How many "single cases" does it take before it's "widespread"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Printable View
How many "single cases" does it take before it's "widespread"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Good question. We're talking about a national election, this time with around 140 million turnout. 1000 cases would be 0.0007%, but that likely wouldn't swing anything in even the most contested states. Probably in the thousands or tens of thousands at least, in multiple states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
So how many rigged votes can you fit in a suitcase? I put it at about 500. So you'd only need 25 suitcases in GA, 40 in MI, and 160 in PA to rig the election. That of course assumes you know the real outcome in advance so you know exactly how many suitcase-fulls of rigged votes to take to rig each state, but you can always take 200 in each state just to be safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Then there's the slight problem of making sure no-one sees you walking into a polling station with trolleys of suitcases and be suspicious enough to take a picture, or for a R observer to catch you unloading them onto a table, and yeah I think it's definitely plausible enough for Fox News to report as fact.
Are we talking about a national election? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Why aren't we talking about a city council election in Davenport, Iowa? Or a Sheriff's race in some desolate desert county in New Mexico?
The same rules apply to those elections as the national one.
It's not like you go vote and your ballot is just an index card where you check Trump or Biden. These things are usually 2-3 pages long and most people are asked to vote in anywhere between 5 and 20 elections at a time.
So why are you isolating the question to a "national election" only?
You're just about to make my point though. Keep going. Why do they insist on shoe-horning the word "widespread" whenever they say "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud"
I didn't even read the rest of your post. Just go get the facts man. They have the video tape. They have the vote counting machines. They can match up the times and find out how many votes were in those suitcases. The answer is 18,000Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump lost Georgia by just under 12,000 votes.
Another good question. Apparently someone here had issues with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
You can talk about whatever you want mate, within the mods' banhammer discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
If we say voter fraud exists, but it's not "widespread", is that enough?
The heritage foundation has a list of thousands of individual instances of voter fraud. And with every single one of them you could say "well that can't affect the presidential election". Well....then why have thousands of people done it?? Why would anyone risk criminal prosecution and prison time just to fake-vote?
Because it works.
You can take a busload of people from one polling place to another and elect yourself a sherrif, a city councilor, a tax collector, a state representative, a judge, or any number of powerful political positions on a local level.
So if the entry levels of government are corrupt, then how can you have a functional bureaucracy that serves the people?
If the good guys can't get it in......then who is getting in?
Actually it's 15:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/...fraud_type=All
I think he meant since the early 80s, in any elections.
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. Each and every one of the cases in this database represents an instance in which a public official, usually a prosecutor, thought it serious enough to act upon it. And each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome — or that the results of an election were sufficiently in question and had to be overturned. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. This database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.
Quote:
1,308 - Proven instances of voter fraud
1,129 - Criminal convictions
48 - Civil penalties
95 - Diversion program
19 - Judicial finding
17 - Official finding
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I mean boost literally called me an idiot, and I didn't even consider banning him, or censoring him in any way. As far as I'm concerned, banana can say what the fuck he likes, just like the rest of you guys. I'd obviously ban him if he started posting kiddie porn, or posting obviously libellous shit, there's ways to get me to act. I mean I did ban him once before, but that was after mojo had done so several times and he kept coming back and being a dick, so I took that stress away from mojo. I'll always support mojo when it comes to such matters because I know he's a reasonable guy, he doesn't ban people for fun like jyms did.
banana isn't being a dick, so I doubt mojo will have an issue with his reappearance. I certainly don't.
I thought we were talking about 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I guess the good news is that there was 30 times less voter fraud in 2020 than the average over the last 40 years!
poop has also insulted me many times, I've never considered banning him either. To do so would be a massive dick move on my part.
I did delete a thread poop started, and have considered deleting the Brexit thread, but frankly I think it's more fun to just let him cry about Brexit on his own while nobody else replies in that thread. I'm done with it.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So ~360 suitcases. Yeah, seems legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
Link us the "video tape" there Rudy. Or, link us to the court case that they presented the video in. Othewise, it's just a story you heard on right-wing media that you're expecting us to naively accept as fact.
OMG please tell me this is the tape that Fox sent by courier that the courier lost and Fox never made a backup of.
yeah, ok, you win. It's all a giant right-wing conspiracy that happens to be supported by 1/4 of congress.
But let's go with "Hannity pulled it out of his ass". That's productive.
Where's the videotape now, Sherlock?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
And b) what court reviewed it and what did they say about it? Or was it lost on the way to court or Trump's lawyer's dog ate it or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk
No one has explained this. They just say "it's normal" and they're challenging YOU to prove that it's not normal.
See, it's not against the law to make up lies on TV news. It should be, but it isn't.
But it IS against the law to make up lies in court. That's the cool thing about court, you can't just talk shit and expect to win the case (seems your ex-wife learned that lesson but not you).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
When was this presented in court, and in which court? How do we even know this is actual tape from a polling station in GA in 2020? Where's the proof these ballots were made up and don't represent real voters? When they did the two recounts, why didn't they find these "fake" ballots? Where is the video of the people bringing in these suitcases full of fake ballots before the election started? Where? How? When?
