2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Puff]

Where would you even begin with a thread like that?

With Andrew Jackson, the original shitposter-in-chief and first Dem president if I'm not mistaken.

AFAIK the lawsuits are against the states, not the Biden campaign.

Yeah. Biden can petition to step in, but that opens him up to discovery, which takes time. The most likely scenario is that he steps in really late to avoid there being time for that.

 

[Meat Target]

I think there's a fair bit of people that aren't getting that this is far bigger than Trump winning. If Biden won legitimately, then the only thing to do would be to watch Trumpist populism disintegrate within the GOP and for the nightmare scenarios involving the Democrat party to manifest, if they ever would.

If it's found that it's more likely than not that there was substantial voter fraud or otherwise substantial mishandling of the election as to throw an entire state's results into disrepute, then it's for the better that such rot is exposed right away so that it can be excised and the wound tended to.

If such evidence manifests and is collated into a meaningful narrative, but we carry on with the results such misdeeds precipitated, then at least half the nation will legitimately come to the conclusion that voting doesn't matter because the voting system is ultimately a pretense. In effect, the president is more a king that was coronated than an official that was elected.

You can't civilly overthrow a king.

Even before that, you have to consider the magnitude of the egg that will be on our face on the world stage, as we invasively set up democratic systems in other nations for the supposed purpose of "spreading the joy of democracy".

Related to the idea that this is more important than Trump, is that it's more important that the judges do their job. That means that they operate from the narratives, evidence, and arguments that are actually presented to them. If Trump's lawyers knock it out of the park and they make a case beyond preponderance of the evidence and into beyond reasonable doubt, I want to see an apt verdict. If they were actually spinning a massive grift and their arguments are trash or their cases are otherwise substantially malformed, the judges need to make an appropriate verdict. Even the specific philosophies (e.g. constitutionalism, natural law) of the judges are more important than their general political alignment.

Also, time is of the essence. Team Trump has just a little over a month to get this to the courts, and if the courts drag their feet, Team Biden can just run out the clock until electoral votes are cast.

 

[GuntPunt]

Not good.

 

[Cristobal’s Colon]

They keep trying to bullshit that it was a "decisive" victory, does anyone on any side really believe that? Even the most ardent true believers think it was a narrow victory that they're desperately clinging to

Shilling is in the very nature of the Harris campaign.

 

[Ruin]

With Andrew Jackson, the original shitposter-in-chief and first Dem president if I'm not mistaken.

Jackson absolutely would have been a lolcow had the internet existed at the time. He banged his slaves, had a 530,000 in modern currency a week wine habit, and challenged pretty much anyone he disagreed with to pistols at dawn.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Yeah. Biden can petition to step in, but that opens him up to discovery, which takes time. The most likely scenario is that he steps in really late to avoid there being time for that.

Actually, the most likely scenario is that the Biden campaign funds "unaffiliated" parties that then file suit against the Trump campaign. The ACLU has started doing it already.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Not good.

View attachment 1724453

I'm rating this "Winner" because he's calling the SoS out in authoritative fashion.

 

[Puff]

Jackson absolutely would have been a lolcow had the internet existed at the time. He banged his slaves, had a 530,000 in modern currency a week wine habit, and challenged pretty much anyone he disagreed with to pistols at dawn.

Beat a man who attempted to assassinate him via shooting half to death. With his cane. In his 70's.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Another interesting thing this statement from Twitter

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/donald-trump-twitter-rules-newsworthy-election
https://archive.vn/pK279

Donald Trump could lose more than just the presidency this January. Twitter has confirmed that, if Trump leaves office, he will no longer receive special treatment as a “newsworthy individual”.

Twitter’s policy around newsworthiness protects certain people – such as elected officials with more than 250,000 followers – from having their accounts suspended or banned for rule infractions that would otherwise lead to severe penalties.

That policy is what has led to the company muting, but not removing, at least 12 tweets from the US president over the past week that cast doubt on the democratic process.

But, Twitter has confirmed, the policy does not apply to former elected officials. They have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and if a tweet breaks those rules, it gets removed. Were Trump to continue breaking Twitter’s rules regularly post-presidency, his account could be suspended.

“Twitter’s approach to world leaders, candidates and public officials is based on the principle that people should be able to choose to see what their leaders are saying with clear context,” a spokesman told the Guardian. “This means that we may apply warnings and labels, and limit engagement to certain Tweets. This policy framework applies to current world leaders and candidates for office, and not private citizens when they no longer hold these positions.”

Dorsey has said he won't ban Trump until he leaves office on January 20th.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

Beat a man who attempted to assassinate him via shooting half to death. With his cane. In his 70's.

