2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[HTTP Error 404]

Is this related to some specific pre-existing weirdness?

Yes. California and several other west coast states are tired of being controlled by a few urban cities and have been trying to split off to make a new red state, or merge into Idaho, or what have you, for a while now.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

There's a lot of notions and belief, but in terms of substantiated claims, there's not much from that time. Bear in mind, the US electoral system is generally stupid and somehow behind Brazil, so it isn't like there isn't a lot that could be fixed up. But one month out from election, all political will seems to evaporate.

Personally it's the opposite for me. Ever since 2016, I've seen more and more people speaking on behalf of wanting more transparent elections even from democrats. I've seen people talking more and more even in person about beliefs of it when before most people remained silent about such accusations.

It really seems like as it goes on people are becoming more outspoken about the questions they have towards each election, and looking at those involved.

We spent millions investigating a wild goose chase of Russians printing out Bernie Sanders coloring books, and investigating an outsider to the political spectrum. Now that people are wanting answers from the political establishment (and yes Republicans are part of that establishment) now they want to actively avoid looking inwards. You can understand why there's so much suspicion and why the explanation of "Yeah but it costs tax payers a lot of money to investigate this." doesn't really hold up well with what happened less than 4 years ago, right?

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

Yes. California and several other west coast states are tired of being controlled by a few urban cities and have been trying to split off to make a new red state, or merge into Idaho, or what have you, for a while now.

I for one welcome our new Jefferson brothers.

 

[murdered meat bag]

Right. The 'save time and drink it' here would be to just verify the results because you were unable to get any courts to compel the state to not certify the results of their election (or get any to compel the state to do something like the signature audit).

drinking the water was a second method to test the water becuase the first method, your method, was too time consuming.
certifying the results would be the same as declaring the bottle to be poisoned/not poisoned without testing it. the ballots in question were not tested. so no, certifying isn't the save time and drink it.

It also doesn't follow that you wouldn't, because other forms of audits thusfar have failed to alleviate claims of fraud on their grounds - IE, people still believe that thousands of fake ballots were conjured from thin air, despite audits which went through and matched individual SSNs to their voting choices.

the states have only done recounts and modified recounts. if you have a state audit please post it to the thread.

A signature match re-run runs the same margin of human error that occurred in the initial run, except with more faultlines. Now you need to figure out which envelope aligns with which ballot for individuals who share the same name, and then you get the margin of human error that happened the first run-through.

all we need is to see how many signatures failed. if more signatures than the margin fail, we can throw out the election results.

A court could order the state to conduct such an audit, but you've yet to make a case that convinced any of them - this is again why I assert that youtube videos are not great if you're trying to make a legal argument. You contend that, but thusfar literally no relevant body of authority agrees with your contention, with the exception of one case in GA.

the courts have played the game of no standing and laches. this is why TX is bringing the case to scotus.

In a debate, you can easily start with the baseline of "we can't ever truly know" because the consequence of a debate doesn't really exist. You can't do that when considering law or litigation, really, because you need -something- to consider as the status quo if an assertion fails to be sustained.

that's incorrect. you start with a premise/motion like "this was a secure election" and "Does God exist" and debate in the affirmative or negative to the motion.

The 2018 thing seems to have been thrown out not because there was a law that literally said that, and more because the state board refused to certify the results themselves. The board itself also chose to call a new election after hearing testimony.

Beyond all of that, North Carolina is North Carolina - I don't care if you live there or if youtube talks about it a lot. Its election laws and board decisions aren't going to affect everywhere else in the country. To work with this parallel - you have yet to convince any state election boards that fraud should suspend the electors' vote, which is what happened in N.C.

it's the perfect parallel because it shows the democrats are inconsistent with their standards.

