying wouldn't make sense since Biden performed worse in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016. He got a lower % of the votes than Hillary and won. It makes no sense.
-
How many more cases are there that we don't know about or haven't caught?
-
Pennsylvania is a pretty crap state when it comes to voter fraud, even before Trump ran for President. It's also traditionally a DNC state.
It does matter when outlets like CNN constantly lie about things, such as Chris Cuomo having C-19 only to be busted out jogging and getting into an argument with a cyclist because Cuomo was in the cycling lane, faked a protest in London and countless other things.
We discussed that fat black chick "fact checker" from The New Yorker a while back who lied about a disabled vet having nazi tattoos. They were US military tattoos of awards he won (2 Navy Crosses and others) plus places he went to, etc. On social media, she constantly bragged about lying in her fact checking to suit her liberal narrative. She wasn't fired when this all came out. She is also part of the social media fact checkers used by Facebook and Twitter.
The NYT still insists that Sarah Jeong isn't a racist, despite her massive amount of anti-white racist social media posts.
I posted after the election about Wikipedia and it not being trustworthy. I pointed to the fact that they clearly don't post facts. I proved this with the last member of the Kennedy clan in public office.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia has annual feminist edit-athons to make articles have a feminist slant.
Snopes has also been caught lying.
++++
Trump could have encouraged masks, sure.
Pelosi could have not gone to China Town and told people to hug a Chinese person. She also could have not declared Trump racist for shutting down flights from China.
Even the WHO has flip-flopped on masks, as has the CDC and countless other organizations. Let's not forget that China and the WHO kept C-19 secret for 6 months.
The DNC has constantly been about whatever is the opposite of what Trump wants.
++++
The DNC is dirty. We know that from 2016 and what happened to Bernie.
We also know that Obama and Biden knew from the beginning that Hillary was using fake Russian crap against Trump.
Also, a victory like you are saying wouldn't make sense since Biden performed worse in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016. He got a lower % of the votes than Hillary and won. It makes no sense.
Wow… OK... lots to unpack here. One thing at a time...
Pennsylvania is a pretty crap state when it comes to voter fraud, even before Trump ran for President. It's also traditionally a DNC state.
Sure… but even if there was as much fraud as has been caught, convicted and proven (we can't use maybes or claims that haven't been proven), the election result would not meaningfully change. As I said above. So it really doesn't matter beyond you and I both wanting there to be much better election results that everyone can be confident and sure of. So kind of immaterial, no?
It does matter when outlets like CNN constantly lie about things, such as Chris Cuomo having C-19 only to be busted out jogging and getting into an argument with a cyclist because Cuomo was in the cycling lane, faked a protest in London and countless other things.
We discussed that fat black chick "fact checker" from The New Yorker a while back who lied about a disabled vet having nazi tattoos. They were US military tattoos of awards he won (2 Navy Crosses and others) plus places he went to, etc. On social media, she constantly bragged about lying in her fact checking to suit her liberal narrative. She wasn't fired when this all came out. She is also part of the social media fact checkers used by Facebook and Twitter.
The NYT still insists that Sarah Jeong isn't a racist, despite her massive amount of anti-white racist social media posts.
I posted after the election about Wikipedia and it not being trustworthy. I pointed to the fact that they clearly don't post facts. I proved this with the last member of the Kennedy clan in public office.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia has annual feminist edit-athons to make articles have a feminist slant.
Snopes has also been caught lying.
Well yes, it matters… but not to a specific fact check. You check the facts... and if they don't provide them and they aren't verifiable, then yes, you should indeed pause for thought.
But none of this means you should ignore any outlet and dismiss them immediately.
Let me give you an example: Trump has been caught lying... constantly. But you believe that his claims about voter fraud are true, even without evidence. If you are willing to dismiss sources of 'truth' because they may have lied occasionally - or have indeed lied - then you surely must be dismissing Trump's claims too. No? To do otherwise would be cognitive dissonance.
So I don't recommend you do that - instead checking each claim and counter claim fully. You can see and find the evidence for yourself - or ask for it - and fact check things yourself.
Trump could have encouraged masks, sure.