Where were the R observers when all this was going on? Were they forced out of the room at gunpoint?
These are the kinds of questions a 10c lawyer would ask. And you have to be able to answer them. You can't go into court with a video, narrate it any old way you like, and expect a judge to say "Hey this shyster tells a cool story bro - I'mma overturn the national election!"
It's certainly ok to make up lies in a forum, which is what you're doing.
It's not TV news. It says right in the description of the video. This is before a senate judiciary committee.
Lying to congress is as much a crime as lying in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
Haha, like the R senate was going to convict someone of lying in support of Trump.
Still interested to hear what the courts had to say about this tape. Maybe the fake news lied about that too. Please, inform and educate us.
Right. So why don't those questions have answers still??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's all just "nothing to see here" and anyone who puts anything online that disputes that is banned.
There's really no point in discussing this further. You've made my point for me. There are questions that should be asked, are being asked, but aren't getting answered.
Now you know why people are pissed off enough to put their grubby feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk.
Well I just asked a whole lot of questions that you didn't answer, so lol to you sir.
No one has answered them. or if they did, they got banned from twitter before anyone saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's the point.
So this critical videotape that was the lynchpin of Trumo's case never found its way into a real coutroom then? 'Cause I didn't know twitter had that kind of power.
Help me out here... Why isn't the Georgie Suitcase Massacre part of thethousandsI'm sorry, 15 documented cases of voter fraud documented by the Heritage Foundation?
Damn those pedo aliens censoring free speech again.
Holy shit!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
It's all coming together now!
It's like watching an episode of Tucker Carlson Investigates but on a poker forum.
The point is, you're a complete fool if you can say with 100% certainty that you're sure the election outcome is correct. There's too much weirdness for anyone to say, for certain, that it's all baloney.
That's not supposed to happen.
We're supposed to have confidence in the elections.
https://i.imgur.com/AlcFSwj.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
"Shut up" they explained...
"You haven't actually reported any evidence that managed to hold up in court," they explained.
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories, lack of evidence just means the conspiracy goes deeper and wider than thought.
lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I love how many R governors and judges are in on it too.
I mean that's one hell of a good disguise, pretend to be Republican your whole life then when an election gets stolen take off your mask and show those true colours.
So far, so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He's on my watch list for prior events, but I believe in personal growth, and I believe in forgiveness of past transgressions when growth has moved someone past the point of making the same mistakes.
So long as he's attacking ideas and not people, he's a welcome addition to FTR.
Though, not gonna lie, and he'll probably love this... I think seeing him posting in this forum did trigger a migraine from me this morning, so that sucks. I have been struggling with some insomnia the past couple nights that set me up for it, and the stress of anticipating another shitstorm on FTR sent me over the edge.
***
Boost throwing one "ong's an idiot" out there over many years of participation in this forum is not pinging me.
Boost has earned a wealth of leeway and benefit-of-the-doubt from me. As has everyone regularly posting on FTR. I'm not hard to win over, really. Just treat other humans with respect and I'll look past the occasional loss of restraint.
The ultimate 3d chess move by democrats would be to agree and say: we see so much fraud at the local level that we must disentangle federal elections from the state level and move to a popular vote system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
^^ to Mojo: There's also the fact that Ong seems to like him (possibly because he makes Ong seem reasonable by comparison).
ong dislikes authority flexing just because it can. Ong believes that personal freedom to express your thoughts in words should not be restrained at all when it comes to adults choosing to engage in it.
Just because there's a ban power, doesn't mean that ong agrees that a ban is something that we should really use. Certainly not as a first resort, and never out of some sense of "white knighting" unnamed people who may or may not stumble across this little corner of lost internet past.
Whereas, I have a sense of duty to this public space and curating this space to be inviting to new people does mean something to me.
Where ong and I disagree is in that. I'm not protecting anyone in particular. No one has complained to me that banana has pushed them away from FTR. We're all adults here, and we participate voluntarily. No one needs to protect us from each other - no one should be banned for anything, here.
I do agree with him on that.
But I can't let go of what feels like a sense of duty to just keep things civil in this semi-public space.
OMG trying to be thoughtful while thinking through a migraine is about impossible. Sorry if that's a bit obtuse.
I need to take a break from the computer for a bit until the Ibuprofen kicks in.
Not at all. I can argue until I'm blue in the face. I'm just bored of Brexit now, there's nothing further to discuss for at least a year or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I like you too poop, mark your calendar. But since you made this comment, I will say I think the guy is funny and intelligent. Yes he can be a class A dick, but he has qualities to make up for it. It's also refreshing to see someone else butting heads with you guys, especially someone more clued up on American politics than I'll ever be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A very astute observation. I have a lot of contempt for authority. I recognise that people can't be trusted enough to live without authority, but deep down I despise the idea of "senior" people having power over others. That's the anarchist in me. Self rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
I'm blushing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm actually a bit surprised the NY Bar Ass. thought they needed a bylaw that forbids its members to "take part in encouraging the overthrow of the US gov't." That seems kinda like having a bylaw that says you shouldn't murder your client.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1348712917663846400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sounds legally tenuous to me. He didn't encourage the overthrow of the US govt. Biden isn't the President yet, his party are not the government. It's basically the same argument as using the word "coup", which is fine in casual conversation (largely because nobody knows what the correct term is), but law is not casual with its language.