After both the assassin's pistols jammed.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Shit's getting real...
These are parts of an e-mail sent from the Biden-Harris campaign to their newsletter subscribers.
View attachment 1724426
View attachment 1724429
View attachment 1724434
>"Our victory in this election was decisive"
>Our opponents have resorted to frivolous lawsuits
If the lawsuits are so frivolous, then why do you need so much money to fight them? The truth should be a necessary and sufficient defense, no?

Amazing how quickly things have unraveled for them. I can only wonder what next week will be like.

 

[Tree]

I don't like the way this nigroid looks, but imagine if this is true.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Also, time is of the essence. Team Trump has just a little over a month to get this to the courts, and if the courts drag their feet, Team Biden can just run out the clock until electoral votes are cast.

In 2000, the Florida state legislature threatened to appoint electors if this wasn't settled, so that could still be a nuclear option, especially if this fraud cannot get untied.

 

[WolfeTone]

View attachment 1724456
I'm going be outright and say I outright don't like the way this nigroid looks, but imagine if this is true.

>Rudy Guliani
X

 

[Kane Lives]

View attachment 1724456
I'm going be outright and say I outright don't like the way this nigroid looks, but imagine if this is true.

I hoping this isn't another nothingburger, but it does seem like whistleblowers are coming out of the woodworks left and right.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Beat a man who attempted to assassinate him via shooting half to death. With his cane. In his 70's.

He straddles the line between lolcow and badass.

 

[Magnum Magazine]

A critique of the employment of Benford's law with election data:

Holy shit this guy actually starts out the video by quoting the paper I talked about yesterday, the one that was published alongside a comment by a different professor criticizing its legitimacy :

I didn't check through every one of these since the thread is nearing a week old now and so much has developed/happened since then, but the "refutation" of Benford's Law is absolutely yellow journalism DEBOOONKING.

He attempts to invalidate its use for election by citing one paper from 2011 that is literally refuted by a Professor in a comment on the paper published alongside it, noting how the paper doesn't even apply itself to actual cases of election fraud such as Russia around that same time, ignores other studies such as a far more recent one from this year that shows "first digits of precinct level election data strongly correlate with Benford’s Law" (though notes it should not be tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method, the method used being the most important thing to ensure it can get you the red flags you're looking for) and says nothing about the tests showing that all other candidates other than Biden passed Benford's Law. So I'd expect other key proofs to be retarded """EPIC DEBOONKING""" as well.

Also, making Y'ALL the second word in your first tweet isn't a good sign to be taken seriously.

Still a fine video in the end though. Regardless, @Corn Flakes is correct in that it's not a definitive proof, just a method used to see if something ought to at least be looked into:

Nothing against the guy's analysis but I'm pretty sure we're past Benford's law already.

Particularly when it comes to that subject, I think people really should keep in mind the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Benford's law is at most cirucmstantial evidence. It's an indirect indication that something may have happened. If someone walks into a building with a wet umbrella and wet shoes, you could postulate that it's raining outside and be reasonably certain of it, but until you look outside or the person tells you that it's raining outside (which would be direct evidence), all you have is circumstantial evidence.

Benford's law is a statistical thing. It can be used to justify an investigation, but if the investigation finds no evidence of wrongdoing then the statistical anomaly was just that: an anomaly. It's like saying "90% of buildings are built according to code". That's a perfectly fine assessment. But you can only know for certain whether an individual building was built up to code if you sent an inspector to check it.

 

[It's HK-47]

Katie Hobbs on Twitter: "The President is on the side of the freaking…

archived 12 Nov 2020 02:43:44 UTC

archive.is

Katie Hobbs on Twitter: ".@realDonaldTrump has made it abundantly cle…

archived 12 Nov 2020 15:33:38 UTC

archive.is

Katie Hobbs on Twitter: "There is so much deplorable at Trump rallies…

archived 12 Nov 2020 04:04:45 UTC

archive.is

You know, I get the sneaking suspicion that it's not going to be difficult for Trump's legal team to prove that the Arizona Secretary of State possesses a bit of bias and some small traces of animus, and should probably not be in charge of handling the recounts and audits.

 

[Gehenna]

>Rudy Guliani
X

He does seem to be getting all the affidavits he claims.

 

[ChikN10der]

Okay, I admit defeat. Looks like it was part of the 12th Amendment rewrite, and I wasn't as well versed on that one as I believed.

Being wrong isn't a crime or a failing, refusing to see the truth is what's bad.

Now you know a little more than you used to.