They can't? Or do you mean you were using 2018 registration numbers and comparing it to 2020 while ignoring that day-of registrations were a thing? Or that you fucked up MI and MN?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/11/do-trumps-lawyers-know-what-they-are-doing.php (can't be true)
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-wisconsin-vote-vs-voters-afs:Content:9672223878 (must be false, impossible to run the numbers)
And you got the state to look into covfefe:

Georgia investigates Coffee County’s handling of presidential recount

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office says it’s investigating Coffee County’s handling of the November presidential election recount.

www.ajc.com

don't know what you're referring to, wayne county and coffee county said they can't balance the books.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/government-shutdown-senate-looks-to-pass-funding-bill.html

So they're still playing the "lets never make an actual budget and instead do spending bills forever" thing so they have an infinite opportunity to do pork...

If they "accidentally" shut down the government, what does that do to the SCOTUS hearings and the election?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

It really seems like as it goes on people are becoming more outspoken about the questions they have towards each election, and looking at those involved.

It would be nice if that meant that something would be done, but more attention to something rarely seems to translate. Occupy wallstreet's net sum is as yet a handful of bills which further entrenched megacorps while shitting on small businesses because no-one felt like reading them, and the broad "antiracism" protests have yielded a whole lot of jack shit even at local levels of government in terms of actual action. Hell, even 2015-era BLM got, like. Bodycams, and that's really it?

drinking the water was a second method to test the water becuase the first method, your method, was too time consuming.
certifying the results would be the same as declaring the bottle to be poisoned/not poisoned without testing it. the ballots in question were not tested. so no, certifying isn't the save time and drink it.


the states have only done recounts and modified recounts. if you have a state audit please post it to the thread.


all we need is to see how many signatures failed. if more signatures than the margin fail, we can throw out the election results.


the courts have played the game of no standing and laches. this is why TX is bringing the case to scotus.

that's incorrect. you start with a premise/motion like "this was a secure election" and "Does God exist" and debate in the affirmative or negative to the motion.


it's the perfect parallel because it shows the democrats are inconsistent with their standards.


don't know what you're referring to, wayne county and coffee county said they can't balance the books.

You drink the water without knowing if it's poisoned. You verify the vote without knowing if it's fraudulent (by your standards). Both save time.

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/electi...r_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race #notrueaudit

What's the margin? What's the law that establishes the margin? How do you account for people who have the same name and matching their ballot to their envelope, and then their signature to their database signature? This needs to all have been codified and put into the procedure for how to go about it by the 8th. You now need a court to issue a stay for any of this to even matter if you were to somehow establish these.

The courts have sometimes played the game of no standing / laches when those claims fit the bill. You can argue rejections on that basis, y'know, if the basis ain't true. Laches based on the idea that you had over a year to challenge most of the changes through the state legislature and the court are going to (and have) held. Standing arguments have broadly held, because if you cannot prove that you definitively suffered fraud, you cannot prove that you should disenfranchise literally millions of votes. You have not proven anywhere that you definitively suffered fraud - with that GA exception which seems to have actually made specific claims and presented specific evidence rather than going "ISN'T IT POSSIBLE?"

"does got exist" is not a premise, it's a fucking question. If you neither start from the idea that god does or god doesn't, then what do you start with? "No one knows?" You can do that in a debate. "No one knows" isn't great when you're a government. If you can't prove fraud to a massive degree, the government is certifying the election and you are getting Biden as president.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/17/wayne-county-election-certification/6309668002/?fbclid=IwAR247MsNpmLKPK5aTiCjwphB9Me2pXZaAIN-weJ0D56D8pW2X6cT5_wo93k

Wayne fucking certified and the first link went into detail on that shit. Coffee is being investigated by the government - which proves that you CAN compel it to do shit if you make a fucking case.

 

[murdered meat bag]

I call it semantic because in a legal sense, sure, it's all, like, nothing. In practical life and use, it may as well be that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption.

this doesn't hold true in practical life either. Democrats already acknowledge that there is some form of fraud in every election.

 

[CrippleThreat]

Pennsylvania Urge Supreme Court to Declare Election Over

"It's over, and nothing's wrong here. Seriously, just (quickly) give Biden the crown."

I don't know why California is Democrat HQ, when Pennsylvania here wants to call all of the shots.

 

[XYZpdq]

Yes. California and several other west coast states are tired of being controlled by a few urban cities and have been trying to split off to make a new red state, or merge into Idaho, or what have you, for a while now.

