Election fraud

[TheBear]

When it has happened in the past it's so miniscule that it is irrelevant to the outcome. Something like 0.00006% of votes are fraud.

And yet, for almost four years we've been told, day in and day out, that Trump's election was the result of fraud, and his presidency is illegitimate.

So, which is it? Is Trump's presidency legit, or did he beat such astronomical odds?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And yet, for almost four years we've been told, day in and day out, that Trump's election was the result of fraud, and his presidency is illegitimate.

So, which is it? Is Trump's presidency legit, or did he beat such astronomical odds?

Those were not the claims made about Trump. They were *not* that the votes were fraudulent or invalid, as far as we can tell every vote cast for Trump in 2016 was legally made by an American. The claim was that Trump had help in his campaign to convince people (stolen emails, Russian trolls, etc.) and knew about some of it. Whether these things mattered or not to voters is impossible to tell, but even if they changed peoples' minds, it was still legal votes by US citizens that elected him in 2016.

Like in 2016, we don't see any evidence of systematic or extensive fraud this year. (There are usually a handful of individual cases of illegal voting of various kinds, but don't bother with stories about a vote here and 3 votes there, they just don't matter.)

 

[TheBear]

Those were not the claims made about Trump. They were *not* that the votes were fraudulent or invalid, as far as we can tell every vote cast for Trump in 2016 was legally made by an American. The claim was that Trump had help in his campaign to convince people (stolen emails, Russian trolls, etc.) and knew about some of it. Whether these things mattered or not to voters is impossible to tell, but even if they changed peoples' minds, it was still legal votes by US citizens that elected him in 2016.

Like in 2016, we don't see any evidence of systematic or extensive fraud this year. (There are usually a handful of individual cases of illegal voting of various kinds, but don't bother with stories about a vote here and 3 votes there, they just don't matter.)

If Meuller had just a tiny fraction of evidence as presented in these threads regarding election fraud of 2020, as the Russian collusion theory of 2016, Trump would have already been removed from office.

And people are saying that THIS thread should be moved to the conspiracy theory section. What a joke!

 

[Hans Blaster]

If Meuller had just a tiny fraction of evidence as presented in these threads regarding election fraud of 2020, as the Russian collusion theory of 2016, Trump would have already been removed from office.

THere is no evidence for widespread voter fraud in this year's election.

It doesn't matter how much evidence Mueller had if the Senate refuses to remove. (Name the 20 Republicans that would have voted to remove if everything in the Muller report was absolutely true. You can't.)

 

[TheBear]

THere is no evidence for widespread voter fraud in this year's election.

Is that what the mainstream media repeatedly told you, or is that merely your belief system at work? Or, is it a combination of both?

 

[TheBear]

"1984" was meant as a warning, not a playbook.

 

[7thKeeper]

Is that what the mainstream media repeatedly told you, or is that merely your belief system at work? Or, is it a combination of both?

I think it's more of the "no one has shown evidence" sort of thing. The cases so far that have gone to court have been throw out due to lack of evidence or false claims.

 

[High Fidelity]

Is that what the mainstream media repeatedly told you, or is that merely your belief system at work? Or, is it a combination of both?

So what's your alternative to mainstream media, especially when it's global media that have no benefit in misrepresenting facts.

Should we listen to fringe 'media' websites that coincidentally happen to align to your preferred viewpoint and narrative?

 

[KCfromNC]

If Meuller had just a tiny fraction of evidence as presented in these threads regarding election fraud of 2020, as the Russian collusion theory of 2016, Trump would have already been removed from office.

No, Donald was impeached for potential interference in the 2020 election, not the well documented interference in the 2016 election.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is that what the mainstream media repeatedly told you, or is that merely your belief system at work? Or, is it a combination of both?

For me, it is more that Donald's failed to present any evidence which has convinced judges that it happened. Thanks for asking, though.

