I wrote before going to sleep on election night.
I was thinking about that this morning, after remembering a phrase I'd used in yesterday's podcast. I had some empathy for Trump, who's been so focused for so long on winning winning winning, and I thought of the idea that he can still win — if only to "win at losing."
UPDATE:...And neither am I! https://t.co/2DuqDyRs2K
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2020
Posts
355 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 355 of 355tim in vermont said...
"theories she pushed for 5 years.”
We have to go back more than five years. Remember the missing router? Or was that a different Inga?
The leftists have no self awareness.
It all depends on GA Senate Qwinn, which is why leading Democrats are encouraging voter fraud there by suggesting that people move there for a short while for the purpose of voting only.
Check the ballots against AirBnB and charge the “voters” with the felonies they commit.
That means absolutely nothing if we vote by "mail" and count completely uncreased "mail-in" ballots and refuse to admit signatures.
The fight is right now with traitors like Kemp and Reffensburger.
Russian collusion hoax”=conspiracy theory.
You folks STILL believe it was a hoax. If it were a hoax, why haven’t the perpetrators of this egregious fraud ended up at GTMO or the deepest darkest bowels of some prison? What happened to all the investigations, all the supposedly coming prosecutions? NONE have occurred except for Trump loyalists. It’s time you people faced reality. Trump got off Scott free because prosecutors were loathe to try to prosecute a sitting president.
What is frightening is that almost 1/2 of Americans (Trumpists) are so susceptible to such outlandish bullshit. But then again, if they weren’t they never would’ve voted for Trump in the first place.
Anything biblical happening in GA today?
Achilles. Good to hear your focus is on eating your own. Always a winning strategy for building a coalition
The prosecutions that should have happened didn't because the Left has completely captured any agency that could prosecute. They've controlled those agencies for decades. It's not even disputable.
Obama told a spokesman for Putin on a hot mic that he'd have more flexibility to work with him after the election. Which can ONLY mean that Obama would be able to do things for Putin that the electorate would not like. That alone is 1000x the evidence of collusion with Russia that Dems were able to dig up against Trump in 4 years. If Trump had been caught on a hot mic saying that, he WOULD have been successfully impeached, with Republican support.
But because it was Obama, absolutely nothing was done about it.
That pretty much proves there is no Republican anywhere that can overcome leftist control of law enforcement enough to make them do anything.
steve uhr said...
Achilles. Good to hear your focus is on eating your own. Always a winning strategy for building a coalition
We weed out the corrupt and duplicitous in our ranks when we find them.
You do not.
We will make sure Liz Cheney is gone too. Will you accept her with open arms?
You might have thought that after 2016 Trump might have figured out a way to enlarge his support to not rely on chance.
I think he did enlarge his support, for a time at least. But COVID did him in, chance always being a big factor in politics. Of course President Trump's performance in the first debate was disastrous - an unforced error that he should have avoided. But his strategy, in so far as he had one, was to double-down, to be Trumpy and even Trumpier, but point to his achievements and the other guy's deficiencies. It was the Harry Truman strategy: come out swinging and don't stop. If Truman had tried to modify his behavior or change his personality he would have looked weak and pliable and he would have lost. That approach could have worked for Trump, but for the COVID mess and all the people not working because of the virus.
It was Hannity who said Biden's cabinet could have people who were "out of their minds" after Rubio said that "a lot of the elements that control the Democratic Party today are crazy." Sorry if I started a meme.
Inga:
I asked you at least a dozen times whether you still believe that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016 to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. You never answered me. I take your last post as your answer.
For your own good, I suggest you revisit The First Law of Holes.
“If we can get the rules changed in those states where fraud is proven, that would be an enduring victory. Right now he’s Too Legit to Quit”
For the most part, what the Dems did in those states already was illegal. But those illegalities were conveniently waived away in the name of fighting COVID-19. Or to be more specific, there were provisions, like election judges from both parties, having to request absentee ballots, signature verifications, etc, that are specifically in the states’ election laws to prevent the types of election fraud that were so widespread this month, and they were what were conveniently waived by state and local election officials, along with judges, all in the name of COVID-19.
There never really was a good justification for these supposed health safety exclusions to election laws. There was never a morally good reason to move from in person to mail-in voting. I go to the store every day. Most Americans of voting age do something similar. You pretend to wear a mask, and they pretend that there is a good reason to make you do it. No one is gloved, a lot of the “masks” are worthless, and some stores do a desultory job of cleaning shopping carts between patrons. When I voted, they pretended that I was doing mail in, but it was all in their offices. The clerk cleaned surfaces in front of me, cycled pens, used hand sanitizer, maintained distances etc. It was a far more controlled a situation than going to the store ever is. And a lot safer, in terms of COVID-19 spread. Nationally, they could have done just as the Clerk and Recorder’s office did for me. And then made legitimately requesting absentee ballots easier for high risk individuals. Not mailing them to everyone who may have ever lived at an address, no matter how many addresses they have had since then. Which is why, I have said for months now, at least since August, that COVID-19 was merely the pretext to waive fraud prevention measures in state election laws. Nothing more.
She knows it could be dogs on the internet.
BUMBLE BEE and others,
According to this City of Compton page, the mayoral election is next April.
Folks can't face reality that the polls were correct in predicting millions more Americans wanted Biden over Trump.
Inga said...
Russian collusion hoax”=conspiracy theory.
You folks STILL believe it was a hoax. If it were a hoax, why haven’t the perpetrators of this egregious fraud ended up at GTMO or the deepest darkest bowels of some prison? What happened to all the investigations, all the supposedly coming prosecutions? NONE have occurred except for Trump loyalists. It’s time you people faced reality. Trump got off Scott free because prosecutors were loathe to try to prosecute a sitting president.
What is frightening is that almost 1/2 of Americans (Trumpists) are so susceptible to such outlandish bullshit. But then again, if they weren’t they never would’ve voted for Trump in the first place./b>
What is even more frightening is we aren't ever going to kneel.
