WrongHanded
Well-known member
Okay. So do you have any evidence to present? I keep hearing about all this evidence, but no one seems to be able to just drop a link to it. Is it secret evidence?
Should the Electoral College be abolished?
- Thread starter wiscoaster
- Start date
wiscoaster
Well-known member
No, it's not secret, it was presented to the various state legislatures in live and publicly video-streamed hearings. If you weren't paying attention or if you were ignoring them then it's not my responsibility to force your civic duties upon you or even to make them easier for you. Remember you had to actively seek out these hearings as the main stream media suppressed them. The videos should still be available on YouTube. I hope. But other websites should have copies. I suggest you use DuckDuckGo to search for them, at this point they may have been censored by Google. If you really want to examine the evidence yourself, then watch them. Lay in a good store of snacks and beverages because the hearings are incredibly lengthy (I think one went 15 hours), and some of the states had multiple hearings. States with public and video-streamed hearings: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania. I think Nevada had a hearing, too, but I missed that one. Keep in mind that individuals testifying had submitted sworn affidavits, knowing perjury is a felony. This is accepted as "hard" evidence in both criminal and civil court proceedings. Watching one a day should take you well past the inauguration, at which point, if you have an open mind and are a reasonable person, you'll be convinced we now have a criminal as President and that he was elected by organized, intentional and well-planned and executed criminal disenfrachising of millions of voters, maybe even you, because the "steal" didn't stop at the top.
Last edited:
WrongHanded
Well-known member
Firstly, I agree that it's not your job to "force my civic duties upon me". However, if those making accusations of election fraud want the American people to be aware of it and view it, I'm sure Trump could find the funding to do so. The idea that I should seek out any and every accusation made and put before a state legislature (particularly if it's not in my state) is pretty laughable.
Secondly, a sworn affidavit is not always accepted as "hard" evidence. It's judged based on its source, content and merit. And the idea that penality of perjury is a serious concern, only matter if what is contained in the statement can be proven to be a lie. I could write a sworn statement saying that last weekend I saw Bigfoot in the woods. No one can actually prove I didn't, because I was there and no one can prove Bigfoot wasn't. So how can a court convict me of perjury when it cannot be proven that my statement is false? It can't. But just because no one can prove I'm lying, doesn't mean my statement is therefore proof that Bigfoot exists.
And even if these individuals were at risk of being found guilty of perjury, that's not always enough to stop people. I seem to remember several hundred people storming the capital building, knowing full well they could be convicted of various crimes. But clearly that threat didn't stop them breaking the law. You think 300 odd people wouldn't be willing to lie under oath for something they believe in?
Just because you found the testimony convincing doesn't mean it is. It clearly wasn't to the various legislatures or courts. But I tell you what, I'm willing to watch at least one. How about you recommend the most convincing instance with the strongest argument and evidence and I'll go watch it. Can you give me one example? And some key phrases to put into duck duck go?
What I'm saying is that I'm actually willing to look at some of this "evidence", and I'll let you cherry pick it for me.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
Cherry pick? Only one? Good heavens, I don't have time to do that. But your request is that of a well-meaning, open-minded, reasonable and intelligent person, and that sort of person I'll be happy to accomodate as best as I can at the moment. Any one of the hearings should be enough, so I'm semi-randomly choosing the Arizona hearing, mostly because it appears to still be fully intact on YouTube. So make your popcorn and pop open a couple bubblies. Here it is - all eleven hours of it:
The Georgia and Pennsylania hearings were more compelling, but it appears they've been "clipped" into so many short segments by so many sources I simply don't have the time today to look through all of them for the full-length video, if they're still there. (You know how out-of-context clips can be misused).
The Georgia and Pennsylania hearings were more compelling, but it appears they've been "clipped" into so many short segments by so many sources I simply don't have the time today to look through all of them for the full-length video, if they're still there. (You know how out-of-context clips can be misused).
Last edited:
WrongHanded
Well-known member
@wiscoaster Thanks! I'll try and watch it this weekend. Or atleast some of it - that's a lot of time.
Yes, we should dump the electoral college and go to a straight vote system--- that is if you want NYC, San Francisco, and several other other large democratic cities to select your president in every election and dis-infranchises every other vote cast for president. The electoral college is the only reason that voters that don't live in those cities have a voice in who is elected. We need to keep it at all costs.
Was there fraud in this election? I certainly believe so. My state had more votes cast than it has registered voters and what happened. The democrats control everything in state government and simply said it didn't matter and that was that.
Was there fraud in this election? I certainly believe so. My state had more votes cast than it has registered voters and what happened. The democrats control everything in state government and simply said it didn't matter and that was that.
No. It gave Trump a victory. It could get us another win if we work at it. We got bested by smarter politics this time. There will be a next time. Better get going on it, whining about ghost from the past is just a distraction.
I live in Illinois, electoral shenanigans are an art form here. My developmentally disabled 81 year old SIL had to go into a nursing home May 2020. We can not get into see her, but she voted for the first time in her life. How and who instigated it we have not been able to ascertain, but it happened. She’s in Cook County so let your imagination run wild.
Even with all the “alleged” fraud this round many regions are moving left politically in reality. You see states that were once conservative bastions being taken over by liberal democrats. You never see a democratic stronghold go conservative, ever. The problem is not election fraud, we are loosing in the arena of ideas. Why?
