I'm curious about everyone's understanding of this

[miamited]

Hi all,

You know, I'm listening constantly to a barrage of claims that the Democrats/Biden/Left/Liberals are trying to steal this election. Now, I think I'm a reasonable person and I believe that I'm reasonably intelligent, but...

Trump and his folks have filed some 35-40 lawsuits to try and prove this claim. To date, not a single one has amounted to a hill of beans...according to the judges hearing the cases. I think his crew won one case concerning how far observers could stand from the ballot counters. Nothing about fraud or illegal activities has even had a glimmer of hope in any of these cases.

Then Trump and his team did their best to stop vote certifications in several states. In every state they were unable to accomplish that task. I believe all of the states for which his team have applied any effort to that endeavor have all now been certified as to the county vote certification and finally the overall state certification. As far as I am aware, the states that Trump's team went after were PA, MI, AZ, NV, WI. All of those states have certified. Apparently not a single state saw fit to address the claims of the Trump team on merit.

Then Trump and his team looked like they were going to try and get some of the respective legislatures to not pick electors for the popular vote winner, as it stands now. Thus turning many electors into what are called 'faithless' electors. This would seem like a fairly impossible task since most state's laws require that a state's electors vote for the majority winner in that state.

Now, there are rumors that Trump is going to try and convince one representative in the Congress and one in the Legislature to challenge the electors and their votes.

I'm just curious. Does everyone agree that it's Biden who is trying to steal the election?

God bless,
ted

 

[hislegacy]

I think it would be wisdom to wait until the cases go through the courts - there are numerous issues still being addressed.

Many things are superfluous, but there are some that cause serious questions. The video showing ballots being unloaded from suitcases after the majority of workers left for the day being the most blaring that raises questions.

There are somewhere in the number of 240 signed depositions testifying under oath of issues. They have the right to be heard.

The most glaring question I have is how does someone get hundreds of thousands of votes (in a single delivery in some cases) where 95% of the votes are for one person on the ballot only. Every instance of this happening between midnight and 2am.

 

[Strathos]

Hi all,

You know, I'm listening constantly to a barrage of claims that the Democrats/Biden/Left/Liberals are trying to steal this election. Now, I think I'm a reasonable person and I believe that I'm reasonably intelligent, but...

Trump and his folks have filed some 35-40 lawsuits to try and prove this claim. To date, not a single one has amounted to a hill of beans...according to the judges hearing the cases. I think his crew won one case concerning how far observers could stand from the ballot counters. Nothing about fraud or illegal activities has even had a glimmer of hope in any of these cases.

Then Trump and his team did their best to stop vote certifications in several states. In every state they were unable to accomplish that task. I believe all of the states for which his team have applied any effort to that endeavor have all now been certified as to the county vote certification and finally the overall state certification. As far as I am aware, the states that Trump's team went after were PA, MI, AZ, NV, WI. All of those states have certified. Apparently not a single state saw fit to address the claims of the Trump team on merit.

Then Trump and his team looked like they were going to try and get some of the respective legislatures to not pick electors for the popular vote winner, as it stands now. Thus turning many electors into what are called 'faithless' electors. This would seem like a fairly impossible task since most state's laws require that a state's electors vote for the majority winner in that state.

Now, there are rumors that Trump is going to try and convince one representative in the Congress and one in the Legislature to challenge the electors and their votes.

I'm just curious. Does everyone agree that it's Biden who is trying to steal the election?

God bless,
ted

It's a case of weapons-grade projection. They always accuse the left of doing what they're trying to do, or would do if they could get away with it. Remember when they kept claiming that Obama would declare martial law in order to stay in office? Flynn recently urged Trump to do the same thing.

 

[hislegacy]

Flynn recently urged Trump to do the same thing

LINK?

 

[Jamsie]

LINK?

If you don't like "Newsweek" there are myriad other sites with the story.... Michael Flynn's call for "martial law" comes amid violent threats over Trump election defeat

 

[bekkilyn]

It seems more to me that it is Trump trying to steal the election and sabotage the democratic process.

 

[Lord Give Me A Sign]

I think it would be wisdom to wait until the cases go through the courts - there are numerous issues still being addressed.

Many things are superfluous, but there are some that cause serious questions. The video showing ballots being unloaded from suitcases after the majority of workers left for the day being the most blaring that raises questions.

There are somewhere in the number of 240 signed depositions testifying under oath of issues. They have the right to be heard.

The most glaring question I have is how does someone get hundreds of thousands of votes (in a single delivery in some cases) where 95% of the votes are for one person on the ballot only. Every instance of this happening between midnight and 2am.