Pelosi could have not gone to China Town and told people to hug a Chinese person. She also could have not declared Trump racist for shutting down flights from China.
Even the WHO has flip-flopped on masks, as has the CDC and countless other organizations. Let's not forget that China and the WHO kept C-19 secret for 6 months.
The DNC has constantly been about whatever is the opposite of what Trump wants.
OK so this… is a bit confusing. Glad you've accepted that Trump could have (and indeed should have) supported mask wearing to have improved the likelihood that his voters would have turned up if that were the way the election was going to be run.
Not sure what the others have to do with it... Pelosi going to China town and encouraging social integration wouldn't have made any different to the spread of the virus (obviously). Trump shutting down flights from China was... silly... as by that point the virus had already spread beyond China and what he needed to do was to shut down flights from every other country (as the countries with more successful COVID-19 responses did). So I don't really see where you're going with these comments...
For clarity, the WHO has never flip-flopped on mask wearing. They encouraged it from the start and all the way through - and lately with very strong and clear evidence to support it (not that I can understand why that would have been needed... should have been obvious to anyone thinking about it for half a second...).
And sure - you would expect the DNC to oppose Trump... that's kind of their job in politics, isn't it? If Trump had supported mask wearing and the DNC had insisted that this was bad, maybe then I could understand their being a problem... but they didn't. They opposed Trump opposing, in the end, the very clear scientific evidence that supports mask wearing... so them being in opposition is hardly a matter that we need to worry about, is it?
The DNC is dirty. We know that from 2016 and what happened to Bernie.
We also know that Obama and Biden knew from the beginning that Hillary was using fake Russian crap against Trump.
Also, a victory like you are saying wouldn't make sense since Biden performed worse in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016. He got a lower % of the votes than Hillary and won. It makes no sense.
Again, I don't really see what "the DNC is dirty" adds to this discussion? You can believe that all you like - and show evidence of it - but it doesn't mean there was voter fraud. It does mean we should be vigilant - of course… but that's the civic duty of all Americans (and indeed anyone in a democracy!). But it does not = fraud at the ballot.
Again, your beliefs about what Obama and Biden knew are kind of immaterial to the whole issue of whether there was electoral fraud in this election. Let's stick to the topic at hand?
I'm not sure I follow at all your final comment... are you saying that people couldn't change their mind, vote differently or perhaps more people would vote between one election and another? I don't understand I'm afraid... at all... unless you're trying to say that the voter fraud amount was somehow more than 4m votes (plus a lot more if you're saying Biden couldn't have got so many because he should have got less than Clinton did in the previous election???) - and yet somehow the only pieces that people are pointing to don't even seemingly add up to 100,000, let alone...
-
How many more cases are there that we don't know about or haven't caught?
So I'm afraid this is another logical fallacy… "well this happened once... so it might have happened lots of times! How could we know?!"... (aka the composition/division fallacy)
Well, the story kind of disproves your worry. This person got caught. As do most people who commit some form of fraud.
And you really do need to provide evidence to support your fear... you can claim anything you want, but if you want it to hold up in a court of law... or convince someone else, you need to provide evidence that is conclusive. So I'm not convinced by your arguments yet that there is voter fraud... you have this opportunity to convince me... but you'll have to provide evidence to do so. I won't believe it just because someone claims it.
At the moment there is no evidence to support wide-spread voter fraud in the states... and attempting to use minor incidents of voter fraud to point to wide-spread is a logical fallacy and you shouldn't do it. It is easy to pick apart... (burden of proof!). So won't help you convince people of your rightness. indeed it will give them too many opportunities to disagree with you! To prove wide-spread voter fraud, you would need evidence of wide-spread voter fraud... and no, picking up an example here, and an example there... doesn't do that.
Also, you might want to carefully think about your worry too... if you want Trump to win... as (as is a perfect example in the article shared here), it does not tell you who the fraudulent ballets supported... indeed, you'll find one of the other cases of voter fraud (singular) was a fraudulent vote for Trump (this was a few months back... they caught him too!). So your test becomes actually even more difficult... you need not only show wide-spread voter fraud, you need to show wide-spread voter fraud that supported Biden in becoming the Preseident elect. If you found wide-spread voter fraud that supported Trump, that would be... unfortunate!!!
