Election Coverage And Results Thread

[byron]

Once state votes are certified by the respective governors, there is no constitutional option to "uncertify" those results even if additional information comes to light.

It is quite possible that the Dems could be shown to have stolen the election, after the fact, while keeping the power that they have seized.

In such an eventuality, does the real American electorate have the resolve to use the second amendment to remedy a proven-corrupt federal government that refuses to impeach a poser in the White House?

Even after the election results have been certified, losing candidates can still contest the election outcome in court. To ensure a speedy resolution, some states have deadlines for initiating and concluding contests, according to NCSL.

Trump's Last Hope to Stop Biden May Be in Overturning Obscure Election Certification Process

Dec. 8 is a critical date on the presidential electoral timetable

www.voanews.com

 

[spat]

This is a convenient scape goat. “Yes the countwas right , but the ballots themselves are false. Proof? I have no proof...I just feel it.”

Without proof it’s worth a bag of hair.

Convince me the election was conducted fairly.

The same way you would convince the IRS your deductions are legitimate.

If you can't, then don't expect me to just "trust you" anymore than they would.

 

[spat]

Proof coming tomorrow. Stay tuned! Big news!

You have proof the election was legitimate ?

I'd love to see that.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Convince me the election was conducted fairly.

The same way you would convince the IRS your deductions are legitimate.

If you can't, then don't expect me to just "trust you" anymore than they would.

You're wasting your time. His wife won't let him.

 

[Darth]

You have proof the election was legitimate ?

I'd love to see that.

And much like every other debate, shifting the burden of proof will change nothing.

 

[Steal2B]

 

[spat]

And much like every other debate, shifting the burden of proof will change nothing.

Try that with the IRS.

"no, you have to prove those deductions weren't legitimate".

The claim was made that Joe Biden won an honest and fair election. The burden of proof is on the people making that claim.

You don't just get to declare your side the "default" and then force your opponent to disprove it.


I think it's far more likely the election was fraudulent. That means if you want *me* to believe otherwise *you* will have to demonstrate that it wasn't.

If you are content to sit in your basement and ignore the fact that half the country thinks it was illegitimate, then you are free to use whatever burden of proof you want.

If you would prefer to live in a country where elections are generally trusted, then *you* need to convince *us* to trust them.

 

[Darth]

Try that with the IRS.

"no, you have to prove those deductions weren't legitimate".

The claim was made that Joe Biden won an honest and fair election. The burden of proof is on the people making that claim.

You don't just get to declare your side the "default" and then force your opponent to disprove it.


I think it's far more likely the election was fraudulent. That means if you want *me* to believe otherwise *you* will have to demonstrate that it wasn't.

If you are content to sit in your basement and ignore the fact that half the country thinks it was illegitimate, then you are free to use whatever burden of proof you want.

If you would prefer to live in a country where elections are generally trusted, then *you* need to convince *us* to trust them.

Yes, try that with the IRS indeed.

Given the default position is to not belive on something unless proven otherwise, try telling the IRS "I should have these deductions."

"OK, provide proof."

"PROVE THAT I DON'T."

Not how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The claim is "the election is fraudulent."

Shit or get off the pot.

 

[dwa12479]

IDK how this is going to play out but I get a kick out of those who feel their entitled to be given all the evidence hashed out in the media.

Precisely. What the attorneys have said publicy amount to basically the opening argument of a court case. They outline their claims and say what the evidence will show. The evidence is not actually presented until trial tbough. If what Powell and Giuliani and Ellis are claiming is true, it'll be the biggest scandal in the history of man. IF they can prove it. But they're sure as hell not about to tip their hand on some late night talk shows.

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[Dr. Evil]

Law Firm Withdraws From Representing Pennsylvania’s Boockvar in Trump Campaign Lawsuit

www.theepochtimes.com

"Kramer Levin attorney Barry Berke stepping in as a substitute. This is not the first time Berke is to confront President Donald Trump’s legal team, with the National Law Journal reporting that Berke served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee as it built its impeachment case against Trump."

 

[GOYABEAN]

Man there's not enough

 

[spat]

Yes, try that with the IRS indeed.

Given the default position is to not belive on something unless proven otherwise, try telling the IRS "I should have these deductions."

"OK, provide proof."

"PROVE THAT I DON'T."

Not how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The claim is "the election is fraudulent."

Shit or get off the pot.

No, the claim is that the election was legitimate. I do not trust the people making that claim, and they need to convince me they are correct.

How poor would the protections against fraud have to be before you wouldn't trust an election ? Or would you *always* trust an election unless fraud could be proven ? What if there were no mechanisms at all to even allow fraud to be investigated ? Would that make every election trustworthy ?

The claim is "the election was fair"

Shit or get off the pot.

 

[Darth]

No, the claim is that the election was legitimate. I do not trust the people making that claim, and they need to convince me they are correct.

How poor would the protections against fraud have to be before you wouldn't trust an election ? Or would you *always* trust an election unless fraud could be proven ? What if there were no mechanisms at all to even allow fraud to be investigated ? Would that make every election trustworthy ?
The claim is "the election was fair"

Shit or get off the pot.

There are plenty of mechanisms to investigate fraud. When some claims there is fraud, at its happening here, they can use those mechanisms to investigate fraud and uncover evidence of fraud.

We are now at that step.

 

[spat]

There are plenty of mechanisms to investigate fraud. When some claims there is fraud, at its happening here, they can use those mechanisms to investigate fraud and uncover evidence of fraud.

We are now at that step.

There are insufficient mechanisms in place with the mail in voting.

Long before the election many of us warned that the structures in place were insufficient to ensure that there wasn't fraud, or to preserve the evidence necessary to establish confidence in the election.