2 weeks ago over 90% of people had confidence in our elections.
Now we are down to 53%. You know that 20% of democrats think it is highly likely the election is stolen from Trump?
In just 2 weeks. And next week is going to be lit. Your media censorship and corporate fascism are not enough.
You will get your gangs of New York moment you have been waiting for. You will get to prove there are 80 million Biden voters soon.
Or you can slink off and hide.
Inga said, "What is frightening is that almost 1/2 of Americans (Trumpists) are so susceptible to such outlandish bullshit. But then again, if they weren’t they never would’ve voted for Trump in the first place."
The only viable alternative to Trump in 2016 was Hillary, and that was just not acceptable. She ain't exactly a saint.
Jersey Fled said...
Inga:
I asked you at least a dozen times whether you still believe that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016 to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. You never answered me. I take your last post as your answer.
For your own good, I suggest you revisit The First Law of Holes.
She answered in the positive.
She still believes the hoax after all the evidence that has come out.
You need to accept how stupid and gullible these people are. All of you do. You are all going to get the Kyle Rittenhouse treatment if you defend yourselves from the mobs that will come for you.
Not all conspiracies are just theories...
Quinn. DOJ has a long honorable history prosecuting crooks from all parts of the political spectrum. As usual you haven’t a clue.
Mockturtle. Of course not all conspiracies are theories. The world is full of real conspiracies. How do you tell them apart? Evidence. Facts.
steve uhr said...
Mockturtle. Of course not all conspiracies are theories. The world is full of real conspiracies. How do you tell them apart? Evidence. Facts.
Like hundreds of people signing witness statements under penalty of perjury that they were kicked out of polling stations and not allowed to observe democrats counting ballots.
At the point you break election laws you invalidate the election.
Period.
Bumble bee: the city of Stockton elected a Republican mayor. Not sure how Compton became the story but I've seen it mentioned far more frequently than Stockton.
The Georgia filing is going to be lit.
Once more than half the country thinks the election was stolen there is no Joe Biden Presidency.
And that movement is now inevitable. We were at the tipping point before the court filings.
The best part is all of the Republican traitors that couldn't help but incriminate themselves as part of this.
Achilles. Why can’t you accept the decisions of the courts? Do you have a better way to decide these things? Armed insurrection?
You folks STILL believe it was a hoax.
I would not have believed this without seeing it. She is a dumb as a rock and still believes the Russia hoax.
Blogger steve uhr said...
Quinn. DOJ has a long honorable history prosecuting crooks from all parts of the political spectrum. As usual you haven’t a clue.
Steve is about to tell us about how they prosecuted Senator Stevens and that "honorable history" is what gave us Obamacare and all its wonders. That and not swearing in the new Mass Senator until the bill was passed, of course.
Achilles said...
...
...Like hundreds of people signing witness statements under penalty of perjury that they were kicked out of polling stations and not allowed to observe democrats counting ballots.
With such powerful and overwhelming evidence, you should have no problem overturning the announced results of the election and then seeing Donald Trump inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
Let's chat again around that time, okay?
This was the judgement from a Conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania, just saying:"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote. "At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Dickish behavior
Mr. Raffensperger, a lifelong Republican, was stung last week when Georgia’s senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both ardent Trump supporters, called for Mr. Raffensperger’s resignation, accusing him of mismanagement and calling the election he oversaw “an embarrassment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/georgia-recount.html
Monday morning, Gabriel Sterling, a lifelong Republican who manages Georgia’s voting system, took to a lectern at the Capitol to plainly and matter-of-factly dismiss criticism of election illegalities in the Southern battleground state as “fake news” and “disinformation.”
https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/republican-election-officials-in-georgia-reject-trumps-unfounded-fraud-claims/
Biden has received the endorsement of Mayor Michael Taylor. The endorsement is making headlines because Taylor is a self-proclaimed "lifelong Republican" and the mayor of Sterling Heights, Michigan,
https://welovetrump.com/2020/03/12/lifelong-republican-mayor-who-voted-for-obama-twice-renounces-trump-for-biden/
Bing or Duck lifelong republican. Search results are interesting. There's even a Michigander named Charles who sounds like a particularly dickish LLR.
John Henry
Michael K, still waiting for the Obama plotters to get prosecuted, pathetic.
Michael. Dems doj prosecuted under Obama include Laura Richardson. Jessie Jackson jr. Weiner. Corrine brown.
Inga,
Please help me out here. Please enumerate the ways the Trump presidency has been beneficial to Vladimir Putin.
Thanks.
Achilles. Help me out. Polls will decide who is the next President? As distinguished from say elections?
Inga: "If it were a hoax, why haven’t the perpetrators of this egregious fraud ended up at GTMO or the deepest darkest bowels of some prison?"
Yes indeed. Why didn't the establishment DOJ/FBI employees put together prosecutions of their fellow.......establishment DOJ/FBI employees?
I mean, why didn't these pro-democrat government employees go to the mat to hold other pro-democrat government employees accountable?
We may never know the answer.
Other questions of historical interest: Why didn't the East German authorities prosecute Stasi agents who went too far?
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that over the last 30 to 40 years there has come to be a one-party dominance of all our major institutions in this nation, and other western nations as well, which has precipitated a populist backlash in many western nations........including our own.
If only there were some evidence for this sort of populist political activity as a response to increased single-view institutional control in say, Britain or the US or Brazil or Spain or Italy or Hungary or Poland or Denmark or..........
steve uhr: "Michael. Dems doj prosecuted under Obama include Laura Richardson. Jessie Jackson jr. Weiner. Corrine brown."
And Fidel would shoot the random general or colonel once in awhile in Cuba for "anti-revolutionary activity".
"Is statistical evidence admissible? I think so"
“So we can forego witnesses swearing an oath in person and start submitting phone polls as evidence?”
I explained this the other day, but here goes again.