-
It's not a fallacy. It's a question. You should always question everything. You should question anyone or any institution that claims to be an authority. Otherwise it's blind following like sheep.
There is plenty of evidence. You're pretending it doesn't exist. It does. And I actually posted plenty of it, including a spread sheet of thousands of votes discovered in counting glitches in multiple counties. You'll just have to wait to see, I don't have to prove the case for you because you'll deny it anyway, you already have. So it don't matter as far as me trying to convince you with proof. We'll see what the courts determine.
-
It's not a fallacy. It's a question. You should always question everything. You should question anyone or any institution that claims to be an authority. Otherwise it's blind following like sheep.
There is plenty of evidence. You're pretending it doesn't exist. It does. And I actually posted plenty of it, including a spreadsheet of thousands of votes discovered in counting glitches in multiple counties. You'll just have to wait to see, I don't have to prove the case for you because you'll deny it anyway, you already have. So it don't matter as far as me trying to convince you with proof. We'll see what the courts determine.
Oh… sorry... I guess you haven't come across logical fallacies before. Apologies for using it - I should have explained. Questions can indeed be logical fallacies - because the logic used to derive the question is faulty. It doesn't mean the question is wrong (indeed, that's another fallacy!). It just means the logic used to get there was.
So yes - I agree with you entirely. We should question. We should check and recheck. That's our civic duty and something I would always support you doing.
But... that's very different from claiming there's evidence (which you state in your next para) and then not actually having the evidence. Or the evidence not showing what you claim it does (which is this case).
So to help understand where I'm coming from... because your claim is extraordinary (mass voter fraud that would enable Biden to win by more than 6m votes and 306 to 232 electoral collage votes) - it requires an extraordinary level of proof. So far, we have not seen this. And, as I mentioned above, a bunch of small incidents of minor voting fraud (which happens in every election - and which this election was actually the best for that in a long time... so far 2016 had more fraud issues than this election... proven) do not amount to a conspiracy large enough to do what you're claiming. Equally, a list of 1,600 voters in NC would again not show this.
That's the first burden of proof you require - not yet met.
The second is that the information you provide is actually robust - and can't be explained by any other (sensible) explanations. So far... for your data dump.... we have:
1. The dates for women who have had domestic violence cases have their birthdates recorded as 1800 to obscure their data
2. There are errors in that database
3. If pollsters can not read the date on the registration form, they set it to 1800
4. The people aren't dead - very much alive - and there's some administrative error
5. Father and Son have the same name at the same address - and has confused the database
6. Birthdate is a placeholder when actual DoB not provided
7. On rare occasions (small %) it is on behalf of a dead person... who has died in between the postal ballot being sent in and the electionThese could all explain most of those 1,600 voters. So if you want anyone to believe that these are actually 1,600 fraudulent voters, your burden is to prove that all these explanations are NOT the case for each of them (or a sufficient % of them to be a representative sample).
And lastly, the burden of proof is on you... not anyone else. It's your claim so you must do it.
Please note - this is not dismissing your claims... it's just asking the questions that need to be asked to prove the case you're saying you are making with the evidence you're using. The list on its own is insufficient to persuade anyone because of those 7 items which might explain it.
Without this... I'm going to stick with the principle of Occam's Razor, if you have heard of it? Between the two explanations, I will pick the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions... and to believe in your explanation for the vote, I would need to assume that all 7 of the other explanations above are incorrect, as well as assume there was some overarching plot for wide-spread voter fraud... where as to believe in my explanation only requires me NOT to assume there was some overarching plot for wide-spread voter fraud...
I promise never to dismiss your claims - and to never ever stop you from doing your civic duty to check and challenge those in power. Please - please - continue to do that.
