Political Debate Thread

[TeamHavocRacing]

(Huge thanks to Havoc for not posting the latest Giuliani clip!)

Is she just that way, or was she drunk? She's straight outta central casting.

[m121c]

Great question, I’d like to know that answer as well. Much like how Id like an answer on how a GA judge reportedly ruled to halt the resetting of multiple Dominion machines so they could be forensically analyzed.. yet that same judge reversed the ruling hours later only to again to reinstate the original ruling (aka a win). Or why its acceptable that the Repub.’s that voted no to certify Wayne county MI were publicly doxed, harassed, and threatened until they voted yes hours later.

Our ‘honest’ media isn’t doing the best job at separating out Trumps lawsuits from other non-affiliated lawsuits either. That matters.

[jlv]

With your statement I am curious if you seen any of the hearings or read any of the affidavits? Or are you insinuating the factual evidence that has been brought forth is false?

As far as a single bit of factual evidence.. there has been?

Fact: Upon investigation in Detroit, a sample of 30,000 mail in ballots have resulted in 229 deceased voters and 2,200+ votes registered to invalid addresses (burned down houses, abandoned lots, etc). They estimate a 8.9% of fraud in this sample.

I looked this up and found this. So some guy claims to have done Trump's lawyers' work for them and went through the names of 30,000 absentee voters and found 2,660 invalid voters. This is exactly what Trump's lawyers should have been doing 4 weeks ago. Only problem is Michigan is already certified and it wouldn't be enough to close the 150,000 vote margin (it'd be around 15,000 votes invalidated if you extrapolate it). So a day late and a dollar short and that's only if this guy is telling the truth. So rather than fact, it's "some guy says" and even then it's a moot point.

I don't want to go through the whole list but none of this stuff is going to flip it. Don't let Trump turn you into a crying lib going on about Diebold voting machines. He lost and it wasn't close. He's made $200M in donations and spent $20M on challenging the election. Pretty nice profit if you don't mind lying to your fans. 10x matching if you donate now!

Is she just that way, or was she drunk? She's straight outta central casting.

I was thinking of the more gross Rudy blooper, but yeah she was a piece of work.

[m121c]

4 weeks ago the counting was still happening. The focus was enforcing the rules that were already on the books. This evidence and research isnt something whipped up over night, a lot of it is just beginning to surface (Staples Center video took a month to get for example)

Hatred for Trump and the joy of him losing over ensuring election integrity is a slippery slope that will have its effects for multiple elections. Trump and Biden are temporary. Our elections and countries fundamental principles are forever.

[TeamHavocRacing]

I was thinking of the more gross Rudy blooper, but yeah she was a piece of work.

To me it sounded like his chair squeaked. I haven't fully "anal"ized the audio.

[jlv]

4 weeks ago the counting was still happening. The focus was enforcing the rules that were already on the books. This evidence and research isnt something whipped up over night, a lot of it is just beginning to surface (Staples Center video took a month to get for example)

Hatred for Trump and the joy of him losing over ensuring election integrity is a slippery slope that will have its effects for multiple elections. Trump and Biden are temporary. Our elections and countries fundamental principles are forever.

So best to wait until after certification to start looking for fraudulent voters? I don't understand why Trump fans are willing to forgive such incompetence. It's like you know it's a scam but you want to keep believing the lies. The reason Trump's lawyers haven't done anything is they're putting on a show for the public with no intention of winning in court. How do you reconcile the fraud fantasy with the real losses in court? Are they saving the good stuff for the Hannity show?

Using a small amount of fraudulent votes that wouldn't come close to changing the outcome as an excuse to ignore election results is a slippery slope but not in the way you think. Actually, it's not a slippery slope because ignoring election results is starting right in the gutter. Just because it's retarded doesn't mean it's not a coup attempt.

[m121c]

So best to wait until after certification to start looking for fraudulent voters? I don't understand why Trump fans are willing to forgive such incompetence.