The Trump team wants one thing really, and that is that ballots that were counted in violation of state election law be excluded from the tallies. Since it is impossible, in most cases, to determine which exact ballots were illegally counted, they are demanding that batches containing tainted ballots to be excluded. That is where the fact witnesses come in. People who are swearing that the witnessed ballots being illegally entered into the voting system, and into the batches of ballots, stripped of their validation information, ready to be counted. The violations of election law being sworn to by these witnesses may be the exclusion of Republican poll watchers, ignoring postmarks, not comparing signatures, not validating that the ballot was ostensibly from a legitimate voter, etc. Whenever any of these happened, and can be shown, the batch of ballots that it was entered into is tainted, and the Trump team is demanding that that batch not be counted.
The response to that is “so what? Dems always do this.” And they are right. It is usually a de minimis inconvenience that doesn’t do much overall damage to the country. But that isn’t what apparently happened this time. Instead of a handful of ballots here and there, we apparently had hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegally cast ballots, across multiple states, in a concerted manner, that appear to have decisively swing the Presidential election. And that was facilitated by the violation of election laws discussed above. That is where the expert witnesses come in, showing the “so what?” They do it by showing that the results were statistically highly improbable, if not almost impossible.
Keep in mind that they are asking for equitable relief. Some sort of balancing is always required in granting equitable relief (a recent Supreme Court case said that you cannot assume harm in the case of patent infringement - you still have to prove it). That is the basic difference between equity and law. Our courts do both, while the British, at least when this country was founded, have separate courts for both. Equity is for situations where going strictly by law would be too harsh. So, what happens in cases of equity, is that the judge has to balance the equities - look at the harm to both sides, and their relative likelihoods, and determine whose equities are more compelling. And expert testimony, esp in statistics, as here, are routinely utilized for this purpose.
This election dispute though has an added twist - whether the machines that counted many of the ballots did so accurately. How do you trust machines to accurately do the vote counting? Some states have banned these machines for just this reason. There is good reason to question their accuracy, and esp how they were updated, and that many of them were, during the night, connected to the Internet. In a perfect world, the states would have exhaustively validated the machines before the election, frozen software updates, and air gapped them from the Internet. Didn’t happen. There was a chance at mischief and nothing, really, has been offered to dispute it. The head of the company, who had agreed to testify, instead shut down the company in this country, and ran, and his minions have been busy scrubbing their social media accounts. If the Trump team could get a copy of the software running election night, they could have it reviewed by experts. I could probably do it (I was involved in a similar project with the 1980 Census), as could others here. The basic job of counting ballots is easy. When things get unnecessarily complicated, red flags are raised. But you need to see the code, and that isn’t going to happen. About the only thing left is expert witness testimony (often statistical) about red flags raised by its operation.
Michael K (to Inga the russian collusion dead ender): "I would not have believed this without seeing it. She is a dumb as a rock and still believes the Russia hoax."
It was just a few weeks back that Inga reaffirmed her belief in ALL of it: the hoax dossier, russia collusion, Carter Page/George P/Flynn are russian spies, the secret server, money laundering, etc.
The entire buffet of lunacy.
She even believes Kavanaugh is a rape gang leader.
There is no conspiracy theory that has emerged from the fever swamps over the last 5 years that Inga has not embraced and fully internalized.
I suspect that she would require cult deprogramming at this point to overcome it.
No, they won't. They will accept, not meekly, but stoically and by adopting a fuck-it-all attitude.
@hawkeyedjb, I hope you’re right but I think you’re wrong. There are a number of things that are different about this time. First, Trump gave working people and small businesses a taste of what life could be like with a President who has business-oriented economic policies. No one (okay no one intelligent) thinks Democrat policies, as pushed by Nancy Pelosi and rubber-stamped by Senile Joe Biden, will do as well for them. Most of them will suck it up and seethe inside. Some won’t.
Second, it’s the candidate himself. In 1960 the election was stolen on behalf of a young, attractive, candidate who cared about the American economy and winning the Cold War. Sixty years later the election has been stolen (yes, I chose the tense deliberately) on behalf of a terribly unattractive candidate. He’s a man who cannot resist showing off his clout by getting handsy with young women (some still children) on national TV and right in front of their fathers. Moreover he’s personally corrupt at a massive level, and he brags about it. Where does he stand on the issues? In classic, old school, corrupt politician fashion he’s been both opposed to fracking (in front of party extremists) and in favor of it (in Pennsylvania, where fracking is important). And that’s just fracking. What about pipelines? Finally, he never was all that bright and now he seems to be suffering from senile dementia. As he reads his speeches on the teleprompter he loses his place and stumbles trying to maintain his train of thought. No, this is not good.
(Thoughts: it says something about Althouse’s “feminism” that she is okay with Joe getting handsy with you women to show off his clout, and it says something about Chris Coons and other Democrat “men” that no one has punched him good and hard in the mouth.)
And then, the cherry on top of the sundae, there’s the sheer blatant, in your face, nature of the election theft. It’s a one-fingered salute to the sort of people who care about Donald Trump’s presidency, not to mention people of any political orientation who care about honest elections. That’s if there are any such people in the Democrat Party.
Or maybe that’s the whipped cream and the cherry is how the Left is behaving. Or misbehaving. The riots will continue until everything has burned? And no peaceful march on Trump’s behalf can take place without people being assaulted? And Althouse approves? I think all three questions are answered in the affirmative.
Chuck said...
"I'm tired, of being called out by name on these comments pages. Having my straight-up content-based comments deleted, and my responses to unprovoked insults deleted, and there being fake/phony/made-up quotes attributed to me. Every time I demand that somebody quote me and link to the quote, it never happens."
Because you're a c#*t.
steve uhr said...
Achilles. Help me out. Polls will decide who is the next President? As distinguished from say elections?
Millions of people have decided the election was a fraud. Soon that will be a broad majority of Americans after the court filings this week.
You did that when you kicked GOP poll observers out. The rest is just gravy.