I agree. Im not on either side. But i dont trust the media or the fact checkers, its clear they have some kind of agenda when they have been so quick debunk everything. Im waiting to see how this plays out

 

[Halbhh]

It seems more to me that it is Trump trying to steal the election and sabotage the democratic process.

Bingo.

 

[Halbhh]

I agree. Im not on either side. But i dont trust the media or the fact checkers, its clear they have some kind of agenda when they have been so quick debunk everything. Im waiting to see how this plays out

And the elected Republican Governors and Republican Secretaries of State that have said their elections were fair and valid?

 

[Lord Give Me A Sign]

And the elected Republican Governors and Republican Secretaries of State that have said their elections were fair and valid?

Like i said im waiting to see how this plays out. Until then...

 

[miamited]

Hi HL,

Thanks for your response:

The most glaring question I have is how does someone get hundreds of thousands of votes (in a single delivery in some cases) where 95% of the votes are for one person on the ballot only. Every instance of this happening between midnight and 2am.

That has been asked and answered several times. One more time. Trump railed against mail-in voting. Biden fully supported and encouraged mail-in voting and quite a lot of the Democratic effort was to get people registered and familiar with mail-in voting. Biden, while I'm sure you won't agree, was concerned about people's health. Trump, as has been pretty clearly seen, isn't particularly.

So 90% of mail-in ballots were Democratic voters who were listening to the advice of their candidate and voted for their candidate. Yes, Trump had a nice lead when it was all pretty much walk-in voting because it was pretty much just Republicans who were following the advice and voting for the candidate of their choice. Now, the process for mail-in voting is that they are all counted up and then 'dumped' at one time into the system. This is reflected by the 'spikes' that Trump thinks are sooooo mysterious, but they aren't.

So yes, when the mail-in count was 'dumped' into the system, and 90% of the mail-in voting was from people following what their candidate encouraged, it's going to be seen as a massive influx of Biden votes, because....wait for it....that's what it was! Nothing mysterious or nefarious about it...if one is familiar with how the system works. Of course, that's been one of the charges of several of the judges concerning a lot of these affidavits. Quite a few of them, it seems, record perfectly normal events in the counting process, but those watching had no understanding of how the counting process works.

Hope that helps, but I'm doubtful.

God bless,
ted

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hi HL,

Thanks for your response:


That has been asked and answered several times. One more time. Trump railed against mail-in voting. Biden fully supported and encouraged mail-in voting and quite a lot of the Democratic effort was to get people registered and familiar with mail-in voting. Biden, while I'm sure you won't agree, was concerned about people's health. Trump, as has been pretty clearly seen, isn't particularly.

So 90% of mail-in ballots were Democratic voters who were listening to the advice of their candidate and voted for their candidate. Yes, Trump had a nice lead when it was all pretty much walk-in voting because it was pretty much just Republicans who were following the advice and voting for the candidate of their choice. Now, the process for mail-in voting is that they are all counted up and then 'dumped' at one time into the system. This is reflected by the 'spikes' that Trump thinks are sooooo mysterious, but they aren't.

So yes, when the mail-in count was 'dumped' into the system, and 90% of the mail-in voting was from people following what their candidate encouraged, it's going to be seen as a massive influx of Biden votes, because....wait for it....that's what it was! Nothing mysterious or nefarious about it...if one is familiar with how the system works. Of course, that's been one of the charges of several of the judges concerning a lot of these affidavits. Quite a few of them, it seems, record perfectly normal events in the counting process, but those watching had no understanding of how the counting process works.

Hope that helps, but I'm doubtful.

God bless,
ted

Why did those people only vote for one office (President) and ignore all the others? Perhaps you have some thoughts on that?

 

[Sparagmos]

The most glaring question I have is how does someone get hundreds of thousands of votes (in a single delivery in some cases) where 95% of the votes are for one person on the ballot only.

Where was this? What precinct/county?

 

[miamited]

Why did those people only vote for one office (President) and ignore all the others? Perhaps you have some thoughts on that?

Hi GTAW,

Well, before I can answer that, I'd need to verify your facts. How many ballots only showed a vote for president? The instructions on my mail-in ballot clearly stated that I didn't have to vote for all offices. So, I wouldn't be surprised, based on that instruction, that several folks only voted for the race that they were most concerned about. I imagine that a lot of people may have voted for just the president because that's really the only office they cared about.