Rudy did not encourage a coup. To suggest he did is to fail to understand what a "coup" is.
He should be disbarred for having Macho Man playing while he enters a rally.
Is that a wrestler or a song?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm so glad I'm not on twitter. Every single person is a hopeless retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ommitee-458141
This is really really fucking bad.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcoh...h=7506287a75f2
I think Stalin's corpse just got a boner
It's almost as if you can't falsely dispute an election these days without getting a comeuppance. Gawd.
It's almost like democrat congresspeople didn't do the exact same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
THE EXACT SAME THING
in 2000, then again in 2004, and in 2016
https://www.businessinsider.com/cele...-trump-2016-12
Why aren't these "insurrectionists" in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdA1skqD0TY
Look, treason caught on camera!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4tkOTZWH4
I hope the guy screaming at 2:45 gets 100 years in prison. Who does he think he is "falsely disputing an election"!
I'm not really up on my History of the US Congress, but I'm fairly sure none of those people were supporting an ex-POTUS who was fomenting revolt, and had absolutely no evidence for what they were claiming.
How convenientQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You are correct. In 2000 it was an ex vice-potus, in 2004 it was a sitting senator, in 2016 it was an ex-FLOTUS.Quote:
but I'm fairly sure none of those people were supporting an ex-POTUS
Thank you for that clarification.
The word he used was "cheer". and the remedy that the 140+ congresspeople asked for was an "audit".Quote:
who was fomenting revolt,
Why do you need evidence to ask questions? Or do an audit? Why does it have to be an open and shut case before we even start the inquiry? What kind of fucked up standard is that?Quote:
and had absolutely no evidence for what they were claiming.
All these things have to be considered in the context of a moron ex-POTUS who will say anything if he thinks it will help him. There was no fraud, at least not any systematic fraud. Every one of the "opposers" to the election in congress and the senate knows that. Mitch fucking McConnell knows that. Mike Pence knows that. All the governors know that. All the judges who heard the cases know that.
In fact, the entire fucking world knows that except for far right media viewers, 'cause you've been eating a steady diet of lies and propaganda for so long you have absolutely no fucking clue what is actually going on in the real world.
How is this different from literally anyone else in the ruling class?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Greedy, selfish, lecherous, adulterous, slimy, dishonest, egotistical, privileged, condescending, lying, scheming, backstabbing politician whose puppet strings are controlled by big business and special interest groups that enhance his personal wealth in return for political favors.
Are you really telling me that sentence only describes one singular solitary 'moron ex-Potus'?
I'm not describing anyone else in Washington DC or in any US state capitol?
Really dude?
Really?
This is what you refuse to see about Trump. If America is dead, then Trump is the coroner, NOT the murderer.
Even some of them have their limits. Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence did not support the MAGA-lution, as I noted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
Reductio ad change subjecto.
If the issue is whether supporting a bogus revolution in your own country for personal political gain is a sackable offense (which is what we started out talking about), then I don't have any sympathy for a MAGAlution supporter getting fired, sorry.
Where do these words like "revolution" and "insurrection" come from?
140+ members of congress asked for an "audit". That's what they asked for. Not a revolution. Not an "overthrow". An "audit".
Every one of those congresspeople represents some 500K+ american citizens. Questions and doubt about the election is not a fringe theory espoused only by maga-maniacs drooling over Alex Jones podcasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
You said yourself all politicians are self-serving. So that checkmates your argument that they had a legitimate case to make for fraud.
Nice dodge
I've said this to him a million times and he still works on the assumption that Trump is the only liar in politics. Actually that's not true, he also thinks Boris is a liar. But he never calls out the lies of his own team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Banana
Here's a Biden lie...
"I went to law school on a full academic scholarship…[and] ended up in the top half of my class."
Biden graduated 76th of 85 students in his law school class.
If Trump said this, poop would be drooling.
I can't be bothered to list all the lies I can find from Biden, I expect it because he's a politician. They're all liars. It's their job. "Politician" is synonymous with "professional liar".
You played yourself into a corner banana, well done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And I've told you repeatedly that I know they're all liars.
But lying about your grades is not on the same level as lying about an election lol. Are you really outraged that Biden lied about his grades? Fuck me, what a snowflake.
lol no I'm not outraged, Jesus. It was just the first lie I could find, and it was exactly the kind of lie you'd gleefully mock Trump for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He really believes he won. So it's not a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Just like Al Gore thinks he won. And John Kerry. And Hillary.