This country lives on popular sufferance. You have nothing worth fighting for. But we do. Being president means nothing if most of the people do not think the election was legitimate. Everyone knows that Biden couldn't fill a minivan at his rallies and nobody believes he outdrew Obama or Hillary, but only in 6 democrat controlled cities.
I will also mention that 90% of local law enforcement in this country is hostile to democrats and their blm/antifa foot soldiers.
We get to pull the whole corrupt structure down on your heads.
The Trump Resistance will be effective.
Bruce. The problem with your approach is that thousands of voters who did absolutely nothing wrong will be disenfranchised. Courts won’t let that happen based on long standing precedent and common sense. You have the show actual instances of fraud sufficient to overturn the vote. A tough standard but that’s the way it is. Plan B?
I've said this before, but I don't think Trump's whole motivation is winning the presidency. I believe he wants to shine a bright light on how corrupt and broken our election system is.
I believe this as well. And I've believed for months that Trump was ambivalent about winning.
Yes, he did his rallies because he knew his supporters wanted-- and deserved-- them. But he did nothing to stop the Dems cheating scheme, even thought they clearly spelled out what they were planning to do using mail in ballots. And Trump has known about the corrupt history of the Dominium software for a few years. But did he do anything to try to stop swing states from using it? Why didn't he raise a fuss about this software years ago? Maybe he believed he was so far ahead that he couldn't lose, or maybe he didn't care.
But I fear his efforts to expose the corruption of our voting system is too little too late. Maybe red states will clean up their process, but the blue owned urban areas will never reform. At least half the county either doesn't care about voter fraud because it helps "their team" or they are not aware it exists; so there will be no unified public outcry demanding clean and fair elections. Our corrupt media will see to that.
But I applaud Trump's efforts anyway. Biden and the Dems don't deserve a calm and comfy transition. Let them reap what they sow.
Achilles. You’re a nut. And I say that with all due respect
“This was the judgement from a Conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania, just saying:"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote. "At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."”
And that is precisely the weakness of his decision - he refused to balance the equities, as he was required to have done.
steve uhr said...
Achilles. You’re a nut. And I say that with all due respect
Veterans are used to that sort of respect. It is a joke in our community.
One of your biggest mistakes was completely alienating the veteran community. That was compounded by completely alienating local law enforcement all over the country.
You should not have kicked the poll observers out. You should have let the election carry out by the process we agreed to.
Every vote outside the law as determined by the Pennsylvania Legislature were supposed to be separated as per Justice Alito. They weren't. It can be assumed that every vote after the shutdown violated the law as per the legislature. Thus all those ballots should be voided. It's on those that defied Alito's order that some people will be disenfranchised. If illegal vote are counted then someone else will be disenfranchised, as an illegal vote would negate theirs. They should have followed Alito's order and the State Supreme Court shouldn't have negated the actual law. It's on them!
“She even believes Kavanaugh is a rape gang leader.”
Um... no. I never opined on whether I believed he raped anyone, I don’t believe he did. I did however say he conducted himself like a drunken frat boy at the hearings. Drago continues to spin bullshit. Do bears shit in the woods?
“Veterans are used to that sort of respect. It is a joke in our community.”
Sorry Achilles, there is a whole community of veterans who think the type of stuff you say is absolutely nuts.
VoteVets.org, I’m sure you’ve heard of them Achilles.
This is icky!!
So PA judge pretends that all the identified voter fraud doesn't amount to a "single disenfranchised voter"? That my vote isn't canceled out when a fake vote completely negates it? And that kind of rank gaslighting bullshit is supposed to restore trust in the results? You all insisting "let the courts decide", when it was those same courts that illegally enabled the conditions for that fraud, only proves that you know they are in on the steal and you want them to continue to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.
"We weed out the corrupt and duplicitous in our ranks when we find them.
You do not."
Of course not. Corruption and duplicity are considered positives (or, at least, not discouraged) by Democrats.
Has anybody heard any Democrat anywhere express any concern over the fraud that's been exposed so far or for the importance of insuring the legitimacy of every ballot cast?
If the USSC decides in Trump's favor, how many of the lefties here insisting we need to respect the PA judge's decision will likewise insist we need to respect the USSC's decision?
Prediction:
Not.
A.
Single.
Fucking.
One.
Of.
You.
Gaslighting.
Hypocrites.
Inga said...
VoteVets.org, I’m sure you’ve heard of them Achilles.
Nobody believes a thing they say Inga. Not even the cunts and blue falcons that make up that organization. They are just another leftist front lying to you and giving your stupidity cover.
Your delusions don't have much longer.
Inga: "Um... no. I never opined on whether I believed he raped anyone, I don’t believe he did"
LOL
Inga, like her fellow banned commenter LLR-lefty Chuck, are starting to realize their years long lunatic postings aren't a good look right about now so its time to rewrite history!!
Let's see how far Inga will go to take back the idiocy she spouted for 5+ years.
Inga, Carter Page, russian spy or no?
Qwinn:
Thats.
Never.
Going.
To.
Happen.
Are you going to come apologize when you are wrong?
Wait, so Inga believes that Kavanaugh was *repeatedly* and *falsely* accused of being a rapist on national television, and didn't comport himself in a dignified enough way in response to that?
Seriously? She acknowledges he was *falsely* accused of those staggering crimes, over and over again, and her takeaway, the important thing is that it was unbecoming of him to respond angrily to it?
Seriously, DIAF.
“Not even the cunts and blue falcons that make up that organization.”
What a thing to say about your fellow veterans.
steve uhr: "Bruce. The problem with your approach is that thousands of voters who did absolutely nothing wrong will be disenfranchised."
The democraticals understood that very clearly when they violated rules and mingled multiple streams of ballots and purposely destroyed the envelopes for large numbers of ballots purposely to remove the ability to check the validity of those ballots....despite court requirements to maintain them.
Yes indeed, those democraticals certainly created the conditions whereby lots of innocent parties would be caught up in any mass disallowance of ballots due to democratical shenanigans.
