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

[Mewtwo_Rain]

How would you legally show that an election was secure? Well, to be insecure, an election has to have experienced significant fraud and irregularities, correct?

So the more often you prove in court that allegations of fraud or irregularities did not occur, the more you can assert that the election was secure. Otherwise, I have no grasp of how you would achieve this. Recounts have been done, which are one way. Various audits of the software/technologies as well as footage and testimony of the events are another, both of which have led to nothing.

The footage and erroneous numbers cited as "oddities and anomalies" have been dredged through repeatedly and given explanation - that the accusatory side refuses to believe these explanations even if they themselves cannot come up with a follow-up goes to show that it really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion whether you can prove or disprove something.

The popular one seems to be matching signatures - which involves trying to figure out which ballot matches which envelope based purely on the name alone, then comparing those signatures to database information on those signatures, and assuming that the amount of human error involved would be marginal.
There would be enormous cost involved in this, and I personally suspect that a full signature audit would do nothing to quell the allegations of fraud - if the SCOTUS turns this down and writes an opinion on their reasoning for doing so, it will be the case that every court in the country rejecting every suit bar one would not be enough to quell allegations of fraud, and nothing has stuck enough to get a court to compel a signature audit.

Well to start with I'd expect them to present an actual follow up instead of actively dismissing concerns in the first place. Just imagine when you are on any job and they check to make sure you're actively preforming correctly you still have to do a follow up with even the most mundane task. In this case, those making the claim it was secure don't even want to present that and left it for the counter position to make that claim.

Hypothetically, even if it was true it was fair the news media trying to dispel said questions and dilemma's has only made it a "I had a multiple choice question and got it right when I guessed C" scenario.

In regards to the votes and audits of votes, I would like confirmation they are accurate, or find out if there is camera evidence of a rise in population (outside mail in), when we have jumps in population spikes in many areas, compared to multiple years prior, if there was no evidence to show a larger attendee crowd, it should be questioned. They could still be dismissed but by not asking the questions they are giving into more of the crowd's disbelief than affirming their claims. Being dismissive instead of being skeptical.

Many of the anomalies haven't really been disproven. If you mean the false claims which have poisoned the well, sure. Those were never serious claims for those in the know though. I mean we're using mail in ballots which already calls into question voter fraud, even SA last I checked talked about how they are weary of such ballots because it can lead to such happenings, and we're talking about SA here calling it an easy way to commit fraud. That's without other western countries (first world) which have outright banned it because of such a possibility. Note: I'm using this as just an example not the whole case of anomalies and questionable behavior in this election.

To be honest, I think this is a more "kicking the can down the road" issue than anything. For years the entire country could have established better voting registration laws (which one party refused '_') and actually checked to make sure such a thing wouldn't raise eye brows. Now with how it's been carried, it looks to some like the politicians are having covering from the news media who has its own trust issues and keeps shouting down in a confirmation bias anyone who dares challenge such claims (even before some of these anomalies were disputed in court keep in mind: News was saying there was no evidence or that they were owed evidence since day one, while baby walking the counter opposition claim) or that even if there is to be a fix in an election year no one will seriously look into it or just dismissively do so, without actively and with actual effort.

There's been solutions for years, but law makers didn't want those solutions which also begs to question why didn't they want to take those actions?

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

It also doesn't fit the timeline, It was announced early this week that Texas was suing. It was a massive suit that likely has taken some time to make. According to AP News the FBI began investigating after a anonymous tip in late November. So unless the Texas AG's office worked themselves to the bone cooking up the lawsuit as soon as the AP News story broke, then it's far more likely that the FBI investigation got triggered by rumors that the Texas AG was working on a large case regarding the outcome on election day.

As much as I'm grateful to the Texas AG for TX vs PAGAMIWI I don't think he should be above the law. Same for Hunter Biden. Same for Steve Bannon.

 

[HumanHive]

What is "the Left" that we referring to?

• The Bernie Bros
• The Woke Neoliberals
• The retarded subhumans on Twitter
• The Woke Progressives
• The idiot liberal hippie Baby Boomers
• The Chinese Communist Party

MSM pundits of a left wing persuasion.
So the second and third ones, I guess.

 

[Pompano Mike]

They have to be desperate if they think a FBI subpoena is going to stop the Texas AG

To be fair, Paxton has had years-long troubles with securities fraud and has been under state indictment since 2015. An SEC civil action has been dismissed against him twice now, the last time in 2017. I guess my point is that this stuff isn't coming out of nowhere, although the timing of this recent FBI action is pretty auspicious.

(Edit: Looks like this got covered already, sorry for being slow on the draw)

 

[Gehenna]

To be fair, Paxton has had years-long troubles with securities fraud and has been under state indictment since 2015. An SEC civil action has been dismissed against him twice now, the last time in 2017. I guess my point is that this stuff isn't coming out of nowhere, although the timing of this recent FBI action is pretty auspicious.

(Edit: Looks like this got covered already, sorry for being slow on the draw)

I'm inclined to believe its at most them putting a little bit of a rush on already in progress stuff.