-
First point. To say that 2016 had more fraud issues is a fallacy. It's something that is still too be determined. Otherwise there's not much else to discuss about it, because it'll be up to the court. They will review the evidence. There is a lot of evidence, but it has yet to be proven. That requires a court. Occam's razor tells me another story. Because some polls say 30% of Democrats think it was rigged. I know one of them. They'd rather have Bernie, but not Biden. Occam's razor tells me that if people are posting videos of burning ballots for Trump, filling in 7 ballots for Biden… that cheating does in fact happen, and there is the idea that Trump is like Hitler. If you really thought you could get away with it (like those brazen videos), and that Trump was Hitler, you'd do it.
Another thing Occam's Razor tells me is that probably 97% of dems didn't cheat. Maybe they got unsolicited ballots in the mail, and didn't cheat. It only requires a few, and there's always a few. It's like saying it can't be THAT widespread, because they'd obviously get caught. Well if you've ever worked as a bank teller, you know that if someone gets away with it, they'll do it again, until they get caught. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it. One teller told me that in San Francisco the bank got robbed every day. Not what you hear on the news. Plus there's no way they could coordinate it, so everyone just cheated to the maximum, because they've never been caught before. They are on video boarding up the windows so poll watchers couldn't see anything... Whether you believe the evidence or not doesn't matter because you're partisan, clearly. There is a motive. And for a legal case, that's required, and present, and self-evident. There is also the evidence. It will be reviewed until proven or not.
Another theme I already discussed, Occam style, is that Gavin Newsom doesn't actually think the virus is real. Or atleast not a dangerous one. It's a joke I guess. My other post talks about his photos having a close gathering of 12 or more in a small room, and some of them are the medical advisers who tell CA to lockdown and wear a mask... They don't believe their own bullshit. All of this is upside down world, and all of it makes no fucking sense, and all of it comes from the leftists. This obvious fake virus was used to justify the most faulty voting system: mail in. If you're a leftist, you're ok with Newsom being the ultimate hypocrite. That's what leftist represents under my definition. And until my definition is toppled through reason, it stands.
Let's do an equation, Occam style. 50,000 Trump supporters (at his best) -vs- 3 Biden supporters (at his worst). And we're supposed to believe that Biden won? That's total BS and everyone knows it. THAT is Occam's Razor. It's just another coin term for "Self-Evident."
-
I’m sorry, there’s too much here to respond to that just has nothing to do with the OP.
I’m afraid you’re also not applying Occam’s Razor correctly as a principle… it’s really not what you’re suggesting here (which is more like: ‘I believe it so it must be true...’). This is not how the legal tests work for this.
Yes we can say this election, so far, has had less fraud in it than in 2016. No, that doesn’t mean more fraud won’t be unconverted (too many negatives... it’s still possible for more fraud to be discovered, and for 2020 to become more fraudulent than 2016, but it hasn’t happened yet!).
It’s worth reading the judgement of the latest case of the Trump party vs the result in Pennsylvania... it effectively says the same thing I did:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdfAs you can see, the burden of proof of the claims that this election was somehow rigged are… non existent. So far. (I’m struggling to think of any reason why the Trump Campaign wouldn’t bring all their most valuable evidence before the judge in Pennsylvania... as it’s quite an important state for him...).
So burden of proof still rests with those who believe this to be the case...
And just for the avoidance of doubt:
No, people posting videos online of people doing things is not conclusive proof - although it could be, if they are complete enough (do share the videos you’re referring to, would be interesting to see!).I’m afraid the rest of your post is effectively whataboutery - which makes your case look worse, not better. Sorry. Please stick to the topic at hand - that will make it much easier to understand the claims and review the evidence for those claims. Bringing up loads of other topics is... unhelpful, at best. And could be seen as trying to avoid detailing with the topic that you started... at worst (which I’m sure you’ll agree isn’t a good look!).
-
This is bullshit. I'm not reading the rest of that. The proof is there, in the title of this post, and also we have 125% turnout in Nevada, and more in other swing states. If you have 101 votes in the Senate, someone voted twice. The proof is right there. It's in all those swing states that stopped counting at 9pm, a more than 100% vote turnout, which means, if it's 125%, than 25% is fraudulent. You can't have 1,000,000 registered, and 1,000,001 vote. But it's much more than 1. The proof is in your face, and you're gaslighting.