 

[cow451]

Those were not the claims made about Trump. They were *not* that the votes were fraudulent or invalid, as far as we can tell every vote cast for Trump in 2016 was legally made by an American. The claim was that Trump had help in his campaign to convince people (stolen emails, Russian trolls, etc.) and knew about some of it. Whether these things mattered or not to voters is impossible to tell, but even if they changed peoples' minds, it was still legal votes by US citizens that elected him in 2016.

Like in 2016, we don't see any evidence of systematic or extensive fraud this year. (There are usually a handful of individual cases of illegal voting of various kinds, but don't bother with stories about a vote here and 3 votes there, they just don't matter.)

Trump claimed there were 3 million illegal votes cast in 2016. And, shockingly..., without any evidence.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Is that what the mainstream media repeatedly told you, or is that merely your belief system at work? Or, is it a combination of both?

One way or another it is active dis-information -- there is already enough hard evidence for legal proceedings & rulings to have already occurred:

"Rudy Giuliani: strong evidence shows 3-4 states and possibly 10 states were stolen in this election. Those are facts not allegations. We have 50 witnesses. There are mainly three fraudulent issues: secret counting without Republican observer, dead people voting, votes that were not counted; back dated entries. Similar types of cheats happened in eight different Democrat states, which means it had to be an order from somewhere."​

Trump team vows more lawsuits in key states, as top Republicans mum on projected Biden win

 

[Erik Nelson]

Trump claimed there were 3 million illegal votes cast in 2016. And, shockingly..., without any evidence.

2020 corroborates those claims, establishing a persistent pattern

 

[Arcangl86]

2020 corroborates those claims, establishing a persistent pattern

Or it shows that Trump is vastly unpopular and about the same proportion of people voted against him both times.

 

[Erik Nelson]

...global media that have no benefit in misrepresenting facts.

The global community has such strong views about the US 2020 election...

precisely because they have such vested interests in the results

 

[Hans Blaster]

2020 corroborates those claims, establishing a persistent pattern

Nonsense. It's real simple, fewer voters prefer Trump to his Democratic alternatives.

 

[cow451]

2020 corroborates those claims, establishing a persistent pattern

Trump’s claim was conveniently the number that Hillary bested him by nationally. Priceless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One way or another it is active dis-information -- there is already enough hard evidence for legal proceedings & rulings to have already occurred:

"Rudy Giuliani: strong evidence shows 3-4 states and possibly 10 states were stolen in this election. Those are facts not allegations. We have 50 witnesses. There are mainly three fraudulent issues: secret counting without Republican observer, dead people voting, votes that were not counted; back dated entries. Similar types of cheats happened in eight different Democrat states, which means it had to be an order from somewhere."​

Trump team vows more lawsuits in key states, as top Republicans mum on projected Biden win

Why is this subtitled in Chinese? Are you distributing CCP agitprop?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Why is this subtitled in Chinese? Are you distributing CCP agitprop?

The audio & video is in English

 

[Erik Nelson]

Nonsense. It's real simple, fewer voters prefer Trump to his Democratic alternatives.

Perhaps if you accept votes from deceased persons, including for example Smokin' Joe Frazier as well as Will Smith's grandfather:

Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith’s grandfather voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find out.

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 8, 2020
​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps if you accept votes from deceased persons, including for example Smokin' Joe Frazier as well as Will Smith's grandfather:

Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith’s grandfather voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find out.

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 8, 2020​

First-- Rudy's not exactly credible.
Second-- election day was 11/6/2018, so Joe Frazier was still alive and even if he was ill he may have voted absentee. Absentee voting has generally been available for those unable to come to the polls. (I don't know how he died.)
Third-- I don't know Will Smith's gfather, but I guess his name just *might* be common. Many of these sorts of cases of apparent post-mortem voting are caused by confusing the registrations of the deceased with someone with a similar name. (One case this year in Michigan alleged that someone born in 1902 had voted. It was a data entry error for a legitimate voter.)
Fourth-- Both of these "cases" are from 2018, not from 2020.

We. Need. Some. Actual. Evidence. Rudy.