But not to worry steve. You guys were able to investigate Trump for the russian connections Hillary and the democraticals had and you were able to impeach Trump for Biden's ukrainian corruption, so blaming Trump for democratical election shenanigans should be a piece of cake for you cats.
Qwinn: "Wait, so Inga believes that Kavanaugh was *repeatedly* and *falsely* accused of being a rapist on national television, and didn't comport himself in a dignified enough way in response to that?"
That's just the lie Inga is telling at this moment, now that its clear even to the very dense Inga that her 5 year+ conspiracy-a-thon is not a good look when she wants to accuse others of advancing conspiracy theories.
Inga, like her fellow banned commenter LLR-lefty Chuck, really hopes that everyone adheres to the same Lefty History Reset tactics that she does.
Ray: "Every vote outside the law as determined by the Pennsylvania Legislature were supposed to be separated as per Justice Alito."
steve uhr's democratical allies defied that order. Purposefully. Knowingly.
Because they had to in order to get the result they wanted.
I would love to hear Steve Uhr's rationale for why hundreds of thousands of ballot envelopes were destroyed against the explicit directive of a sitting Supreme Court justice.
Probably because those legal rulings don't apply if the Orange Man is Very Very Bad.
Inga: "What a thing to say about your fellow veterans."
Isn't the "c-word" the very thing you called Althouse? Didn't that event help precipitate your being banned from the blog like your fellow leftist LLR-lefty Chuck?
Laughing at your defeat Drago. I really wanted to be gentle with you, but decided, nah, not deserved. You have the lost the most of all the Trumpists after the last 4 years of peddling your propaganda here. What a waste of time you’ve been, you’re a loser, same as Trump.
Inga said...
“Not even the cunts and blue falcons that make up that organization.”
What a thing to say about your fellow veterans.
I know a few genuine vet democrats. They get all defensive when we talk about "Thank you for your service but we are going to take your guns away day."
"Not all democrats want to take away your guns."
Yes they do. They and their fascist friends can get fucked.
3 years from now will we see a group of thuggish looking men (and women) standing around dominion voting machine (#13?) grinning at their coup?
http://www.roughdiplomacy.com/?p=3028
John Henry
Inga truly believes she can simply laugh off her 5+ years of non-stop conspiracy mongering and pretend it never happened at all.
As noted earlier, this is the brand new lefty narrative popping up everywhere.
Stacey Abrams is literally claiming to have gracefully accepted her defeat and conceded in the Gov race in 2018 in GA.....a concession that to this day has not occurred after her spending 2 straight years claiming she was the legitimate winner in that race.
Its fascinating isn't it?
We've seen leftist/marxist/communist regimes the world over for 100 years perform this sort of historical revisionism and whitewashing but its a different thing entirely to see lefties in the US attempt this Jedi Mind Trick and pretend its working.
Mark echoes the words of the Democrat Pennsylvania AG, who declared definitively BEFORE the election he was overseeing, and in which he was running for reelection, that the outcome of the election had already been decided in his favor.
And Mark states definitively he knows how the USSC will rule.
Why don't you all just be honest and say what you really mean? "Of course we're fucking stealing the election. Whatchagoona do about it punks?"
Let's take a moment to consider Mark's analytical skills:
I say IF the USSC favors Trump, none of the lefties here will respect that result.
Mark responds with, the USSC will never favor Trump, and I have to apologize when I'm wrong.
If the USSC doesn't rule in Trump's favor, then whether or not the lefties here respect that result would never be tested. And yet I'm supposed to apologize for being wrong about a prediction that was never tested?
This is what passes for leftist logic.
Inga, who are the people running votevets.org? Are they actually veterans? I could not find any names of officers on the website or much information at all.
The "our organization" link goes to a progressive fund raising organization. https://join.mobilize.us/ Sort of an even more radical Actblue it looks like. It raises funds for a lot of unions according to the landing page.
So what vets are involved in the vote vets organization?
Sounds sort of like another stolen Valor scam.
John Henry
We are a few years behind the Europeans in having the establishment cracking down on citizens disagreeing with the government in such a over the top way, but I suspect when our own government starts attempting things like this, the response might be a bit different than it was yesterday in Germany:
https://twitter.com/CesareSacchetti/status/1329363308995104768
John Henry: "...who are the people running votevets.org? Are they actually veterans? I could not find any names of officers on the website or much information at all."
votevets is another of the myriad astroturfed groups that "spontaneously" form under democratical direction and control.
Remember after the Tea Party rose up in about a thousand places all by themselves, against the republican establishment as well as the democrats? After which McConnell and the rest worked with the obama admin to weaponize the government and media against them, particularly the IRS.
Then whaddya know, a democrat counter-group arose, "organically" (wink wink) called the "Coffee Party".
In the same way that obama's pals formed Occupy Wall Street and Organizing for America.
BTW, because that's how the democraticals operate, always directed from above, they (the democraticals) found it impossible to believe the Tea Party wasn't created by the republican establishment....even as the republican establishment moved to crush the Tea Party!
Why can’t you accept the decisions of the courts?
All of the decisions so far have been at the state or district Court level. We haven't heard from the appeals courts or the Supreme Court. Nor have we seen the filings that will be filed this week.
You want to stop the game in the 3rd inning.
I also find it fascinating that a lefty would have supreme confidence that a USSC that they consider dominated by 6-3 conservatives cannot possibly rule in Trump's favor.
So the conservative justices on the USSC are completely untainted by partisanship in any way, eh, and it's pretty much physically impossible that they will rule the way that leftist justices always do, which is purely based on whatever outcome they prefer? You guys going on the record with that?
That's... pretty fascinating, actually.
Compton, CA mayoral race:
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/11/17/stockton-michael-tubbs-concedes-kevin-lincoln/
The black Republican challenger won.
"Why can’t you accept the decisions of the courts?"
The very same courts that illegally changed the election laws right before the election in order to dismantle ALL voter integrity checks which had only one practical predictable effect, to facilitate fraud? Yeah, no, we're not expecting those judges to rule that what they did was illegal. Imagine that.