When the accusations have been made on record, then it'll be YOUR side's turn, the ball will be in YOUR court, not Trump's. You are only correct by the technicality that the suits haven't been filed yet. You are stating the obvious. If they tested the oxygen level in Malaysia ten years ago, and it said the atmosphere has 85% oxygen, is it safe to assume that this year, there is also oxygen in Malaysia? They didn't test the oxygen level this year, so you don't have proof… Some things are just self-evident. There is obviously oxygen in Malaysia, even though you don't have "proof" from a chemical test of the air... There is obviously voter fraud, no one denies that (you got hundreds of court cases and criminal convictions on record), even though a full audit of the system hasn't concluded, but has already provided information regarding substantial irregularities.
The proof that Dominion flipped votes has already been found, and corrected, flipping a legislative seat. It's already been proven.
125% Turnout is PROOF. If 101% of Senators voted, that would be proof of fraud. All the swing states that stopped counting at the same time have over 100%. If we can't accept 1% of fraud in the Senate like that, how can we accept 25% in Nevada? There is no excuse for fraud or miscalculations whatsoever in our advanced society.
-
Oh dear…
OK... where to begin...
So to start, these claims you're making now have nothing to do with the original post you made. You're now claiming that voter turnout was greater than the number of people possible to vote in the state... instead of what you claimed originally, which was the people voting in the state should be dead because their birthdates were in the 1800s.
I'm sure you might have valid evidence to support your accusations that more people voted in the election than should have been able to - but that's not what this thread is about. If you want to create a thread that's just accumulating all your beliefs about the election in one place so that people can debate those, I'm sure people will be happy with that. But this is not the place for one new theory after another.
You might even start a new thread all about the extra people in the states that shouldn't be possible based on voting numbers. You could then provide your evidence and we could all evaluate it. But let's please not derail this conversation about this particular piece of evidence you're claiming proves something.
Why do I suggest this? Well, it makes your argument look bad... it seems to me (and I'm sure others) that you're trying to avoid the topic of this issue being not believed by me. This is not a good look... so please, do provide the evidence I've requested - and answer those questions. If not, we're not really having a conversation... you're just stating your beliefs and not convincing anyone of them.
Secondly, and this one is very very important. You've attempted to reverse the burden of proof with the latter part of your statement. This is another logical fallacy... and is not a great way of getting to a result that will favour you, if I might say so. You've also constructed a straw man in order to try and support your argument... let me show you what I mean:
Straw man: if the oxygen was tested in Maylaysia 10 years ago - should I believe that there is oxygen in Malaysia today? Well... I think you can see, as you're certainly bright enough, that - unless you provide more information - no one can answer this question in any way that's meaningful. For example, let's say you also added the much needed caveat that: there are people living in Malaysia, they are still living in Malaysia and no odd or weird atmospheric conditions had happened which might cause the oxygen in Malaysia to disappear. If those caveats were also given - then of course, I could happily say "yes, I believe there is oxygen in Malaysia today" - without being unduely concerned about that prediction. If, on the other hand, you were to tell me that there was a mass extinction event in Malaysia, humans and animals and everyone died out... and you believed it was a lack of oxygen that was at fault... I would then ask you for evidence of this belief. I would also consider all other claims for the cause... and weigh up which one is most likely to be correct.
Can you see now why this is an impossible question to answer at all in any way that would be meaningful? And indeed, you can see that you only designed that question to try to prove your point (this is a straw man argument... can be in the form of a question).
As to reversing the burden of proof... the person who makes a claim is the person who has to prove it. No, just making a claim does not immediately validate it as true - and no, people do not have to disprove your claim... this would be impossible. For the example for this, you will have heard of no doubt, we take the chocolate tea pot... I might claim that there is a chocolate tea pot orbiting the earth at 100,000,000 miles above sea level. You would, rightly, ask me to prove it... if I said to you: "no, you must disprove it!"... you can see how you might feel. Not terribly impressed I should think!!