Not what I said at all. Clearly it's been being looked into as we are starting to see that evidence. It takes time... again, it took 1 month to get that video tape footage from the Staples Center where the mail in ballots were being counted. That's not even a political affiliation.

The certifications were political crap. Everyone apart of those certifications knowingly shoved them through with many yet to be answered questions. Elbow bumping in AZ over their certification being done hours before a legislative hearing on voter fraud is something we would should be championing? The certification of Wayne County MI was a complete shit show. Vote intimidation is okay?

I don't understand why Trump fans are willing to forgive such incompetence. It's like you know it's a scam but you want to keep believing the lies. The reason Trump's lawyers haven't done anything is they're putting on a show for the public with no intention of winning in court.

Josh, no offense here, but I feel you personal enmity is clouding your objectivity. It doesn't matter who will win or lose, as long as that win or loss is legitimate, forget about the names and the sides. You want to portray me as wanting to believe all the lies, I guess the same can be said in wanting to believe that they are lies. How can the claim be made they are all lies if there is no honest effort into looking at the list of evidence

How do you reconcile the fraud fantasy with the real losses in court? Are they saving the good stuff for the Hannity show?

As I stated to HVPMVP, you are going to have to be specific as to what losses you are talking about. Again, no offense, but I feel your continual attentive neglect to the evidence and hearings that are going on, carries over into knowing the court cases. It's important to specify what is a Trump case and what is a independent case separate from Trump. The media has been very disingenuous on this point. They group all of these relating lawsuits together and call them Trumps to give the public perception he is losing massively.

To me it's an odd defense. Unlike many R's, I too question our judicial system. However, I don't champion it when it's in my favor vs. not. The party who adamantly advocates our systems are fundamentally and purposefully flawed, are now the ones championing that it's the most sound process in the world when it works with their narrative. Simply stating that court loss without taking an honest review of the ruling isn't really a strong point.

Using a small amount of fraudulent votes that wouldn't come close to changing the outcome as an excuse to ignore election results is a slippery slope but not in the way you think. Actually, it's not a slippery slope because ignoring election results is starting right in the gutter. Just because it's retarded doesn't mean it's not a coup attempt.

Ah. So we've gone from: No evidence, rules can't be changed --> Okay that data means nothing, and ya those last minute rules might be questionable but they wouldn't flip anything if you removed them --> Well testimony of fishiness and breaking of already set rules that could lead to fraud just isn't enough --> Okay the evidence is showing only a little fraud that can't change the outcome... just get over it Trump just trying to line his pockets.

8.9% is not small. Data analysis showing impossible and improbable models, votes dumps, and vote counting rates is not small. Massive negligence into chain of custody with a voting type we know to be ripe with fraud is not small. Now is it true? That's a point we can debate and we should investigate into.

Much like how you cant question and then dismiss election results, you also can't question and dismiss the questions of the election results. Where or what is the smoking gun?

[jlv]

You say there's great evidence, yet the challenges have lost 48 times in court and succeeded only once (throwing out some absentee ballots for not being dated). Maybe it's because the "evidence" would melt under scrutiny in court? Again, why is this supposedly credible evidence only shown in meaningless hearings but not in court? There's either no good evidence or it was handled incompetently. There's no consistent way to believe there was both good evidence and that it was competently handled. If that were the case they would have won.

If you read what actual lawyers are saying about this, you'll notice they're using the word "moot" a lot lately. That's because there's a deadline approaching. This is basically over tomorrow. After that it's going to be moot because they're trying to stop something that already happened.

Another point, Trump did better than he did in 2016 in the urban counties you think are cheating. (I know, it's a NYT link. It's the first article with a breakdown of the vote shift.) Biden outperformed Hillary in the suburbs.

"Biden’s gains were largest in suburban areas, as was immediately apparent after the election. But because many urban counties have been among the slowest to report their votes, the picture in these counties has become clear only recently.