Yeah I know about the general concept, but I was meaning more like the specific name "New California State" or the people behind it. Is this some rando who Emperor Nortons his way into stuff, or what

 

[HumanHive]

Looks like Biden's passing the Brain Drain around.
Wyświetl załącznik 1782151

It's true though.
As I've said before, the Democrats have completely fucked themselves over by not properly mentoring and supporting their Gen X, Millenial, and now Zoomer candidate bases. Instead of being used as disposable interns and staffers for the boomer elite, they should have been brought into the fold when appropriate as the boomer congressmen retired. Instead we're going to have 80 and 90 year old democratic congressmen soon who will be barely able to hold a pen without an aide molding their fingers around it. This isn't just an embarrassment for the country, it's dangerous for the party itself as now you've got a hungry activist movement that is sick of being told to go get coffee. The same activist zeitgeist was present in the 60's, but the boomer generation of that era WAS mentored and was brought into the system, where they moderated and got realistic about things like what the country was willing to accept and how the fuck they were going to pay for it. Now AOC and the rest don't give a fuck. They want a Soviet style system with racial land redistribution, and they want it now.

To add, this is why we need term limits. Not just because "I hates those damn elites", but simply because it keeps fresh blood pumping into the system and keeps all aspects of the political ecosystem healthy.

 

[Gehenna]

I am personally not as concerned with the general population's lack of consensus, and generally find myself more interested in the belief of the various government entities that can influence elections and so-on. I suppose most of my arguments should be taken in that regard - the government entities have thusfar operated as if the base assumption was that there is not fraud; individuals broadly do not always operate as if such base assumption were there.

I've basically just been frustrated that the fraud claims have tended to evaporate or chase their tail after a single explanation thusfar. It's why the GA case is interesting - they seem to have actually gone somewhere and maybe even found something that could flip that state. If there were more cases that moved like the GA one, I'd overall give more personal belief to that aisle.


There's a lot of notions and belief, but in terms of substantiated claims, there's not much from that time. Bear in mind, the US electoral system is generally stupid and somehow behind Brazil, so it isn't like there isn't a lot that could be fixed up. But one month out from election, all political will seems to evaporate.

A lot of the shoddy overall execution falls into a few reasons.

1: Time limits are thoroughness' bane. Everything was on a TIGHT time limit, and proving fraud is something that can take months and years. People had to go with sub par stuff out of necessity.
2: Everything was very scattershot. Multiple lawsuits from multiple individuals, a handful from Trump's team, some from concerned citizens, some from governmental bodies, some from independent lawyers, some from the campaign. All of them tugging on different or even the same threads.
3: Opposition. Whether its people who just want to take a loss and move on, people who don't want Trump to 'steal' the victory, or actual nefarious bastards... its hard to argue that the forces that be have tried really hard to prevent things actually being looked into.

By preference, I'd have liked a neat, orderly investigation. But that was never in the cards.

 

[Meat Target]

Pennsylvania Urge Supreme Court to Declare Election Over
https://youtube.com/watch?v=U4f4zeVmJK0
"It's over, and nothing's wrong here. Seriously, just (quickly) give Biden the crown."

I don't know why California is Democrat HQ, when Pennsylvania here wants to call all of the shots.

It's Always Scuzzy in Filthadelphia

 

[HumanHive]

If they "accidentally" shut down the government, what does that do to the SCOTUS hearings and the election?

Not even slightly. The most basic levels of government function with or without funding. Government shutdowns are smoke and mirrors. At worse the rank and file get told to go home, but every congressman and judge keeps working.