Now the election has happened, and things went exactly as we predicted. half the country doesn't trust the results because there is no way to adequately authenticate the ballots.

You don't get to built a system in which fraud cannot be detected, and then claim it's legitimate because no fraud has been proven.



How about this, we'll have a little poll here. Everyone IM me their vote, is the election legitimate or not.

I'll total up the votes and see who won.

 

[Darth]

There are insufficient mechanisms in place with the mail in voting.

Long before the election many of us warned that the structures in place were insufficient to ensure that there wasn't fraud, or to preserve the evidence necessary to establish confidence in the election.

Now the election has happened, and things went exactly as we predicted. half the country doesn't trust the results because there is no way to adequately authenticate the ballots.

You don't get to built a system in which fraud cannot be detected, and then claim it's legitimate because no fraud has been proven.



How about this, we'll have a little poll here. Everyone IM me their vote, is the election legitimate or not.

I'll total up the votes and see who won.

But you do get to do that.

Because that's exactly what's happening.

 

[spat]

There are insufficient mechanisms in place with the mail in voting.

Long before the election many of us warned that the structures in place were insufficient to ensure that there wasn't fraud, or to preserve the evidence necessary to establish confidence in the election.

Now the election has happened, and things went exactly as we predicted. half the country doesn't trust the results because there is no way to adequately authenticate the ballots.

You don't get to built a system in which fraud cannot be detected, and then claim it's legitimate because no fraud has been proven.



How about this, we'll have a little poll here. Everyone IM me their vote, is the election legitimate or not.

I'll total up the votes and see who won.

Result is in, NYGF has voted.

2,184,564 said "The election wasn't conducted in a forthright manner"

500 said "Biden won fair and square".


There, you have it, you lost.

And unless you can prove fraud, you *have* to accept the results now, right ?

 

[Plater1]

Result is in, NYGF has voted.

2,184,564 said "The election wasn't conducted in a forthright manner"

500 said "Biden won fair and square".


There, you have it, you lost.

And unless you can prove fraud, you *have* to accept the results now, right ?

I demand a recount.

 

[spat]

I demand a recount.

2,184,564 vs 510

We found some uncounted ballots for Darth in a dumpster behind the post office.

But it still doesn't change the result, so he has to accept it.

 

[Brian Colt]

There are insufficient mechanisms in place with the mail in voting.

Long before the election many of us warned that the structures in place were insufficient to ensure that there wasn't fraud, or to preserve the evidence necessary to establish confidence in the election.

Now the election has happened, and things went exactly as we predicted. half the country doesn't trust the results because there is no way to adequately authenticate the ballots.

You don't get to built a system in which fraud cannot be detected, and then claim it's legitimate because no fraud has been proven.



How about this, we'll have a little poll here. Everyone IM me their vote, is the election legitimate or not.

I'll total up the votes and see who won.

Fraud

 

[spat]

But you do get to do that.

Because that's exactly what's happening.

No, my position *before* the election was that this election wasn't being conducted in a manner that could even theoretically lead to a trustworthy result.


It's not impossible to prove fraud, and they might well do that.

But even if they can't that isn't sufficient to establish legitimacy.

For the process to be trustworthy it needs to be proven that significant fraud cannot have taken place.

There were not sufficient mechanisms in place for this election to allow that to be done.

The election at this point cannot be proven to have been honestly conducted.

The courts may well end up declaring that Biden is going to be president for the next 4 years (or until Kamala takes over). But they will not be able to convince half the country that the result is legitimate.




The thing you don't get about burden of proof is that it is set by the person you are trying to persuade. There isn’t an independent standard.

So, who are you trying to convince ? I don't think it's possible at this point to convince 1/3 of the country that Biden won. The evidence to convince them doesn't exist, because it was either destroyed or never created to begin with.

You may think that's their problem, and you are free to do so, right up until they make it your problem too.

 

[Defilade]

And this is Trump in the 13th round!

 

[Darth]

The thing you don't get about burden of proof is that it is set by the person you are trying to persuade. There isn’t an independent standard.

Not sure who told you that lie, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The claim still is "the election was fraudulent."

Instead of trying to shift the burden, provide evidence. If you do go back to burden shifting then I will assume no evidence exists.

What 1/3 or 1/2 of the country "thinks" is of no concern to the truth.

 

[spat]

Not sure who told you that lie, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The claim still is "the election was fraudulent."

Instead of trying to shift the burden, provide evidence. If you do go back to burden shifting then I will assume no evidence exists.

You can assume whatever you want.

I will not accept the claim that the election was legitimate without proof.

 

[Darth]

You can assume whatever you want.

I will not accept the claim that the election was legitimate without proof.

Sure. I'm sure the #notmypresident hashtag needs a good dusting off.

 

[spat]

Sure. I'm sure the #notmypresident hashtag needs a good dusting off.

Look, even if there *wasn't* fraud and Biden *did* win fair and square, the election *still* was not conducted in a trustworthy matter until you can *prove* that.

 

[Darth]

Look, even if there *wasn't* fraud and Biden *did* win fair and square, the election *still* was not conducted in a trustworthy matter until you can *prove* that.

Was the 2016 election?

 

[spat]

Sure. I'm sure the #notmypresident hashtag needs a good dusting off.

Also, if he does take office, I am sure we all agree that we want most of his policies obstructed in the most effective way possible.

I'll fly the #notmypresident flag if for no reason than to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left.

 

[spat]

Was the 2016 election?

I don't think we've had a trustworthy election in this country in a long time.

But 2016 was no where near as bad as 2020. The scale of the mail in voting alone assured that.

 

[Darth]

I don't think we've had a trustworthy election in this country in a long time.

But 2016 was no where near as bad as 2020. The scale of the mail in voting alone assured that.

So there was more fraud in this election?