President Trump did better in 2020 than 2016 not only in Miami-Dade, Los Angeles and the Bronx, but also in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and the counties encompassing the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco.

Though urban counties remain overwhelmingly Democratic, Mr. Trump’s margin improved by 1.1 percentage points in these counties — an even bigger pickup than Trump achieved in non-metropolitan counties, which are largely rural. Thus, the urban-suburban divide narrowed in 2020 — and the urban-rural divide did as well."

Is this what you'd expect in an urban fraud scenario?

Also, about the guy with the list of 2,660 invalid absentee voters in Detroit that you're using for the 8.9% number. You have to keep in mind this is just some rando who is probably using Google maps to check addresses. If you have the Sheriff's office try to locate those people it's likely they're going to be able to find most of them. That's why it isn't credible until it's been under scrutiny in court. I do give the guy credit for doing it the right way. Probably the only person trying to challenge it who hasn't covered himself in shame.

[m121c]

I had a very well structured reply but my session expired when I went to submit and lost it...

I'll quickly summarize:

1) It's disingenuous to portray the 49 cases (1-48 as you claim) to be all Trumps. It's also disingenuous to assume the court system and judges are exempt from political/societal motivations. You claim of only one win, but I am curious to know what you are considering wins and losses, or if you are going off just quick media reports. Just this week in MI and GA it was decided that a select number of dominion voting machines were to be forensically investigated. In PA, a lower court judge halted the certification for an evidentiary hearing which was quickly overturned by the controversial PA supreme court, much like another 'Win' they shut down. In all cases where the judge has ruled in favor, or an election committee voted to not certify, the individual was put on blast, harassed, doxed, and threatened. (Seeing a pattern?)

2) Let the evidence 'melt' in court if its going to do so. If you are asking me why the evidence has only been presented in these "useless" hearings and not in court, you must not really be looking at the court cases. You make a very fair argument about the guy in Detroit presenting the 8+% fraud. Either the defense is going have to provide their own numbers o refute or Trumps Legal team will have to make sure that the guys methodologies are sound. But referring to them as 'lies' before even being examined is not productive at all, it's quiet the opposite.

3) I say there is great evidence, but yet, I don't see any great evidence to refute it. Many of the accusations and claims directly require either direct negligence or direct involvement of the same officials that are being used as the evidence of "fact".

Take for example the video in GA at the staples center. We can get into that in great detail on how completely negligent the election officials and media were with reporting what was going on that night... but I find the response to the video more interesting. The SOS's defense of that video is a simple tweet that they looked at that video a month ago and found it perfectly okay, legal, and not at all suspicious. They even claim to have had a SOS monitor there, how convenient! Except the video shows no monitor in the roped off monitoring area... Why not take the opportunity to refute the video evidence with video evidence. Now on the surface that's not very convincing. Maybe they are saving it for court...

FYI. The lady running the show has been identified and has decided to lawyer up. There is also a video of her 'palming' a flash drive earlier in the day with a very obvious slight of hand and nervous look around.



You can call all this fiasco revolving around Dominion as an outright conspiracy.. but the pieces are seeming to fit too well together. With the server traffic increase, the affidavits from hired contractors, etc. etc. But hey.. Dominion says they are innocent, much like the elected officials, cased closed!

4) On the topic of performance. Trump can't do well in a fraud scenario? Wouldn't that argument seem to promote the idea of fraud? What you are saying is Trump out did himself in many areas/demographics in 2020 compared to 2016. Yet, it is to be believed, that the candidate who campaigned from his basement and can hardly form a literate sentence topped that? Again, weird argument to make to just completely dismiss any potential in fraud. On the topic of performance though.. I find this video very interesting:

[jlv]

So far in court Trump has proven some people didn't put dates on their absentee votes. That's it. That was the big win. The other evidence has either been laughed out of court or is so questionable that even Trump's lawyers don't find it credible enough to bring. Look at the Dominion thing. The machines print out the vote right in front of the voter. Any machine miscount would be caught in the paper recount. This is dumber than the liberal Diebold conspiracies.

