‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations

[LeafByNiggle]

So Rasmussen is lying about Rasmussen’s own poll?

So, you couldn’t find it either, eh? You are not a Platinum member?
Just trusted the tweet? We have to learn how to verify our sources and not just latch on to whatever makes us feel good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Why not look at the evidence instead of punting to the genetic fallacy?

Because it is not evidence. It is allegations of evidence. Evidence comes from first-hand observation or from a known trusted source.

As in the over 2000 sworn affidavits?

Did you observe the 2000 sworn affidavits first hand? Or did you learn about them from known trusted source? Maybe their first-hand observations were enough to convince them, but they should not assume that their observations will convince others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Affidavits are evidence., under penalty of perjury.

After they have been examined by the court. Before that they are just allegations.

 

[RootKitWarrior]

I found it here. And here is the key question in the poll:

How likely is it that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win - very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely?

However your 20-30% figure for Democrats who think the election was stolen not there.

That report is from almost 3 weeks ago. The problem from the tweet is that you can verify the numbers from the written report. The written report is very vague in comparison.

Then newest report that came out today has lower numbers and is not as vague.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election,
a view shared by 17% of Democrats
and 28% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

 

[sallybutler]

Next question to you will be "when did you stop " fill in the blank

 

[Balto1]

There are thousands of affidavits, that’s valid evidence in a court of law along with many other types of evidence, including video.

Bupkis evidence produces bupkis cases, as illustrated by the abysmal record for pro-Trump election lawsuits.

As in defunding the police based upon a few questionable cases of police shooting?

Exactly! People aren’t moving to defund the police because of a few cases, they’re moving to defund the police because of decades if not centuries of brutalizing racial minorities.

“At bottom, it’s completely bizarre that Biden did not sweep the United States. Instead, he swept a few specific precincts. If Biden were as popular as his victory indicates, wouldn’t his support have been enormous in every state in which he won?”

Hahahaha when you definitely understood math

 

[HarryStotle]

Next question to you will be "when did you stop " fill in the blank

How about proving with incontrovertible evidence that fraud did not happen?

Every non-polling metric that could be referenced that in the past have had 100% accuracy had Donald Trump as the winner of this election.

In print form here…

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/

So it isn’t a matter of when did you stop… but…

When did all of the non-polling metrics that have had 100% accuracy in predicting elections in the past suddenly all get battered at the same time in this election?

Stinks to high heaven.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hahahaha when you definitely understood math

Yeah. Maybe someday I will become educated enough to understand.

 

[billsherman]

Most judges are quite reticent to put themselves and their careers on the line or in the limelight by poking around at where the evidence actually points.

So judges are now the Deep State™ too?

Does this include the panel on the 11th Circuit that rejected the lawsuit on Saturday? One of whom was reportedly the runner up to the SCOTUS seat that went to Barret?

The size and scope of this conspiracy is getting out of hand.

 

[Cathoholic]

So judges are now the Deep State™ too?

I am good with you thinking that about judges billsherman.

But I will keep that pureness and infallibility assumption in mind, if the Supreme Court grants enough evidence to hear cases too.

That will work both ways.

Covfefe.

 

[PaulinVA]

Affidavits are evidence., under penalty of perjury.

Like any evidence, it can be rejected but evidence none-the-less.

The affidavits in the 48 Trump cases were all rejected as not actually providing any evidence of fraud.

Saying in an affidavit I was at place A and saw action B and it was suspicious is not evidence of fraud.

As a Federal Court judge said today, these lawsuits have no merit and look to just be trying to cast doubt on the America election system.

 

[billsherman]

if the Supreme Court grants enough evidence to hear cases too.

Don’t worry. It won’t.

There is no legal controversy to unwind. There is nothing for SCOTUS to do.

 

[HarryStotle]

Exactly! People aren’t moving to defund the police because of a few cases, they’re moving to defund the police because of decades if not centuries of brutalizing racial minorities.