However, as I say, get me some evidence of how many people, out of 84M Democratic ballots only voted for the office of the president. I'm also not sure what instructions newly registered voters were given when Democratic teams encouraged them to register and vote. It's possible that when someone might have said that they don't vote, that the canvassing person responded with, "Look, this is a very important election. Do you like the way Trump is running things?" The registrant replies, "No." Then the canvasser says, "Ok, well just vote for the presidential race."

There are at least a couple of reasons that someone might have only voted for the presidential race. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that any ballot is not valid. Like I say, in the state of South Carolina, the mail-in ballot instructions say that it is not necessary to mark every race. I rather imagine that those instructions are there because they are trying to answer a lot of questions that they get that tie up personnel to answer. So, I'm going to say that there may be quite a few people that are only concerned about the presidential race.

Of course, that's just a guess, but find out how many people you're talking about. Certainly a few thousand 'president only' ballots shouldn't be cause for alarm with a total of some 150M total ballots for the two front runner parties.

God bless,
ted

 

[Sparagmos]

Why did those people only vote for one office (President) and ignore all the others? Perhaps you have some thoughts on that?

Which people where?

I know that when I did phonebanking to get out the vote, many people asked if they could just vote for president since they didn’t know who to vote for for other offices. These were pretty much all new voters. A lot of people get overwhelmed by all of the decisions to make on a ballot and if you’re not aligned with a party, it’s a lot of work to research each candidate rather than vote straight ticket.

 

[Halbhh]

Which people where?

I know that when I did phonebanking to get out the vote, many people asked if they could just vote for president since they didn’t know who to vote for for other offices. These were pretty much all new voters. A lot of people get overwhelmed by all of the decisions to make on a ballot and if you’re not aligned with a party, it’s a lot of work to research each candidate rather than vote straight ticket.

In my life I've voted, more than just once of twice, for just 1 or 2 candidates on a lengthy ballot with a dozen or more offices.

I chose not to vote for those other races where I didn't know anything about the candidates.

Only in perhaps 1/3rd of elections (of over a dozen) have I tried to learn about most of the candidate positions, so that I could feel good about voting in most all of the races. I did on some occasions just vote all Republican, and then I felt bad about that, because I knew that in some instances I might be voting for the wrong person, by chance.

@grasping the after wind

 

[Sparagmos]

t's possible that when someone might have said that they don't vote, that the canvassing person responded with, "Look, this is a very important election. Do you like the way Trump is running things?" The registrant replies, "No." Then the canvasser says, "Ok, well just vote for the presidential race."

This is EXACTLY what canvassers I know were doing. I did the same over the phone. People were sure that they wanted Trump out, but not sure on the rest.

 

[miamited]

Where was this? What precinct/county?

Hi sparagmos,

I think the one that's been getting the most attention was a precinct in Milwaukee. Apparently there were about 140,000 ballots that were finished counting about 3am and then at 3:42 the total count was dumped into the system. One report I read claimed that it was state law, that mail-in ballot counts all be dumped at one time. I only read it on one article so far and so I don't know if that's verified or not. Nevertheless, it did happen that way.

Apparently as the vote counters count the mail-in ballots, each counter keeps their count on some separate data storage tool. Then when it's all done, each counter turns their data storage tool, (perhaps a portable drive of some kind) over to the administrator, who then dumps all the information into the system that keeps the total count at one time. I may have some of the process incorrect, but that does seem to be the gist of the testimony of the elections administrators of the particular precincts in question.

God bless,
ted

 

[Sparagmos]

Hi sparagmos,

I think the one that's been getting the most attention was a precinct in Milwaukee. Apparently there were about 140,000 ballots that were finished counting about 3am and then at 3:42 the total count was dumped into the system. One report I read claimed that it was state law, that mail-in ballot counts all be dumped at one time. I only read it on one article so far and so I don't know if that's verified or not. Nevertheless, it did happen that way.

Apparently as the vote counters count the mail-in ballots, each counter keeps their count on some separate data storage tool. Then when it's all done, each counter turns their data storage tool, (perhaps a portable drive of some kind) over to the administrator, who then dumps all the information into the system that keeps the total count at one time. I may have some of the process incorrect, but that does seem to be the gist of the testimony of the elections administrators of the particular precincts in question.

God bless,
ted

Ah, yes I read about that too. That’s why I was asking for specifics, hard to give an explanation without knowing where it happened.

 

[hislegacy]

That has been asked and answered several times.

That’s true, however not by anyone in authority. I don’t consider the media authority. That is perhaps why it is still in the courts.

Have you been watching the proceedings live?

If you haven’t, that is because none of the main stream media is choosing to show them live. Now compare that to the questioning about impeachment.

A neutral person would ask why the censure of the news.