Does that answer your question adequately?
9-0 decisions pretty common. And most cert petions denied.
In PA:
1.9MM Dems requested mail in ballots and 87% were returned.
787K Repubs requested mail in ballots and 78% were returned.
I got this off PA state website and I guess we can assume "returned" means the ballot was counted.
Is it likely the Repub return rate was that much lower than the Dems? If it had been as high as the Dems and each voted for Trump, the margin for Biden would be much closer to only $10K votes.
I suspect a good number of Repub mail in votes got accidentally trashed by "accident" in the big Dem counties like Philly, Montco, Delco, Chesco, Allegheny.
Do PA counties keep a log and a count of all the mail in ballots it received and has that count been compared to the mail in votes processed? That could be where large fraud could be found.
Fipdoodles of tired of trespassing on another person's intellectual playground?
I have asked you where you practice your full contact MMA.
Let's run a charity event.
Birkel: "Compton, CA mayoral race:
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/11/17/stockton-michael-tubbs-concedes-kevin-lincoln/"
I believe that is Stockton, not Compton.
Compton, like many other hispanic majority districts, voted in larger numbers for Trump in 2020 than in 2016.
If you really want to see an interesting story, see how Trump flipped Zapata County along the Rio Grande.
Which is strange, because I didn't think that massively-majority hispanic counties that voted for Clinton in 2016 were full of Klan members, which they have to be to have flipped from blue to red for Trump in 2020, at least, according to Althouse Political Historians readering, Inga, steve uhr an others.
Birkel,
Is a fipdoodle like an even douchier version of a fopdoodle?
John Henry
I'm Full Of Soup:
"Do PA counties keep a log and a count of all the mail in ballots it received and has that count been compared to the mail in votes processed? That could be where large fraud could be found. "
Yes. I was handed just such a list for the district where I was a poll watcher the morning of the election. It was comparing that list to Bucks County PA records for party registrations that I determined that supposedly Biden did better among the category "mail in ballot" than the category "in person registered Democrat", despite only 66% of mail in ballots being requested by registered Democrats. Which, as a Data Analyst my entire life, I consider to be utterly, completely absurd.
It ain't over until the fat Justice sings.
What I consider ridiculous about that result, to be explicit about it, is that it requires the assumption that whether or not someone voted in person vs. mail-in wasn't just a *little* more accurate in predicting how someone would vote than party affiliation, it was *massively* more accurate. Like 50% more accurate. And we're supposed to pretend that's not a red flag? That's just fucking absurd.
Yes, Stockton.
Not Compton.
steve uhr: "The problem with your approach is that thousands of voters who did absolutely nothing wrong will be disenfranchised."
Translation: The 74 million or more who voted for Trump can be disenfranchised without a problem.
The most annoying response I get to those results from my district, by the way, is the claim that it's "too small a sample size". WTF? It was over 800 people. The media constantly hands us *national* polls based on roughly 500 respondents and claims 3% margin of error.
"Translation: The 74 million or more who voted for Trump can be disenfranchised without a problem."
Exactly. Cause they *did* do something wrong. They voted for Trump! Duh!
I have only maintained a close friendship with a single lefty in my life (we rarely talk politics, and we pretend I don't know he's a hard core lefty). He is also a Data Analyst. When I presented him my data, he started to try to justify it and I just looked him in the eye and said "You're a data analyst". He laughed, looked at it again, and admitted, yes, okay, it's absurd.
What you are describing in PA where a higher rate of mail in ballots by Republicans allegedly went for Biden (than the Republican in person voting?) aligns with the discussion by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai of how Trump votes were shifted from strong Trump precincts to Biden. I don't know if his analysis will be received by judges but I am glad to see some solid evidence of this being presented.
I'm sorry that this information might be troubling but more troubling to me is the totalitarian attitude by the media and the woke culture which demands we all lay down and submit to corruption when it is staring us in the face.
Drooling Ingacile's recent absence from this blog certainly hasn't made her any smarter.
When I went to the votevets donate page just now it took me to Actblue.
Actblue is a specifically Democrat pac.
Somrwhat of a scam as I've discussed previously.
John Henry
Quinn:
You were only at a precinct. I am assuming all mail in ballots went to the county seats like Norristown, Doylestone, Media and that is where the real funny business would have occurred. And those are the logs/ counts I'd look at first.
Rosalyn, here's the numbers:
In in-person voting in my district where I was a poll watcher, 230 Democrats signed in, 253 Republicans, and a handful of non affiliated. 515 total. Trump got 332 votes to Biden's 175.
That means the *maximum* Biden did among in-person registered Democrats was 76% (175 votes from 230 Democrats). That's the most generous interpretation possible for Biden's performance among Democrats, as it assumes that not a single Republican or non-affiliated voter voted for Biden. If any did, then Biden's performance among in-person Democrats was even lower.
But in mail-in ballots, Trump got 42 votes to Biden's 142. That means Biden got over 77% of the mail in ballot, better than he did among in-person Democrats. I called bullshit, and paid the fee to download Bucks County registration records. Compared my list to what I got on election day and determined that only 66% of those mail in ballots were requested by Democrats.
So that's what I'm talking about when I say that Biden performing better among a group that was 66% registered Democrat than in a group that was 100% registered Democrats is just fucking absurd.
(And sorry, it wasn't over 800 votes, just over 700 votes total. Still way better than what we are passed off all the time as national polls with tiny margins of error.)
Quinn- that is damn good work! And really good analysis.
Why is it bullshit that Biden did much better than Trump among voters who voted by mail?
Trump did better with in-person voters. Biden did better with mail-in voters.
With massive mail-in voting this year, there’s nothing to compare this election to.
mccullough,
You should try understanding what Quinn typed before making an ass of yourself.
Again.
Birkel,
You’re a paranoid invalid.
Well that certainly showed your comprehension.
Qwinn,
What is the total number of registered voters in your precinct?
