Nothing to see here, move along. No, no fraud at all in US election.

[grrclark]

3 hours ago, serrac said:

That's a bit harsh labeling CNN a "partisan online media" just because they inadvertently published data that demolishes your narrative.
I guess that's one way of dealing with your cognitive dissonance.

"An uninformed reader might say that the courts have examined the evidence and have rejected the evidence of electoral fraud as insubstantial.  And, indeed, the reader would have to be uninformed or misled by the lies of the presstitute media.  

The fact is this: No court has examined the evidence. No state court and not the US Supreme Court.  The reason that the courts have not accepted the cases is that they do not want to have to examine the evidence, because the evidence clearly establishes that the election was stolen and that the theft was carefully planned in advance.  The state courts in the swing states where the election was stolen are protecting the Democrats. The US Supreme Court refused to accept the case on the grounds that Texas did not have standing to bring a case.  Clearly, there has been no judicial ruling on the evidence that the election was legitimate. The US Supreme Court will protect the Establishment and the Establishment’s reputation before it will protect  electoral integrity. 

The evidence has been refused examination by the state and federal judiciary.

So much for “American democracy.”  So much for the “American Rule of Law.”  No such rule exists.  Law exists only for the purposes of the ruling Establishment. Power, not law, rules in America. 

The US Supreme Court is an Establishment institution. It makes controversial rulings only when it has the media on its side."

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/14/free-inquiry-r-i-p/

 

Yes another "partisan online media" 
Perhaps you'd like to direct us to some media outlets that are guaranteed free of partisanship in either direction?
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Very good in quoting someone else's thoughts, how about some of your own.  What critical inspection of Paul Craig Robert's interpretation have you done?

If you wish to talk of cognitive dissonance then why not start with the multiple cognitive biases that you are demonstrating:

Selective perception - you are choosing information that you perceive to support your hypothesis, i.e. Trump could not lose so therefor there must be fraud and you select the things you perceive to validate that or selective in the things that you choose to dismiss that may challenge your hypothesis.

Continued Influence Effect - by constantly exposing yourself to the same information sources that promote that same narrative that there was fraud that re-enforces your perception there was.

Cheerleader effect - your belief system is enhanced through exposure to influential sources that you hold in high esteem who are actively promoting your hypothesis.

Reactive Devaluation - As you cannot believe that Trump could lose the reaction is to devalue any information that supports that narrative, i.e. it must be fraud. Or despite 57 court actions with no success that is because they are out to protect the 'establishment' rather than the truth.

Conjunction Fallacy - This is where you believe that multiple specific conditions, i.e. systemic fraud permeating every element of the electoral process in the US, is more likely and more credible than the single general condition that more people want Biden as President.

I could list a bucket load more if you like.  All of us exhibit cognitive bias all the time, however critical thinking allows us to move beyond our conditioned biases and try to evaluate things in the round.

To address your point, yes there is an element of partiality across all media outlets.

My reasoning as I have explained multiple times on this thread and the other similar one is really very simple, there has been multiple opportunity for those advancing the theory of a fraudulent election to present credible, objective evidence in front of the courts and the various law enforcement agencies in the US.  None of the evidence presented has stood up to scrutiny such that every court case advanced on the basis of fraud has been dismissed, the lawyers when in court didn't actually claim fraud, and all of the respective agencies involved have said they have been unable to identify any credible evidence of fraud, of sufficient scale, to influence the outcome of the election.  This is dialectical thinking.

So on nothing other than the balance of probability i favour the outcome of a single credible condition, more people wanted Biden to win and subsequently he did.

Edited December 16, 2020 by grrclark
Typo's and dodgy spelling, as ever!

[Pushkin]

grrclark  posted December 7

Thanks Pushkin.

There are many Trump fanboys on here, although your name was not on my mental list as being one of them so no offence intended or hopefully taken.

Thanks for that grrclark. Sorry no reply since then. Been busy with life's mundane tasks and wife's orders 

It is strange that so many of the claims have not in fact been investigated - simply a decision has been made not to allow them.  I think Biden is going to be fully declared in January but also think the democracy of the nation will turn against him as the stuff about his links to China all become Centre of a much greater investigation and one that will perhaps indite (Spelling?) the main players.  Will wait to see what happens later but until then I will just keep to the sidelines and  read on with you all. Regards

Pushkin

[chrisjpainter]

6 hours ago, serrac said:

That's a bit harsh labeling CNN a "partisan online media" just because they inadvertently published data that demolishes your narrative.
I guess that's one way of dealing with your cognitive dissonance.