 

[ChefKiss]

Try next year. The Woke Left has grown into a far more powerful entity then the Corporate Left thought it would, and now it has an army and mind of it's own. They aren't getting useful idiot treated without some major backlash.

if by major backlash you mean tweets and online petitions then sure.
There won't be much if any street action because that was all organized by CCP linked socialist organizations who have completely stopped talking about BLM too and are now in full on CHINA NUMBA 1 mode because they think their puppet is installed. All they can do is sit there dumbfounded as nothing is happening because they were retarded enough to enthusiastically agree there was no leadership. It all just organically happened and now I guess it's just organically not caring about events that would have sparked riots just over a month ago

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

It would be nice if that meant that something would be done, but more attention to something rarely seems to translate. Occupy wallstreet's net sum is as yet a handful of bills which further entrenched megacorps while shitting on small businesses because no-one felt like reading them, and the broad "antiracism" protests have yielded a whole lot of jack shit even at local levels of government in terms of actual action. Hell, even 2015-era BLM got, like. Bodycams, and that's really it?

Well to be fair that's kind of a bad comparison: Anti-racism protests really can't do anything anyway, discrimination is illegal and anti-racist protestors are actually calling for like segregation and actual discrimination which isn't going to yield anything to anyone who isn't A) a democrat or B)smooth brain on how the law works. BLM in comparison contradicts themselves, they got cops to get body cameras, then when it proved BLM's claims hurt Black criminals they whined and bitched until they were taken away or didn't have to be on full time all the time. In fact they argued to remove them afterwards.... lol. That's why they aren't successful. Occupy wallstreet is a can of worm's probably saved for another discussion though.

This is a different cases as in it covers the entire political spectrum and heck even non-political people are starting to get a little curious and suspicious. This isn't a partisan effort in this case like the aforementioned this is something a little more unified as surprising as it is. As time progresses and people start rising and questioning more and more, unlike riots and protests, this might bear fruition as people put pressure on the establishment to give concise and clear answers to what's going on, because as this current SC crap is showing chaos is unraveling right before us because professionals of the establishment aren't being truly forthcoming or cooperative.

 

[Meat Target]

Wyświetl załącznik 1782205

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/government-shutdown-senate-looks-to-pass-funding-bill.html

So they're still playing the "lets never make an actual budget and instead do spending bills forever" thing so they have an infinite opportunity to do pork...

If they "accidentally" shut down the government, what does that do to the SCOTUS hearings and the election?

I don't understand why they're dawdling on this. Will another one-time round of $1200 coronagibs really be that disastrous?

 

[murdered meat bag]

This may be a difference of one's perspective - I'm in a more liberal area, so I saw many many people who were certain and convinced that Trump was not legitimately the president. The Mueller report falling through and impeachment being a plainly political exercise did not dissuade them, and they are not a small amount of people. To this day they'll say that Hillary was the rightful president, and that something unconstitutional (though they can't explain precisely what) happened to get in cheetos don.

By contrast, all legal bodies concerned acknowledge that Trump was the legitimate president, as no fraud (or other disqualifying) claims were sustained. In the end, this is more the angle that I am arguing from than the angle of popular opinion.

all legal bodies concerned in 2020 are not saying Biden is the president. there's X amount of states and government officials contesting this right now. That all legal bodies didn't bother to contest the election in 2016 isn't applicable to 2020.

But while you have asserted irregularities and made claims of things to that end, outside of the one GA case, you have yet to legally substantiate any of them. For example, the whole observers not being allowed to observe - has failed to be sustained anywhere. The closest is that the laws on the books for observation weren't great, but the challenges should have been made prior to the election regarding those regulations. Just getting an affidavit that "it happened" is not substantiation.

semantically, nothing was failed to be sustained because the courts ruled on standing. there was no standing before the election because there was no harm, and now there is no standing because of laches. Again, this is why texas is asking SCOTUS to intervene with original jursidiction.

 

[CrippleThreat]

I don't understand why they're dawdling on this. Will another one-time round of $1200 coronagibs really be that disastrous?

It's all revolving around which party can say they deserve more clout for getting the gib relief through. Just more playing with lives like pawns, but it's Washington, so what else is new?

 

[XYZpdq]

So other than this thread is there a particular place we should be f5ing constantly for if/when the court says something? Like over on their site or something?

 

[murdered meat bag]

So other than this thread is there a particular place we should be f5ing constantly for if/when the court says something? Like over on their site or something?

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

the docket for scotus