Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[morvoran]

i dont think you know what the word partisan means

well, excuse me for making a typo when on my tiny cellphone screen. So sorry.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

well, excuse me for making a typo when on my tiny cellphone screen. So sorry.

what word were you trying to say? i get the cell phone thing, typing on gbatemp on mobile is super glitchy for me

 

[morvoran]

and because NPR relies on the AP for election results

oh, how could I be so forgetful.....? The whole reason this thread exists is because Pedocrats think the AP is the decider of who wins elections..... derp.

 

[smf]

Wow, you're really pulling some weird unrelated shit out of nowhere there. I was only stating that Snopes is not "bi-partisan" at all and has an agenda for the left as well.

You have failed to show that snopes has an agenda, the example you showed seems reasonable if you are willing to be be reasonable.
If you want to be unreasonable then it's your problem.

 

[LumInvader]

As someone who nitpicks the quoting system and cites it as a point



We do not have any verification of ID or eligibility to vote.
We did not have legal due process allowing mail in ballots in PA.
We did not have legal and proper poll watchers allowed to do there jobs.

And I am not subscribing to where you set the goal posts.

I as a voter & citzens along with millions of other deem this election illegitimate. Period.

- None of your complaints show evidence of wide-spread voter fraud.
- None of your complaints show evidence of election conspiracy.
- Trump and his allies have a 1-41 record in post-election litigation because there is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud or conspiracy.
- Most poll observer allegations are founded on lies. I personally debunked one [here] and [here].

 

[smf]

oh, how could I be so forgetful.....? The whole reason this thread exists is because Pedocrats think the AP is the decider of who wins elections..... derp.

You'd have celebrated if Trump had more votes and the news agencies called it though right?
I don't think you would have waited until the electoral college met.

Trump isn't the decider of who wins elections either.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[jimbo13]

- None of your complaints show evidence of wide-spread voter fraud.
- None of your complaints show evidence of election conspiracy.
- Trump and his allies have a 1-41 record in post-election litigation because there is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud or conspiracy.
- Most poll observer allegations are founded on lies. I personally debunked one [here] and [here].

Try rewriting your comment without subjective adjectives so you aren't framing my claims or concerns.

 

[smf]

Try rewriting your comment without subjective adjectives.

Please be more vague.

The claim: The DNC omitted "under GOD", is false.
Some people at the convention omitted it, which is not the same thing.

That is not subjective.

Trumps twitter post on the matter is misleadingly wrong too.

The Democrats took the word GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democrat National Convention. At first I thought they made a mistake, but it wasn’t. It was done on purpose. Remember Evangelical Christians, and ALL, this is where they are coming from-it’s done. Vote Nov 3!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

"The Democrats" didn't take out anything.

 

[LumInvader]

Try rewriting your comment without subjective adjectives.

Still waiting for your evidence when we both know you don't have any. 1-41.

 

[Sicklyboy]

so you aren't framing my claims or concerns.

Big words coming from someone who loves to put words in peoples mouths

 

[LumInvader]

Over the past 5+ months, Donald Trump has:

- Played golf at least 24 times. [citation]
- Attended 0 coronavirus task force meetings. [citation]

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

BREAKING NEWS:

1-42

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1334633220684574721

 

[morvoran]

Big words coming from someone who loves to put words in peoples mouths

At least he didn't say trunalimunumaprzure. Your idea of a president makes up his own "big words"....


trunalimunumaprzure
Adjeverbnoun:
• Sound, action, blubbering a demented puppet makes when attempting to spew lies and deceit any time he's in front of a microphone.
• One who often confuses his sister for his wife. May be seen smelling small children. Prefers Chinese children but will settle for anything under 15.
• One that's often confused by saying one thing then contraindicating that exact same statement with it's opposite.

• Father of a corrupt US domestic terrorist in a political family money laundering schemer.

Synonymous with phrases such as:

"Cause if you could take care, if you were a quartermaster, you can sure in hell take care runnin' a, you know, a department store uh, thing, you know, where, in the second floor of the ladies department or whatever, you know what I mean?"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, All men and women created … by the — you know — you know the thing.”
"I'm sick and tired of smart guys!"
"I'll lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure."

 

[fischermasamune]

What do you guys think about this website?

https://hereistheevidence.com/

It provides about 125 examples (with the respective sources) of voter fraud they would consider admissible as evidence in court, rated by significance and admissibility.

(It also provides about 1000 unverified/unverifiable/new claims.)

I ask specifically about the claims of voter fraud. They present about 125 sourced pieces of evidence with varying degrees of significance and of admissibility-in-court (from 1 to 4 in their classification). Some are statistical anomalies, some are legal background, some are witness testimonies, some are datasets, some are reports of illegitimate votes, and some point to weaknesses in the voting systems (making it more vulnerable to fraud).

Do you (who is reading this) have an opinion on the claims, their existence and their merits?