"An uninformed reader might say that the courts have examined the evidence and have rejected the evidence of electoral fraud as insubstantial.  And, indeed, the reader would have to be uninformed or misled by the lies of the presstitute media.  

The fact is this: No court has examined the evidence. No state court and not the US Supreme Court.  The reason that the courts have not accepted the cases is that they do not want to have to examine the evidence, because the evidence clearly establishes that the election was stolen and that the theft was carefully planned in advance.  The state courts in the swing states where the election was stolen are protecting the Democrats. The US Supreme Court refused to accept the case on the grounds that Texas did not have standing to bring a case.  Clearly, there has been no judicial ruling on the evidence that the election was legitimate. The US Supreme Court will protect the Establishment and the Establishment’s reputation before it will protect  electoral integrity. 

The evidence has been refused examination by the state and federal judiciary.

So much for “American democracy.”  So much for the “American Rule of Law.”  No such rule exists.  Law exists only for the purposes of the ruling Establishment. Power, not law, rules in America. 

The US Supreme Court is an Establishment institution. It makes controversial rulings only when it has the media on its side."

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/14/free-inquiry-r-i-p/

 

Yes another "partisan online media" 
Perhaps you'd like to direct us to some media outlets that are guaranteed free of partisanship in either direction?
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Herein lies the problem. It's not that they haven't permitted it. It's that they haven't been shown it. Giuliani tried the same trick in all four states. It went like this:

Yell fraud. FRAUD, I say FRAUD!!!!!!  

Blame the media: The MEDIA I SAY! WHY WON'T THEY REPORT ALL THE FRAUD?

Say they're about to expose it with all the evidence: THE EVIDENCE! SWORN TESTIMONY! VIDEO! WE WILL WIN!!

Go to court, produce nothing but conjecture, and then try to get millions of votes chucked out on technicalities. 

At this point all the judges go: 'Er...what? there's the door, close it on your way out.'

Then take to the Supremes. THE SUPREMES! THEY WILL VINDICATE!

No.

At every single level of the court, they tried the same trick, but kept getting rebuffed. It's no wonder that the Supreme Court didn't have time for it. It's also worth noting that two of the most conservative judges on the Supreme Court said they would have heard it - and that it wouldn't have changed anything. It's a moronic, bone-headed case that's fuelled by nothing but egos and dollars. They had every opportunity to present evidence, but at each stage they've failed to meet not just the threshold to prove, but the threshold to be even worth hearing. It's over. there's no absurd coverup, there's no higher power run by big tech, Clinton and the Lizard people. There's just a sad fat man who's about to be unemployed. He's probably done some good stuff, but he will be forever remembered as the petulant little brat who couldn't accept defeat and fired anyone who disagreed with him. He's like a dictator out of a Marx brothers movie. Angry, triumphalist, hilarious and really rather pathetic. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[Smokersmith]

Well put!!

[Rob85]

I fear the amount of people watching the sheer comedy of this election will consume so much popcorn it will unleash an epidemic of diabetes across the western world.

[chrisjpainter]

26 minutes ago, Rob85 said:

I fear the amount of people watching the sheer comedy of this election will consume so much popcorn it will unleash an epidemic of diabetes across the western world.

😂

[serrac]

On 16/12/2020 at 14:53, grrclark said:

Very good in quoting someone else's thoughts, how about some of your own. 

Sure.

Your entire position appears to rest on an “appeal to authority” – i.e. x number of courts threw out the cases alleging fraud, therefore there is no valid evidence of fraud.

This is a non-sequitur since the courts did not allow the evidence to be heard so logically could not have made a judgement regarding its validity.

It also assumes complete impartiality on the part of the judges in these courts.  However it stands to reason that the organisers of fraud on the alleged scale would take steps to ensure that any legal challenges were stonewalled at least until it is too late for them to impact the outcome of the election. This would be facilitated by the fact that these challenges would be coming before judiciaries in the very states where the constitutional authority of the state legislatures was usurped, sometimes by the courts themselves, to change election laws with the effect of creating the environment which facilitated the fraud in the first place. Therefore the likelihood of partiality in this situation is much too high to concede your appeal to authority (a generally recognised logical fallacy by the way) as far as I’m concerned.