Where does this all end? If Biden loses by 4% in 2024, does he have a right to pressure states to ignore their vote counts and just send Dem electors?

[jlv]

4) On the topic of performance. Trump can't do well in a fraud scenario? Wouldn't that argument seem to promote the idea of fraud? What you are saying is Trump out did himself in many areas/demographics in 2020 compared to 2016. Yet, it is to be believed, that the candidate who campaigned from his basement and can hardly form a literate sentence topped that? Again, weird argument to make to just completely dismiss any potential in fraud. On the topic of performance though.. I find this video very interesting:

Missed this on the first read. Yes. In 2016 Trump ran against Hillary who is universally hated. Biden hid and let the election be a referendum on Trump. It turns out trolling the libs really riles them up and makes them turn out in huge numbers.

[TeamHavocRacing]

JLV has been very generous giving you so much rope to hang yourself. It really is a rotting, mutilated dead horse that you keep beating. Your belief system is what's so out of whack Mason. I've wrestled with it on many occasions. You don't understand that the more rope Josh gives you, the more you're hanging yourself out in the wind. Keep it up kid!

[m121c]

Look at the Dominion thing. The machines print out the vote right in front of the voter. Any machine miscount would be caught in the paper recount. This is dumber than the liberal Diebold conspiracies.

For in person voting, yes, for mail in ballots no. Matching the machine count to paper count is only as good as the integrity of the paper ballots. If fraudulent or illegal votes were fluxed into the ballot population via the messed up mail in type of voting, you can run the paper to machine as many times as you like (even though even those numbers are not matching), you will get effectively the same result every time. This is not a proof of non existent fraud, just proof you can count the fraud.

It's really not that complex. There are affidavits and photographic evidence of 'pristine', unfolded, print-like, ballots that were among the mail-in/absentee population. These were not duplicated ballots either. To go along with that, there are numerous allegations of obvious and blatant disregard to chain of custody procedures. With a voting type as vulnerable as mail in voting, these procedures are even the more important. If the chain of custody is broken and the procedures of the one-time moment to validate a mail in is compromised, everything downstream of that is a question mark. At this point the only thing that can be done outside a forensic audit of the paper and machines is to listen to the witness testimony and the expert data analysis. There is already the last two and a semi-partial one of the forensic audit on the machines.

Or I guess you can just ignore all of it and proclaim it as lies.

COVID was politicized to greatly expand mail in voting as without safeguarding it's vulnerabilities. I don't believe that was by accident, and you would have to blind to think it was secure. If Joe Biden loses in 2024 and we are a similar situation with mail-in/absentee voting and he can find as many affidavits/evidence as there is now, for sure he has the right to question the vote. Don't you find it odd he has no interest in legitimizing his 'win' and supporting any further transparent investigation? If Trump is lying through his teeth, a simple forensic audit should shut him up, but there is a fight tooth and nail of any attempt to get any sort of realistic and honest look into the election. Even Trump, the boogie man himself, welcomed the special investigation into Russia collusion as a vehicle to proof the legitimacy of his election win.

So far in court Trump has proven some people didn't put dates on their absentee votes. That's it. That was the big win. The other evidence has either been laughed out of court or is so questionable that even Trump's lawyers don't find it credible enough to bring.

This seems like projection to me.

[jlv]

I could get lots of affidavits proving aliens are visiting us but that doesn't mean it's happening. The argument is basically that big cities cheated, but despite that, Trump actually outperformed his 2016 percentages in cities. So Trump actually SUPER outperformed his 2016 results in cities if not for the cheat.

I have a more plausible explanation.

1. Trumps spends 4 years triggering people who he needs to *not* turn out in 2020.
2. They turn out in record numbers.
3. <Surprised Pikachu face>

[Jones221]

Kamala in 2022 when she takes over