 

[I-chi]

I keep refreshing and biting my nails. This is getting more interesting AND more terrifying by the minute.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

you would test rhe contents for poison. you test claims. you could write out corollaries to prove its not poisoned but its faster tocrack the cap and drink it.

i will sit and write out corollaries/proofs foe the horse fucking thing later.

And you'd drink it because you'd assume that it was not poisoned, right? Unless you were suicidal.
If we want to enter in the idea that I have a test for every known poison or toxin known to man, the comparison would go that I open the cap, I run these tests, they provide no evidence of poison, but I need to prove that they aren't fake tests.
If I bring in experts to testify, I have to prove that they aren't fake experts. I have to prove that they aren't someone else; that their degrees haven't been photoshopped; that the person who responds at their university isn't in on the scheme; that the university database hasn't been altered so as to suggest that these people are experts, etc. All to drink a bottle of water.

yup, sig match would prove the election was secure. tx is saying 4 states didnt conduct any or poorly performed them (ga).

the rejected ballot stats point to it too.

There's no guarantee that it would prove the election was secure. You've already arbitrarily decided that the recounts have proven nothing, that the cases getting rejected from courts have proven nothing, that the appeals being rejected has proven nothing. Would it hurt to do a signature match? Potentially with human error, but even beyond that - you would come up with another reason to disbelieve if the signature matches followed the pattern of literally every other audit that has been conducted.

For example: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/trump-misinformation-on-georgia-ballot-rejections/
You might say, THIS SOURCE IS BUNK. That's fine - do what the source recommends you to do. Compare the rejected mail-in ballot rates, not the rejection of -all- ballot rates.
What is the rebuttal to the apples and oranges explanation?

In this case, there really isn't a true negative form. A positive claim is a claim of how the world is. "X Fact Is True". So, "Fraud occurred" and "Fraud did not occur" both assert how the world is. The negative is the reverse form, but the reverse form itself is a positive claim.

So in short, there IS no negative claim here that is not itself a positive claim of reality. This is why most atheists kinda dodge around saying "There is no god" and instead say "I do not believe in god".

I don't believe that you'll see much legal success with that argument that !(!x) = x. You could invert everything into a "positive," and you would be here suggesting that we can assume nothing and nothing is fact until somehow proven.

The reason that I suggest religion is a bad idea is because there is no baseline as to whether God exists or doesn't exist that you can default to if someone fails to prove or disprove its existence.
The water bottle example is more straightforward - we have assumptions about what is normal and what is usual that we operate on in everyday life.
You have no assurances in everyday life that when you buy some candy from a candy machine that it won't kill you. But we operate on our basis of what 'normal' is; lacking reason to believe otherwise, we default to the normal, baseline assumption.

For US elections, this baseline legal assumption is that there has either been no fraud, or there has been at best minor amounts of fraud which are wholly ancillary. While there are plenty of people who believe that every election is rigged and fraudulent and that is their baseline, legally, if there is no sustained contest than the election is concluded as valid.

I actually mostly agree with your post here, but I need to point out a concept called "The Weight of Evidence". If a man is caught carrying a bag of crack and he explains it as it being put on him by someone else. he has an alright explanation. If he is also found with a crackpipe in his jacket and he says that he must have mixed up his jacket with someone elses, he has a good enough explanation. If he was stopped just outside a known crackden and he says he was just meeting his brother, he has a good explanation.

He's also getting charged and convicted of crack use.

Individual explanations are fine and dandy, but when a trend and pattern of things keeps happening... those explanations sound more and more hollow with each instance. They sound more like convenient excuses or outright lies.

Yes, but the man walking around with crack definitely has crack on him and there's no excuse that gets him out of that. If I showed you an image of the man walking around with a bag of something that looked like crack, would that be enough to convict him?

If every single one of these allegations was substantiated, or even made it as far as the GA suit has, there would be more to go off of. My issue has consistently been that once an explanation is given for the suspicious footage or numbers... that explanation is never argued against beyond re-asserting the original accusation as fact. The state farm arena footage -does- look suspect as hell when you watch it, but then the election official explains what was going on and it changes your perspective. Could there still be a problem? Of course - but I'd have to hear the rebuttal there.

Similarly, when I saw footage of the people putting shit up over the windows? That was suspect as hell. Then someone explained it was because those "observers" outside the building (who would not be qualified as observers, given there were observers inside) were shouting and screaming and banging on the glass "STOP THE COUNT" with footage thereof. What was the argument against that explanation?
--
oh goody, not beaten to the punch I think?: california and nevada speak

 

[pylosurf]

According to AP News the FBI began investigating after a anonymous tip in late November.

I wonder which intelligence agency provided the anonymous tip to the FBI, and was it foreign or domestic?

 

[Coconut Gun]

Sorry to interrupt the horse fucking discussion, but is there any time frame the SCOTUS has to make a statement by, or is it just "soon"?

 

[Shroom King]

You are aware that the FBI can investigate state crimes, yes? Murder is a state crime, and often gets FBI investigation if it has federal implications or is a hate crime.