The actual validity of the evidence can only be established once each of the hundreds of citizen witnesses who signed affidavits under threat of perjury have been called before a truly impartial court or tribunal to give their evidence and be cross-examined.  Not that I expect that to ever happen.

~~~

"All of us exhibit cognitive bias all the time, however critical thinking allows us to move beyond our conditioned biases and try to evaluate things in the round."

As an advocate of critical thinking you hopefully won't mind sharing your answers to a few questions that have been bothering me about the election and its aftermath.

1.  In a free and fair election the number of votes accredited to a candidate can only increase as the votes are counted. The CNN clip below shows Trumps total in the Pennsylvania race decreasing from 1,690,589 to 1,670,631 with a corresponding increase in Biden’s total resulting in a ~40,000 vote swing to Joe Biden.

https://streamable.com/31zhlj

How did this happen?

 

2.  Impeachment proceedings were brought against Donald Trump predicated on the testimony of a single unnamed Whitehouse staffer who claimed to have heard Trump make certain comments during a telephone conversation.

Is a higher standard of evidence required to gain a hearing in a lower court than is required to bring an impeachment against a sitting POTUS?

 

3. Barak Obama was probably the most charismatic presidential candidate of recent times. A naturally gifted orator and as the first black candidate with a genuine shot at taking the White House captured the imagination of the black voter base (and the woke crowd for good measure).

Yet Biden, a thoroughly corrupt, racist, sex-pest career politician who is so befuddled by senility that he can barely follow a Teleprompter to string a coherent sentence together was accredited in the 2020 election with up to 15 million more votes than Obama received when he won re-election in 2012. What did Biden do, say or offer during his campaign to inspire 15 million voters who stayed home for Obama to turn out for him?

 

4.  What demographic could those 15 million additional votes have come from? It would be convenient to say that he took them from Trump because the incumbent was such a terrible president that his voter base switched en-mass to Biden. However Trump also increased his vote count by 10 million votes. He also increased his share of the black/hispanic vote in this election so it seems unlikely Biden found 15M votes there.  What does that leave us with – the deplorables?

 

5.   Biden allegedly received more votes than any presidential candidate in history, yet the average attendance at his campaign rallies was 0.14% of Trump’s. Why was the alleged enthusiasm for Biden at the ballot box not reflected in the attendance at his rallies?

https://thespectator.info/2020/10/22/rally-tally-update-former-vp-biden-is-so-far-behind-president-trump-in-attendance-and-enthusiasm-even-crooked-hillary-far-outpaced-him/

 

6.  The the number of registered voters in each State is a matter of record.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

I tallied the second column in the above page to get a figure for the whole of the USA for 2020 of 213,799,467

We are told that the voter turn out was the highest in 120 years at 66.9%
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-2020-election-22974125

This puts the total turn out at 213,799,467x66.9% = 143,031,843

Biden received 81,281,502 votes
Trump received 74,222,593 votes

Total: 155,504,095

How do we reconcile the fact that Trump and Biden between them accrued 12,472,252 more votes than the official figure for eligible voters who turned out to vote?

 

 

[GingerCat]

Its all very amusing. I suspect the fraud etc allegations will be something like the  sort trump faced in his 4 years. Its all bs and will amount to nothing regardless of who shouts the loudest. Hopefully after that they can elect someone else that is not either senile and a puppet to be replaced in 6 months by his vice president or an ego manic and move on. Given the polarised media interest i also suspect it won't be as simple as that and will probably repeat itself. 

Still its something to watch on TV that is not covid or brexit. 

[grrclark]

Serrac, fair play to you for typing all that out, but i'm afraid it is a wasted effort, at least with me.

I really have no inclination to get into a debate with you on the various elements of your post, it's boring and achieves absolutely nothing.   I really can't be bothered batting back and forth on what is subjective conjecture.

Biden will still be president come the 20th, Trump and his fanboys will still cry foul from now until whenever.

You have obviously decided to take the position that Trump was cheated and I don't think there is anything at all that would move you from that position.  I don't really care about that either.

I do hope you have a good Christmas.

[WalkedUp]

15 minutes ago, grrclark said:

for typing all that out

I feel it may have taken less effort than you give credit for:

1. Googles “Trump Election Conspiracy Theories”

2. Clicks first link

3. Presses Command/Control + C

4. Opens PW

5. Presses Command/Control + V

[chrisjpainter]

34 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Serrac, fair play to you for typing all that out, but i'm afraid it is a wasted effort, at least with me.

I really have no inclination to get into a debate with you on the various elements of your post, it's boring and achieves absolutely nothing.  

Don't worry, grrclark. I do...

1 hour ago, serrac said:

Sure.

Your entire position appears to rest on an “appeal to authority” – i.e. x number of courts threw out the cases alleging fraud, therefore there is no valid evidence of fraud.

This is a non-sequitur since the courts did not allow the evidence to be heard so logically could not have made a judgement regarding its validity.

It also assumes complete impartiality on the part of the judges in these courts.  However it stands to reason that the organisers of fraud on the alleged scale would take steps to ensure that any legal challenges were stonewalled at least until it is too late for them to impact the outcome of the election. This would be facilitated by the fact that these challenges would be coming before judiciaries in the very states where the constitutional authority of the state legislatures was usurped, sometimes by the courts themselves, to change election laws with the effect of creating the environment which facilitated the fraud in the first place. Therefore the likelihood of partiality in this situation is much too high to concede your appeal to authority (a generally recognised logical fallacy by the way) as far as I’m concerned.

The actual validity of the evidence can only be established once each of the hundreds of citizen witnesses who signed affidavits under threat of perjury have been called before a truly impartial court or tribunal to give their evidence and be cross-examined.  Not that I expect that to ever happen.