There is a far better case to be made for defunding governments entirely because “of decades if not centuries of brutalizing” not just racial minorities but pretty much everyone in any position of vulnerability.

That is to say nothing of socialist and communist governments specifically that have had a full century of nothing but brutalizing the people since they came on the scene just over a century ago.

So I say we start with not allowing socialism or communism a foothold and then severely curtailing any and all government bureaucracies not essential to upholding the Constitutional rights of We the People.

There you go…

…your argument to its logical fulfillment.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ted Cruz on Twitter: “If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument. Full statement below… https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1336049002949857284/video/1” / Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1336049002949857284

https://twitter.com/x/status/1336049002949857284

Many thanks again to the moderators that have kept this thread open.
Many developments since it was suggested that this discussion get shut down.

In retrospect it is clear, the moderators were correct here
in keeping this thread open as more developments just keep occurring.

 

[HarryStotle]

Victoria33:

Affidavits are evidence., under penalty of perjury.

Like any evidence, it can be rejected but evidence none-the-less.

The affidavits in the 48 Trump cases were all rejected as not actually providing any evidence of fraud.

The affidavits were not even looked at, except by one or maybe two judges who determined that the affidavits of election workers were more credible than the observers BECAUSE they were election workers.

Hardly considers the evidence but punts to “position of authority” to dismiss evidence that contradicts those in positions to commit fraud if it occurred.

Impartial assessment would actually look at the evidence presented from both sides and use independent and objective metrics to determine which testimony is true and accurate.

We keep getting flawed analysis which is why so many people around the country distrust what is going on.

There HAS NOT been a thorough and impartial determination regarding the entire body of evidence. It has been piecemeal from judges who have a vested interest to not involve themselves in issuing serious legal determinations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How about proving with incontrovertible evidence that fraud did not happen?

Why should this election be subject to a criterion that was never required of any other election in history? Review: Burden of Proof.

Every non-polling metric that could be referenced that in the past have had 100% accuracy had Donald Trump as the winner of this election.

I’m sure you are selecting those metrics and leaving out ones that go against your case - like polls. Why leave them out? They are a metric, and arguably a more reliable metric than the mumbo jumbo of a few self-proclaimed “forensic data experts”.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Most judges are quite reticent to put themselves and their careers on the line or in the limelight by poking around at where the evidence actually points.

So judges are now the Deep State™ too?

One probably is, a number are politically affiliated and the rest are merely human and do not want to risk their careers or lives on a ruling that will have enormous repercussions for the entire country. Better to be quiet and find some pretext to get out of making a serious determination than to potentially expose the entire Democratic establishment to complicity in the election outcome.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

billsherman:

HarryStotle:

Most judges are quite reticent to put themselves and their careers on the line or in the limelight by poking around at where the evidence actually points.

So judges are now the Deep State™ too?

Judge Sullivan probably is, a number are politically affiliated and the rest are merely human and do not want to risk their careers or lives on a ruling that will have enormous repercussions for the entire country.

You see, once you commit to a belief that Trump won, you have to invent more and more outlandish stories to support that belief. At what point will you realize you have jumped the shark and its time to consider the possibility that most politicians already accept, which is that Trump lost - big.

 

[billsherman]

One probably is, a number are politically affiliated and the rest are merely human and do not want to risk their careers or lives on a ruling that will have enormous repercussions for the entire country. Better to be quiet and find some pretext to get out of making a serious determination than to potentially expose the entire Democratic establishment to complicity in the election outcome.

Well, at least we know you have lost all faith in anything that isn’t named Donald Trump.

If judges (from both parties, some of whom were appointed by Trump, some among the most conservative in the country) don’t agree with you: that is just more confirmation that you’re right.

This conspiracy theory has now officially jumped the shark.

 

[sallybutler]

I think the answer to your question is “NEVER, EVER, EVER” a stomp of the foot, followed by a “so there”. A sticking out of the tongue may be added by some for extra emphasis.