That is not all he said McCullough. He said, in his small sample:
Biden got 76% of Dem voters who voted in person.
Yet Biden got 142 votes from a mail in group that only had 100 or so Dems in it. So we can assume Biden got 100% of Dem mail in votes and a bunch of Repubs too.
That is highly questionable for Quinn's area - Bucks county, PA where Trump got about 49% of all votes.
That is highly questionable for Quinn's area - Bucks county, PA where Trump (was reported, in part based on these extraordinarily unlikely mail-in vote numbers, to have received) about 49% of all votes.
(Slight tweaks necessary.)
The differences Quinn related were between Democrats (in-person) and Democrats (mail-in).
But mccullough is too hostile to Trump to care about reading well.
Here’s what he said.
Voted in person: 515 total
253 registered GOP; 230 Dem; 32 other registered (6% which Qwinn called “a handful.).
Mail-in vote: 184 total:
registered GOP: ???
registered Dem: 121
registered other: ???
Oh, and here I thought it was hostility when it was stupidity.
Apologies.
Birkel,
Don’t apologize for your stupidity.
You can’t help it.
With massive mail-in voting this year, there’s nothing to compare this election to.
That was the idea, especially mailing blank ballots to 67 million anonymous addresses.
This has been planned but the Chinese virus gave them the perfect opportunity.
By the way, mccollough, I paid Social Security from age 16 to age 80, the last 60 years both halves. Medicare since 1965. Do I get a refund ?
Presidential vote in Qwinn’s precinct:
Total: 699
Trump: 364
Biden: 317
Other: 18
I heard Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA) say last night that in Georgia, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots dropped from 3% in the last election to 0.03% in this election. This means that either Georgia voters suddenly got 100 times smarter, or else the safeguards against fraud like signature matching were turned off entirely.
I'm not betting on "100 times smarter."
Yes, mccullough. 364-317. In an area where Trump signs outnumbered Biden signs *at least* 10-1. Even when they were stealing Trump signs, like they did mine (we went out and got a bigger one).
As far as registration numbers:
990 total registrations
470 Democrats
370 Republicans
150 Other
Clyde,
The rejection rate in Georgia mail in ballots in 2020 general election is .15% for signature issues (missing or mismatched signature). That’s the same as it was in Georgia in 2018.
Georgia has not yet provided the numbers on its rejection rate for late mail-in ballots (received after Election Day).
Bear in mind:
The in-person vote had signature matching.
The in-person vote had 2 Republican poll watchers (me and my wife) at least in the vicinity and checking in once an hour or so, even if we were denied watching the vote
The in-person vote had several Republicans told that a mail-in ballot had been cast in their name, despite protestations that they never received one.
The mail in ballot vote had no signature matching
The mail in ballot vote had no Republican poll watcher *anywhere* even in the vicinity.
Not even good at snark.
Michael K,
How much has Medicare paid your health care providers since you were 65?
We won’t know if you get a refund until you die.
As for Social Security, how much have paid in? How much have you received so far?
Again, we won’t know if you get a refund until you die.
Here's what I find interesting about mccullough's arguments.
He is positing that it's plausible that Biden *vastly* outperformed in mail-in ballots, while Trump outperformed vastly in in-person voting. In fact, whether or not they voted in-person vs. mail-in was a vastly more accurate predictor of which they would vote than party affiliation. Absorb that for a second.
And yet, mccullough doesn't seem to have *any* problem with different voter integrity standards and checks applied to the in-person vote (signature verification, for example) than the mail-in vote (no signature verification, no Republican poll watchers).
Where mccullough insists Trump friendly votes would be expected to dominate, voters were subjected to voter integrity checks. Where mccullough insists Biden votes should have been expected to dominate, there were no voter integrity checks applied at all.
Wouldn't vastly differing standards (imposed illegally by the very same judges that we're told can be trusted to adjudicate the election now) applied to groups that mccullough insists were perfectly plausibly vastly different in voter preference have a massive... oh, what's the term... "disparate impact"?
Qwinn,
Turnout in your precinct was 70%.
About 47% of registered voters in your precinct are Dems.
About 37% are GOP.
The rest (about 16%) are other.
The Dem turnout in your precinct was 42%.
Biden received 45% of the votes in your precinct (317)
Trump received almost 54% of the votes in your precinct (374).
mccullough said...
Clyde,
The rejection rate in Georgia mail in ballots in 2020 general election is .15% for signature issues (missing or mismatched signature). That’s the same as it was in Georgia in 2018.
Georgia has not yet provided the numbers on its rejection rate for late mail-in ballots (received after Election Day).
Do you have a source for that?
Also, mccullough, it should be noted that there have been other issues that caused ballots to be rejected. How would you explain the hundred-fold decrease in rejected ballots that was claimed by Rep. Collins?
Yes, mcullough. I'm real good at math and I'm aware of all that. What point do you think that makes? That if Trump wins in a historically blue district (and ANYONE around here would have easily predicted that, just from the signs), we should just ignore any statistical bizarreness and be thankful?
I think the *actual* vote for Trump around here was at least 60%. Easily. Maybe even 70%. People around here monolithically *hated* the lockdowns and blamed them pretty exclusively on the Dem governor Wolf, and his wildly disturbing tranny Secretary of Health, because they were in fact solely responsible for them.
I ask you again - if you think it is to be expected that one side would primarily use in person voting, and the other side would primarily use mail in ballots, isn't it the *simplest common sense* that those two methods would require equivalent voter integrity checks? And if the voter integrity standards were different, applied only where one side's voters were expected to dominate, that that is obviously intrinsically a completely flawed election? Do you think you get to say "it wouldn't have made that much difference", when you yourself admit there's no historical standard to compare to?
Clyde,
Got the info from the Georgia Secretary of State website on the signature issue. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/number_of_absentee_ballots_rejected_for_signature_issues_in_the_2020_election_increased_350_from_2018
Don’t know where Collins got his info.
Qwinn,
The point is that your conclusions are based on belief and yard signs.