~~~

"All of us exhibit cognitive bias all the time, however critical thinking allows us to move beyond our conditioned biases and try to evaluate things in the round."

As an advocate of critical thinking you hopefully won't mind sharing your answers to a few questions that have been bothering me about the election and its aftermath.

1.  In a free and fair election the number of votes accredited to a candidate can only increase as the votes are counted. The CNN clip below shows Trumps total in the Pennsylvania race decreasing from 1,690,589 to 1,670,631 with a corresponding increase in Biden’s total resulting in a ~40,000 vote swing to Joe Biden.

https://streamable.com/31zhlj

How did this happen?

 

2.  Impeachment proceedings were brought against Donald Trump predicated on the testimony of a single unnamed Whitehouse staffer who claimed to have heard Trump make certain comments during a telephone conversation.

Is a higher standard of evidence required to gain a hearing in a lower court than is required to bring an impeachment against a sitting POTUS?

 

3. Barak Obama was probably the most charismatic presidential candidate of recent times. A naturally gifted orator and as the first black candidate with a genuine shot at taking the White House captured the imagination of the black voter base (and the woke crowd for good measure).

Yet Biden, a thoroughly corrupt, racist, sex-pest career politician who is so befuddled by senility that he can barely follow a Teleprompter to string a coherent sentence together was accredited in the 2020 election with up to 15 million more votes than Obama received when he won re-election in 2012. What did Biden do, say or offer during his campaign to inspire 15 million voters who stayed home for Obama to turn out for him?

 

4.  What demographic could those 15 million additional votes have come from? It would be convenient to say that he took them from Trump because the incumbent was such a terrible president that his voter base switched en-mass to Biden. However Trump also increased his vote count by 10 million votes. He also increased his share of the black/hispanic vote in this election so it seems unlikely Biden found 15M votes there.  What does that leave us with – the deplorables?

 

5.   Biden allegedly received more votes than any presidential candidate in history, yet the average attendance at his campaign rallies was 0.14% of Trump’s. Why was the alleged enthusiasm for Biden at the ballot box not reflected in the attendance at his rallies?

https://thespectator.info/2020/10/22/rally-tally-update-former-vp-biden-is-so-far-behind-president-trump-in-attendance-and-enthusiasm-even-crooked-hillary-far-outpaced-him/

 

6.  The the number of registered voters in each State is a matter of record.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

I tallied the second column in the above page to get a figure for the whole of the USA for 2020 of 213,799,467

We are told that the voter turn out was the highest in 120 years at 66.9%
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-2020-election-22974125

This puts the total turn out at 213,799,467x66.9% = 143,031,843

Biden received 81,281,502 votes
Trump received 74,222,593 votes

Total: 155,504,095

How do we reconcile the fact that Trump and Biden between them accrued 12,472,252 more votes than the official figure for eligible voters who turned out to vote?

