GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden

Status
Not open for further replies.
sturg33 said:
My whole goal is to explain to people what a ****ed up human rights violation our government is imposing on its people in the name of fear.

Its a long road with so many sheep like you out there. I'll take any ally to that cause.
Click to expand...

So, you approve of people who are blatantly not telling the truth if it helps your agenda? I'm shocked.
 
I mean you can't get on your righteous high horse about other people's sources when you share the garbage that you do from Twitter. Berenson is one small example and you know it. Willful ignorance.
 
thethe said:
What do you think my case is and why does this go against it.

11% improper acceptance. It’s very clear and no auditor can ever declare fraud due to a control failure so that part doesn’t say what you think it says.
Click to expand...

This:

1) does not prove an 11% improper acceptance rate.

2) does not claim to. 11 were stated to be inconclusive by the expert, but in that same expert’s opinion showed no evidence of fraud or forgery. Given that fraud is the intended overall claim here, there being no evidence of such fraud is not helpful to your argument.
 
zbhargrove said:
I mean you can't get on your righteous high horse about other people's sources when you share the garbage that you do from Twitter. Berenson is one small example and you know it. Willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

If I post something on here that is objectively false, feel free to call it out. I welcome it
 
mqt said:
This:

1) does not prove an 11% improper acceptance rate.

2) does not claim to. 11 were stated to be inconclusive by the expert, but in that same expert’s opinion showed no evidence of fraud or forgery. Given that fraud is the intended overall claim here, there being no evidence of such fraud is not helpful to your argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah but dismissed cases where the judge rules there is no conclusive evidence of fraud are irrelevant.
 
mqt said:
This:

1) does not prove an 11% improper acceptance rate.

2) does not claim to. 11 were stated to be inconclusive by the expert, but in that same expert’s opinion showed no evidence of fraud or forgery. Given that fraud is the intended overall claim here, there being no evidence of such fraud is not helpful to your argument.
Click to expand...

The process for validation of mail in ballot is primarily a signature review. If that is not possible then the ballot should be rejected. The democrats expert testified that 11% of the ballots were improperly accepted. That is about as conclusive as it gets. Mitigating things like phone numbers are irrelevant because that is publicly available information so I’d hope that isn’t what you’re hanging your hat on.

Also, you must understand that a control failure will never lead an auditor to say fraud took place. It’s the first step to asking the next questions to determine if fraud took place.
 
sturg33 said:
If I post something on here that is objectively false, feel free to call it out. I welcome it
Click to expand...

It always great when you share **** without reading it and the article is saying the opposite of what you thought cause of the headline
 
sturg33 said:
If I post something on here that is objectively false, feel free to call it out. I welcome it
Click to expand...

from a different thread:

"Goldy wants the magic money tree to give free money to every business owner in the country for years and years to avoid a scary virus with an obscenely high survival rate"

This contains several objectively false assertions.

You do stuff like this all the time. Make objectively false assertions of other people's positions. Bad faith argumentation is the only way to describe it.
 
thethe said:
The process for validation of mail in ballot is primarily a signature review. If that is not possible then the ballot should be rejected. The democrats expert testified that 11% of the ballots were improperly accepted. That is about as conclusive as it gets. Mitigating things like phone numbers are irrelevant because that is publicly available information so I’d hope that isn’t what you’re hanging your hat on.

Also, you must understand that a control failure will never lead an auditor to say fraud took place. It’s the first step to asking the next questions to determine if fraud took place.
Click to expand...

I’m not hanging my hat on anything. I’m simply stating that, much like every other case thus far, no widespread fraud has been proven in a court of law. There’s a reason Trump has pivoted to calling for legislators to overturn the results themselves. It’s because they have been unable to prove fraud.
 
Freedom boy, I went out of my way and made this whole clip in like 30 seconds. I can do this for any person on twitter if you would like so you know if I follow em

I mean, I haven’t gotten out of bed yet so this is really easy to do

 
mqt said:
I’m not hanging my hat on anything. I’m simply stating that, much like every other case thus far, no widespread fraud has been proven in a court of law. There’s a reason Trump has pivoted to calling for legislators to overturn the results themselves. It’s because they have been unable to prove fraud.
Click to expand...

Fraud isn’t what needs to be proven and it’s a red herring for the left right now.

A statistical audit was court ordered and done. The democrat appointed expert found 11% of mail in ballots were improperly accepted into the vote count. You extrapolate to the whole population of mail in ballots that should have been thrown out and you are well above the margin that Biden won.

You could even go further and apply an assumed rate of Biden % votes to mail in ballots in the region and show that trump would have won by a larger margin than biden is up by now but I wouldn’t support that approach.

What must be done is that the states electors acknowledge that the results of the election in their state is not reliable and potentially disinenfranchises their constituency. They have no choice but to not award their votes to any candidate.
 
thethe said:
Fraud isn’t what needs to be proven and it’s a red herring for the left right now.

A statistical audit was court ordered and done. The democrat appointed expert found 11% of mail in ballots were improperly accepted into the vote count. You extrapolate to the whole population of mail in ballots that should have been thrown out and you are well above the margin that Biden won.

You could even go further and apply an assumed rate of Biden % votes to mail in ballots in the region and show that trump would have won by a larger margin than biden is up by now but I wouldn’t support that approach.

What must be done is that the states electors acknowledge that the results of the election in their state is not reliable and potentially disinenfranchises their constituency. They have no choice but to not award their votes to any candidate.
Click to expand...

And why would they award their vote to the candidate that got fewer votes?
 
thethe said:
They wouldn’t be giving their votes to trump either.
Click to expand...

But in the absence of verifiable fraud, why would a state not opt to elect the candidate with the most votes in that state? You’re ultimately saying a result is suspicious, therefore we must reject it outright, despite no evidence of fraud.
 
The thought they are fighting fraud is absurd

And any sane person knows it

That they aren’t looking at any states he won and that there is no way the amount of his votes have any fraud prove that

He and his cult can drink the kool aid now and go the **** away
 
mqt said:
But in the absence of verifiable fraud, why would a state not opt to elect the candidate with the most votes in that state? You’re ultimately saying a result is suspicious, therefore we must reject it outright, despite no evidence of fraud.
Click to expand...

There is no way you can have confidence the election results reflect the will of the electorate. This is what an auditor would say and it’s based on basic statistical principles.
 
thethe said:
There is no way you can have confidence the election results reflect the will of the electorate. This is what an auditor would say and it’s based on basic statistical principles.
Click to expand...

So if Joe Biden were to get 538 electoral votes when they complete the electoral college process, this would be an acceptable outcome?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top