What was the vote in your precinct in 2016?
BTW, another very good indicator of sentiment in my district, btw, better than the 10-1 yard sign count for Trump, is that around here, almost NO ONE wears masks. Everyone thinks they're ridiculous and the only places people wear them are walking into businesses that require it. I recently moved into this house, had maybe two dozen contractors walk in and out of here in the last month or two, and practically every single one has gleefully ditched the masks the moment we told them we didn't care. Maybe 2 didn't.
So I take it you're NOT going to answer the question about how an election system that purposefully applied different voter integrity standards to groups that *you and the leftist narrative insist* would vote differently can be considered valid?
I do not have data for this district from 2016. I was not a poll watcher then.
Maybe putting it like this will help you understand my point, mccullough:
88% (332 out of 374) of Trump votes in my precinct were subjected to signature verification.
55% (175 out of 317) of Biden votes in my precinct were subjected to signature verification.
You're okay with that?
Qwinn,
Who is responsible for verifying registrations/signatures for mail-in ballots in your precinct?
How do you know mail-in ballots were not verified for registration/signature in your precinct?
"How do you know mail-in ballots were not verified for registration/signature in your precinct?"
You haven't been paying attention at all, have you?
Mail in ballots didn't have signature verification anywhere in the entire fucking state. Only in-person did.
https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/
It is always more questions.
No amount of proof would matter.
It's a more clever NPC than IngaBot.
Qwinn,
I’m aware of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on mismatched signatures.
What was the rejection rate in your precinct for mail-in ballots with no signature and mismatched or no registration?
Always more questions.
"I’m aware of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on mismatched signatures."
Then why did you ask the dumbfuck question about who was responsible for matching signatures on mail in ballots in my precinct, if you knew the answer was no one in the entire fucking state was ALLOWED to match signatures?
"What was the rejection rate in your precinct for mail-in ballots with no signature and mismatched or no registration?"
I'm done answering your questions (and of course I don't have that data). I have answered more than enough. I don't see how any answer would even be remotely relevant to the simple fact that 88% of Trump votes had signature verification and only 55% of Biden votes did. That is utterly indefensible. That you didn't admit defeat the moment I proved that wildly different standards were applied to one class of voter over another, a class *you yourself insist* was expected to have wildly different voting preferences, means you have literally zero intellectual honesty. I'm done with you.
As for who *would* have verified mail in ballot signatures if it had been allowed?
That would have been *me*.
But they *lied* to me and said I had no legal right to watch. If only I'd known at the time.
“And of course I don’t have that data.”
Qwinn, then it’s just your belief based on your yard signs.
No, that 88% to 55% figure has nothing to do with yard signs. Those are hard numbers. And you know that.
ZERO intellectual honestly.
NPC says what?
Qwinn,
You were a poll watcher. You were not a mail-in ballot monitor. The GOP (and Dems) had those as well.
Your county also had closed-circuit video of the mail-in ballot counting.
If it had been 88% of black people who were subjected to signature verification, and only 55% of white people were subjected to it, would you be arguing that it doesn't matter unless we have the actual rejection rate data?
Of fucking course not.
The disparate impact would be obvious, glaring, and sufficient all by itself to invalidate the election. I don't have to prove that Trump lost a single vote due to that signature verification. The wildly different standards are *obviously* an equal protection violation.
And the judges, the same judges who enabled that, are now the arbiters of whether or not that was an equal protection violation. And we're supposed to accept that they decided, no, that's no problem at all.
And if this is not addressed, if an election system that obviously, blatantly rigged is allowed to stand as legitimate, you're about to hear 73 million people respond to that with "Go fuck yourself. War."
Qwinn,
Let it all out.
73 million people aren’t going to war.
You aren’t either.
mccullough is an NPC.
No amount of evidence will convince shim.
Heh. No response at all to the argument made. No actual defense of the different standards at all, which of course, since it is literally indefensible.
Instead, we get the same effective response we've been getting from every leftist here: "Yeah, of course we stole it, whatchagonna do about it?"
Birkel isn’t going to war, either.
Birkel is a paranoid invalid.
Mccullough you are a real asshole.
Now I guess the Kraken will be coming after Ellis and Giuliani.
Qwinn,
Trump lost.
As far as not being able to check “mismatched signatures,” I have no issue with that. The people who checked the signatures are government employees. They aren’t hand-writing experts.
Verifying that a mail-in ballot is signed and that the voter is registered is sufficient.
Elections have always been messy.
When the Dems lose, they whine.
When the GOP lose, they whine.
I’m Full of Soup,
I don’t comment here to make you feel better.
Believe whatever you want to believe.
That’s what Birkel does.
@Qwinn I'm not a math person so I don't evaluate your data in the same way. What struck me from your figures was that in person voting was not strongly Republican -- the voters who signed in were: R=49%, D=45%, I=6% and yet Trump got 64% of their total vote. That means quite a few D's voted for Trump.
And yet we're also supposed to believe that the mail in ballots were only overwhelmingly D's and Trump only got 23% of the total there.
And according to McCollough in your precinct there are more registered D's -- 47%, yet most of the voting was done in person -- 72%. Trump did very well with in person voters and poorly with mail in 23%. It's a little odd imo.
Oh, and the Kraken was released on behalf of Rep. Collins on Sen. Kelly Loeffler. I had missed that.
mccullough said...
You aren’t either.
History says there about 3% to start.
Two and a half million will be plenty to start. Kyle Rittenhouse will be +1.
I have a lot to lose from not being willing to fight.
Good luck in the wars to come.
Hey, you reactionary liberty-addicts and would-be Tom Paines: if you can't trust a gang whose basic philosophy is coercion and legalized theft, and with a body count in the billions (see the Democide statistics), and who come out of a tradition of "No truth but our truth" not to rig and throw an election, who can you trust?
Maybe McCullough will be the first casualty in the war he says no one will go to. Irony at its finest.
THEOLDMAN
BTW, why is Chuck still here?
Post a Comment