 

 

'This is a non-sequitur since the courts did not allow...' wrong. The courts tried to let them, the trump legal team didn't produce. If you look back through either this thread or the main election one, you'll find where I quote one of the Penn state judges who got so vexed at the Trump campaign's legal strategy. It wasn't refused, it was either not brought up, or was heard and found to be unreliable (again, I've quoted the specifics elsewhere). Your argument that judges would be involved in a coverup is poor. Whilst it might be theoretically plausible, you don't show any evidence, it's just more chasing after the wind. A lot of these judges were republicans and the Supreme is loaded 6-3 with some seriously conservative chaps - and Trump's hand picked choice. You think they'd already got to her before she was nominated, as part of some secret grand plan? pull the other one. Or show some evidence - whichever you think is more likely to be credible. Again I've gone through the affidavit thing elsewhere. For every one shouting fraud, there are just as many saying there isn't. Some will be lying, others not in possession of all the facts and some unreliable - on both sides of the argument, which is why you need more than just hearsay. NOTHING has been provided.

In your part one you mention that video doing the rounds. Those numbers aren't official...They're not to be trusted down to the fine details, they give an overall picture. So things get changed and updated as the video goes on. The ratified numbers afterwards are what counts and that's all been done. 40,000 votes? that represents 0.5% of the total number of votes counted. It's flatulence in a hurricane. Here's a video that explains how CNN's numbers work and why they're not 100% accurate. Note it's from politifact, not in-house CNN. It's not about the Pennsylvania accusation, it's about another equally inconsequential one, but the point is much the same.
Hammer and Scorecard voting conspiracy doesn’t add up - YouTube

(I won't go into 2 as it's not really about the election per se. There were voice recordings too. and they were presented as evidence, but Congress got bogged down in interpretation of evidence. The republicans said the  democrats were reading too much into them, the democrats said the republicans weren't reading enough. Evidence was heard then acted upon down party lines. Not very interesting)

In part three and four you ask about how did he inspire the extra 15 million. The simple answer he didn't do anything - Trump did it. A person might not like Biden, but if they loathe Trump - and plenty do - then you're going to vote for the lesser of two evils. So those who were happier to stay at home because they weren't inspired by either candidate enough to vote under Obama, might easily be persuaded to vote against Trump, rather than specifically for Biden. The maths still work, even if Trump increased his tally too. More people voted. That's perfectly reasonable. It's not about taking Trump voters and moving them to Biden. It's taking non voters and moving them. Even in a record high voting number, there are still millions who simply didn't vote, so the numbers do still work.

Number 5 is an irrelevant stat, because of one simple factor: Biden told people not to travel for big rallies on account of Covid. You have one party saying 'don't come to rallies!' and another saying 'come to rallies!' yet you're saying there's something surprising in the numbers compared to the election result? It's just a simple result of differing campaign tactics, nothing more. 

As to number 6, there's a problem with your numbers: they're not up to date - or that accurate. Ostensibly they look correct, but it they're not based on numbers up to date to the election. California, for example is only correct up to 19th October. If you go to your link and then go into source material, you'll get this phrase cropping up:

'The figures given are unofficial but are based on U.S. Census data, as adjusted by information from the California Department of Finance and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation' (California's, but it's not limited to that state. 

A lot of states (including, but not limited to swing states) allow on the day voting. This all blew up on election day in Wisconsin, but it turned out that the figures being spouted by people claiming fraud were out of date, even without the issue of on-the-day voting registration. Again, flick through the US election results thread as it's covered there. 

The election's over, it worked legally (as millions of Republicans will testify - including some of the most powerful ones in the land) and the result's ratified. 

The only conspiracy? 82 million Americans conspired to get together and vote for someone other than Trump. That's called democracy and it beat Trump to the tune of 7 million votes.

Edited December 21, 2020 by chrisjpainter
I appear to not be allowed a word. so Flatulence will have to do

[grrclark]

13 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

I feel it may have taken less effort than you give credit for:

1. Googles “Trump Election Conspiracy Theories”

2. Clicks first link

3. Presses Command/Control + C

4. Opens PW

5. Presses Command/Control + V

I perhaps should have said ‘assembling’ rather than typing

 

[grrclark]

I applaud your enthusiasm Chris.

I rather fear that you are pushing a closed door, perhaps even a double bolted door with the bookcase, sofa and table all stacked up behind it lest it open even a tiny chink.