 

[Jayro]

We do not have any verification of ID or eligibility to vote.
We did not have legal due process allowing mail in ballots in PA.
We did not have legal and proper poll watchers allowed to do there jobs.

And I am not subscribing to where you set the goal posts.

I as a voter & citzens along with millions of other deem this election illegitimate. Period.

You need valid ID in order to REGISTER to vote, so what are you going on about? You're hitting that crackpipe a little too hard my guy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Please be more vague.

The claim: The DNC omitted "under GOD", is false.
Some people at the convention omitted it, which is not the same thing.

That is not subjective.

Trumps twitter post on the matter is misleadingly wrong too.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1297132096448864258

"The Democrats" didn't take out anything.

Exactly. People are waking up to religion just being bullshit. We don't want it or need it.

 

[Sicklyboy]

They present about 125 sourced pieces of evidence with varying degrees of significance and of admissibility-in-court (from 1 to 4 in their classification).

Quite frankly, if "they" aren't a judge or a lawyer, I don't really care what they say about how admissible in court it would be. Because if "they" were, I don't think they'd be resorting to a crowd-sourced blog where anyone can add anything they want.

In fact, who are "they" even? All they've got on the website is a privacy policy and GDPR statement. WHOIS data predictably provides nothing particularly interesting, aside from the fact that the registrar is a European company, 1API GmbH, and the domain is 23 days old hosted out of Texas with Cloudflare.

Edit - furthermore, if this stuff is so "admissible to court", well... why hasn't it been? There's been 40 lawsuits that clearly didn't have enough oomph behind them to not get shot down.

 

[tabzer]

This exercise demonstrates that tabzer will support an allegation of election rigging if the evidence exists. I challenged him to provide "evidence" supporting his allegation that the "US govt rigs foreign elections" and he got right to it by sharing a wikipedia article.

However, when challenged to provide evidence for 2020 election rigging, he balked. Why? Because the evidence doesn't exist.

Because all evidence is contested by opposing parties, ignored, or obstructed. Getting your stamp of approval is not my point. My point, which I made several times already, is that the election system needs to inspire faith in its constituents. You made an appeal to an authority that has history of deceit and misrepresentation. You called that a conspiracy theory.

So yeah, good on you to circle all the way back to my original assessment. I have no faith that such an election has happened. I don't have to prove that. Elections are a matter of faith, and what is more transparent than ever before, is the total lack of it. Electing a president who promised to weed out corruption in a rigged system, as absurd as that was, was tantamount to admitting that the system is bankrupt on its credibility. You want to try to recover that from that with Biden? Ok. Nice choice.

 

[djpannda]

Elections are a matter of faith

Wtf u talking bout? Election are determined by votes simple math 80million vs 72million ... not faith... that it just a flat out excuse..

 

[tabzer]

Wtf u talking bout? Election are determined by votes simple math 80million vs 72million ... not faith... that it just plan excuses..

People vote because they have faith in the election process. The election process isn't totally transparent or provably fair, so it is very much about faith. You are rejecting that?

 

[SonowRaevius]

Because all evidence is contested by opposing parties, ignored, or obstructed. Getting your stamp of approval is not my point. My point, which I made several times already, is that the election system needs to inspire faith in its constituents. You made an appeal to an authority that has history of deceit and misrepresentation. You called that a conspiracy theory.

So yeah, good on you to circle all the way back to my original assessment. I have no faith that such an election has happened. I don't have to prove that. Elections are a matter of faith, and what is more transparent than ever before, is the total lack of it. Electing a president who promised to weed out corruption in a rigged system, as absurd as that was, was tantamount to admitting that the system is bankrupt on its credibility. You want to try to recover that from that with Biden? Ok. Nice choice.

"I don't like the participant of the election that won, despite it not even being my country, so I will declare that election false and try to drum up evidence that doesn't exist so I can claim that my way of thinking is correct and try to appeal to a nonexistent majority of people think that the election is fraudulent as well, despite said candidate winning the popular vote. All this while still, again, not having any evidence I will claim a number of injustices and tell anyone they are naive for not believing in my asinine statements and conspiracy theories"

Also, if you have blind faith that something is just going to work out for you, especially an election, you are the naive one.

Elections are always unpredictable and the only things that shows who won or loss are the numbers and as it stands right now Joe Biden got the popular vote.

If you ACTUALLY have evidence to the contrary, not a guess, not an assumption, not a gut feeling, then please actually submit it to the courts and anyone else you think might take it. Otherwise you offer nothing and deserve to be ridiculed for it.

 

[tabzer]

"I don't like the participant of the election that won, despite it not even being my country, so I will declare that election false and try to drum up evidence that doesn't exist so I can claim that my way of thinking is correct and try to appeal to a nonexistent majority of people think that the election is fraudulent as well, despite said candidate winning the popular vote. All this while still, again, not having any evidence I will claim a number of injustices and tell anyone they are naive for not believing in my asinine statements and conspiracy theories"

Nice strawmanning and bandwagon fallacy. Really nailing it.