I live in Illinois, electoral shenanigans are an art form here. My developmentally disabled 81 year old SIL had to go into a nursing home May 2020. We can not get into see her, but she voted for the first time in her life. How and who instigated it we have not been able to ascertain, but it happened. She’s in Cook County so let your imagination run wild.
Even with all the “alleged” fraud this round many regions are moving left politically in reality. You see states that were once conservative bastions being taken over by liberal democrats. You never see a democratic stronghold go conservative, ever. The problem is not election fraud, we are loosing in the arena of ideas. Why?
WrongHanded
Well-known member
I watched as much as I could stand. I skipped through some things, including Giuliani's narrative speech at the beginning. I watched and listened to various testimonies. One thing is clear: there exists the possibility for voting machine manipulation. But I would fully expect that with technology.
I completely lost interest when Trump called up during the hearing and a phone was help to a microphone so he could address everyone in the room and spew some nonsense that had no place in a such a forum. He may as well have been giving a stump speech. What a ridiculous diversion.
I can fully understand how what was presented would be seen as evidence to anyone who already believed there had been wide spread and significant election fraud committed. However, that's not what I took away. Some of the accounts of people working as pole watchers and vote counters certainly brought into question some of the processes implemented in certain polling and vote counting locations. However, there was no one available to provide any answers to those questions. Which leaves each viewer to fill in the blanks for themselves.
Why would a green button need to be pushed on a vote counting machine for every vote? Perhaps that's how the machine works.
Why would Dominion employees be the ones actually running the counting machines? Perhaps because they're complicated and the amount of training required to run them correctly is substantial.
Why were there not both a Republican and a Democrat at every vote counting station? Maybe not enough Republicans volunteered in those Counties. And perhaps, in contrast, rural low population counties such as Apache with only 71K population couldn't find enough democrats to fill all the tables.
Why were "duplicate ballots" (as they are called) taken into a separate room? Perhaps to isolate them from the other ballots because they require additional attention or adjudication.
Why did the Dominion server kick up to 10 TBps from 7TBps when voting started? That all depends on why it was running at 7TBps before the polls opened.
Why were "duplicate ballots" being brought in from a separate facility where they were allegedly run through a high speed scanner first? Perhaps they were being copied to pdf for record keeping purposes, so that the data is digital available for scrutinization at some later date.
Why were computers reading signatures that didn't appear to match? Perhaps it was an attempt to verify, and those who cast those ballots were later contacted to be given an opportunity to coming in a prove it belonged to them.
Why did some poll watchers not have access to every aspect of the process or understand the entire process? Perhaps the volunteer position does not guarantee an all access pass and what they wanted to know was outside the scope of the position.
Etc, etc.
I'm not saying my answers to these questions are correct. I'm mearly suggesting that there are potentially quite simple and straight forward answers to the questions brought up by those who testified.
Bottom line: It sounds like the system isn't perfect. That's no big shock and we could probably say that about any State's system. However, I did not see anything I would consider to be evidence that significant or large scale voter fraud did actually take place. Though I thought some of the graphs and statistical analysis were pretty clever manipulation.
Last edited:
CrustyCoot
Active member
I wish they had Electoral College setup in each state for state elections. Here in Michigan, A person can get elected strictly by campaigning in a few large cities. Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Pontiac. The rest of the stat3s votes are meaningless.
WrongHanded
Well-known member
Should votes be based on acre of land owned instead?
CrustyCoot
Active member
No, we are a representative form of government. If a handful of cities determine an election, there is no representation for the rest of the people.
WrongHanded
Well-known member
There is a representation for the rest of the people. They each get one vote.
Your argument is based on surface area. If you and everyone else moved to those cities compressing the entire population into a few relatively small areas, it wouldn't change anything. You're just out numbered and would prefer that the minority you are a part of had control over the majority.
CrustyCoot
Active member
If you have 60 counties, and people in 3 or 4 counties decide election, the rest are not represented. Thus the genius of our forefathers and the Electoral College. We are a constititutionally limited Republic, not a democracy, as you would propose.
WrongHanded
Well-known member
So how small do you want to go? Would you like one elected representative for every street? Every square mile? You might as well just have one elected representative for every eligible voter, vote yourself into that position and have a true democracy where ever single person has an equal say in everything.
And you'd still be out numbered.
CrustyCoot
Active member
Just sas each state has electors based on population size, so to should counties.
CrustyCoot
Active member
A true democracy is no better than mob rule.
WrongHanded
Well-known member
You want an EC system based on population. To elect who exactly? The Governor? But if the Electors are based on population, how is it going to be relevant? By rounding up small populations to gain an extra Elector in rural counties?
CrustyCoot
Active member
California has more electors based on population than Alaska. Use the same formula in state elections for Governor, US Senators, any statewide races. It isn't rocket surgery.
WrongHanded
Well-known member
But how do you think that is going to help? If the Electors are apportioned based on population, low population counties are going to have fewer Electors that high population counties with large cities in them. The only reason it works on a National level is the two extra Electors per the two Senate seats, and that tiny populations such as Wyoming get an Elector based the one House Rep due to a rounding up of the population.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't sound like it will change very much if the Electors are fairly apportioned based on population. So should they be unfairly apportioned with a bias towards counties with smaller population?
Explain to us how you would decide how many Electors a county would receive.
wiscoaster
Well-known member
But ... there are so many answers required to those questions!! In a civil trial, that would qualify for a "preponderance of the evidence." The statistical probabilities these are all random occurences in the same manner in so many locations is just beyond belief.