OK... and the last logical error you made is conflating many things together to try and say your view is correct. Afraid that won't work - for me at least! So you're right - no one denies there is occasional voter fraud. But... I do deny having seen any evidence of any form of wide-spread voter fraud - or any evidence at all of voter fraud which would change the outcome of the election. When that evidence comes to light, I will be very happy to change my mind! (and sad as well, as that will be a terrible inditement on the democratic system in the USA). But again, this is not the topic of this post (at least as far as I understand it!).
Please do not accuse me of gaslighting - I think that's demonstrably not true. To gaslight someone, I would need to be doing something to try and make you second guess what you saw or did... NOT what you believe. Now I'm making an assumption here... it could be that you did go and commit voter fraud in the way that you've described in this post (registering a lot of dead relatives, using them to vote for Biden etc)... and if that's so, I would welcome you claiming it and I will, of course, stop this conversation (as I don't wish to gaslight your experience at all). But questioning your beliefs and asking you for evidence of them is not gaslighting - at all. This is how we achieve a better society and it is also how republic or a democracy - any of them - work effectively.
And I must ask... if you don't want your beliefs questioned (which is a perfectly reasonable stance to take...), then why on earth would you put them out publically on an open forum where, no doubt, people will disagree with you and question your beliefs? Wouldn't it be easier for you to simply not do that?
-
Dude I don't have to stick to the title. It's one example of voter fraud, of which there are many, I was stating the latest. Not reading all that. You're a nasty person. You're making a long drawn out example of why you don't believe it, but you are not an authority on anything, and you ARE gaslighting. You know that it's very obvious, that if 125% of people voted in Nevada, that's fraud. It's obvious. You are a liar and a snake. It's basic common shit. If you have 100 people registered, 101 voting means there's fraud! Its very simple to understand and you're pretending that you don't. If 125 people voted, and only 100 people are allowed to vote, that means it's compromised. It's very fucking simple. I'm not sure why you want to lie but I feel like you have a dark spirit in you and trying to spread your darkness. Fraud is obvious. You are trying to make it sound like it's not true but it's self-evident.
-
Well then, I’m sorry to say but it looks like we can’t go any further with this.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying, you don’t want to understand and you yourself say you don’t read anything I’ve written. As that’s extremely rude and you’re not a very good interlocutor, I’m going to stop this conversation.
If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists - you’ve failed.
If you’re just here to shout and scream your views… I don’t think you should be here.
-
Ok bye. "If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists… you failed." Well problem with that is that it's already been proven, multiple times. It's actually on the record hundreds of times. So you're a liar and a fraud yourself. Everyone knows how easy it is to just look that info up, voter fraud... it does exist... hundreds of examples.
-
Ok bye. "If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists… you failed." Well problem with that is that it's already been proven, multiple times. It's actually on the record hundreds of times. So you're a liar and a fraud yourself. Everyone knows how easy it is to just look that info up, voter fraud... it does exist... hundreds of examples.
And now you're either being willfully dishonest or incredibly simple…
As I've said, numerous times (if you had bothered to read what I had written), you would have seen I have indeed said that there is plenty of instances of small fraud that has been caught, prosecuted and dealt with. And I have also said there is no wide-spread fraud and no evidence of it. And, as I have also said, the one does not mean the other is happening (for clarity, as you seem to need it, small occasional fraud that gets caught does not mean that there is some wide-spread fraud having occurred).
As we can see these cases have all been thrown out - with prejudice - I think we can all be content with the reality that there as no wide-spread voter fraud in this election, the claims that there was were all complete nonsense and spurious... and the USA now has a new president-elect.
I do hope all this crying wolf will not dissuade people from being cautious in future and being mindful of and watchful for any sort of voter fraud. A very dangerous thing to go around making spurious, nonsense claims that get thrown out in court over and over again... as that might indeed disuade people from listening in the future when there might be voter fraud.
-
It's not spurious. It's obvious. You're gaslighting. Ronna McDaniel has 500 affidavits with 11,000 examples of fraud. Just for this election. It's not ridiculous or absurd. These are people going on the record and testifying under penalty of purgery. The live hearing in PA today I heard was highly effective. You can call it what you want… nonsense or not... it's up to the jury and the court and the outcome, not you. You have already decided in your mind one way, and that's fine, but it's delusional.