I think hate crime legislation is bullshit. Let me explain why.

I understand that there is a Jupiter-size difference between some black burglar getting shot while trespassing on someone else's property and a Klan lynching. But there are already plenty of laws against organized crime, gang activity, and domestic terrorism. What the KKK did from the late 1800's until 1970 hit all three of the aforementioned categories. Hate crime is thoughtcrime but if ISIS blows up a school in America, you can easily nail them on RICO, which also gives you access to the people who funded them. Yes, ISIS most likely committed a hate crime in that scenario, BUT, I think it would easier to prove material support to a criminal enterprise with ISIS via RICO laws instead of looking at "hate crime intent" via a politically incorrect twitter post on a burner account from 2011.

tl:dr: Hate crime legislation is stupid and Biden stole the election.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

I think hate crime legislation is bullshit. Let me explain why.

I understand that there is a Jupiter-size difference between some black burglar getting shot while trespassing on someone else's property and a Klan lynching. But there are already plenty of laws against organized crime, gang activity, and domestic terrorism. What the KKK did from the late 1800's until 1970 hit all three of the aforementioned categories. Hate crime is thoughtcrime but if ISIS blows up a school in America, you can easily nail them on RICO, which also gives you access to the people who funded them. Yes, ISIS most likely committed a hate crime in that scenario, BUT, I think it would easier to prove material support to a criminal enterprise with ISIS via RICO laws instead of looking at "hate crime intent" via a politically incorrect twitter post on a burner account from 2011.

tl:dr: Hate crime legislation is stupid and Biden stole the election.

Hate crime law is one of the earliest virtue signals in the US legal system I can think of.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Sorry to interrupt the horse fucking discussion, but is there any time frame the SCOTUS has to make a statement by, or is it just "soon"?

If they actually want to hear the case, today they would need to declare they were going to issue a stay on the date of the electors' vote, in essence.
If they want to turn the case down forcefully, today or maybe even monday, though today would be better. Most electors seem to vote between 12-2p on monday, so having that hanging until the early morning wouldn't be the best idea.
If they want to deep-six the case and just let it fade into irrelevancy, they don't have to anytime soon.

 

[Gehenna]

I don't believe that you'll see much legal success with that argument that !(!x) = x. You could invert everything into a "positive," and you would be here suggesting that we can assume nothing and nothing is fact until somehow proven.

Correct, its why we have the Presumption of Innocence, a system for minimum evidence, and appellate courts.
Its almost like the whole system is designed around enforcing one side be the negative one, and not like one side is just the default negative.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

I keep refreshing and biting my nails. This is getting more interesting AND more terrifying by the minute.

Here's a question no one has answered. Let's suppose the SCOTUS kicks it back to the PAGAMIWI state legislatures. Those are all Republican majority but there's the perennial problem of RINOs.

Does anyone know how likely those are to vote for Trump, or for Biden, or for not sending electors?

E.g. in PA Doug Mastriano wanted to have a special session to investigate the election but the state-level GOP leadership stopped it. However does anyone know how many Republicans support him? Look at the numbers here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_General_Assembly



It looks likely to me that a relatively small number of Republicans need vote with the Democrats on a motion to not change the existing elector choice.

As a lot of people in this thread have pointed out this is not completely terrible. The SCOTUS kicking it back to them like this and them getting a vote sends a signal that conducting elections where the state legislature is ignored is unacceptable and sets a precedent that the remedy for this is that the state legislature has to decide what to do.

I think it means we're not heading into a grim uniparty dystopia but rather we're going to have two years of Biden, midterms and then two more years of Biden. It's unlikely the PAGAMIWI state legislatures will allow things to go as badly wrong in future elections.

 

[babadook]

I'm DEBOONKING

 

[Meat Target]

Does anyone know how likely those are to vote for Trump, or for Biden, or for not sending electors?

If they cucked once, they'll cuck again.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

Just in: The FBI is investigating the AG who started the Texas lawsuit

The FBI has subpoenaed Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general leading the long-shot lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election for Trump

Kind of unbelievable.

The same FBI that hid the Hunter Biden laptop and ran with the Russia Hoax for 2 years. Talk about a trash partisan organization. We should have ended it 80 years ago once it dealt with the mob.

 

[Gehenna]

If they cucked once, they'll cuck again.

The legislatures aren't the ones that cucked though, that was entirely the executive branches.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Correct, its why we have the Presumption of Innocence, a system for minimum evidence, and appellate courts.
Its almost like the whole system is designed around enforcing one side be the negative one, and not like one side is just the default negative.

Right, you don't have to prove your innocence - innocence is baseline. If we assume that there is no baseline, you would have to prove your innocence.
The election being innocent would mean that it was not fraudulent; IE, that's the default assumption.
Of course, yes, "most secure ever" is superlative and would require comparison to other elections; that claim isn't a baseline.
But just "there was no fraud" is the baseline. Even ancillary fraud has to be proven to be sustained, even if the small amount means it doesn't do much.

 

[Meat Target]

We should have ended it 80 years ago once it dealt with the mob.

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.