Uncompromising Men

[Nine_Ender]

This is a serious overstatement. Many people, including many people on your side of the aisle, are all too aware of why Trump came so close to winning. It is the same reason he was elected in the first place.

For someone with a Mensa IQ level, I don't get how you cannot fathom this.

Not on this election. The world fully expected Trump to be shown the door. If you took an objective study of almost every country on the planet other then the US, the surprise factor was that he was even close to winning

 

[piezoe]

I think there is rampant election anomalies. There is certainly fraud. I don't believe this to be in dispute. When you restrict poll monitors from one party - even against a court order - and not the other, the obvious question is "why"? There's simply no good answer. Then there's thousands of voters in Nevada who cast a NV vote while not living there. Then there's over 10k of voters in Michigan that are over the age of 100 who voted.

Where is this "information" coming from?

My understanding is that official Republican and Democrat poll monitors are present in virtually equal numbers. In a close election the ballots will be closely examined and recounted if there is any question re their legitimacy. But it would be a waste of time, other than for statistical purposes, if the outcome could not be affected. Why would the election results be far different than the polls indicated? As it is, the results are very much in line with the polls. That does not suggest skulduggery. (There were those saying that the results were different from the polls, but that was before the votes were counted!) In this election, in some states, the mail-in ballots exceeded by a wide margin the election day voting, and the breakdown of mail ballots is different from the same day vote breakdown. That's also consistent with what we've learned about the voters who favor mail-in balloting over showing up at a polling place.

I continue to be amazed at how accurate, on average, modern polling has become. It can't always accurately predict the electoral college because of winner take all rules affecting close races in key states where polling shows ties within statistical error. But other than that insurmountable challenge for the polls, polling seems surprisingly accurate. If there is any statistically significant election fraud going on, it should be revealed by disagreement with the poll averages beyond the margin of error, shouldn't it?

Both the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institute, and other agencies too, have looked for voter fraud in past elections. It does exist and people have been prosecuted for it, but the relative amount of fraud is small.. From the Heritage Foundation results I estimated that the probability of fraud when the number of ballots cast was on the order of 2xE7 was on the order of 1xE-4. So statistically it should only be a factor in an extremely close election involving a handful of ballots in tens of millions cast. In other words, while it does happen, it's not something we should be concerned about, with the possible exception of poorly supervised small local elections, to which the findings do not apply. .

See:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
and:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/

 

[Nine_Ender]

Yeah, and the Dems have never cheated anywhere for any reason. They are like nice little choir boys, all innocent and stuff. Duh.

Trump is the ultimate in con man and cheating, ready with a pack of lawyers at all times to clean up the mess when he gets caught. Should be fun seeing if he's guilty of tax evasion and/or had anything to do with corruption that sent several of his associates to prison.

 

[FortuneTeller]

Trump is the ultimate in con man and cheating, ready with a pack of lawyers at all times to clean up the mess when he gets caught. Should be fun seeing if he's guilty of tax evasion and/or had anything to do with corruption that send several of his associates to prison.

The sleazy Dems would of found that out by now. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[Wallet]

Where is this "information" coming from?

My understanding is that official Republican and Democrat poll monitors are present in virtually equal numbers. In a close election the ballots will be closely examined and recounted if there is any question re their legitimacy. But it would be a waste of time, other than for statistical purposes, if the outcome could not be affected. Why would the election results be far different than the polls indicated? As it is, the results are very much in line with the polls. That does not suggest skulduggery. (There were those saying that the results were different from the polls, but that was before the votes were counted!) In this election, in some states, the mail-in ballots exceeded by a wide margin the election day voting, and the breakdown of mail ballots is different from the same day vote breakdown. That's also consistent with what we've learned about the voters who favor mail-in balloting over showing up at a polling place.

I continue to be amazed at how accurate, on average, modern polling has become. It can't always accurately predict the electoral college in some cases because of winner take all rules affecting close races in key states where polling shows ties within statistical error. But other than that, insurmountable challenge for the polls, polling seems surprisingly accurate. If there is any significant election fraud going on it should be revealed by in disagreement with the poll averages, shouldn't it?

Modern polling, LOL.

Please answer one question, how can a precinct have more votes than registered voters? And we’re not talking just a handful, in some cases it’s 25-50% or more?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Not on this election. The world fully expected Trump to be shown the door. If you took an objective study of almost every country on the planet other then the US, the surprise factor was that he was even close to winning

I think we are saying the same thing. The point I am making is that you (and the "rest of the world") don't quite understand why this happened. And you should.

 

[BeautifulStranger]

You're posting complete horseshit now making you no better then the Corky's and Buy1Sell2's of the world. The whole world is wondering why Trump even came close to winning. Why are you so oblivious to this reality ? Trump was a terrible President on any objective measure and a negative influence on the global community.

So you know better and potential indications of election fraud should be ignored because it is justified to overturn an election because the electorate is stupid and crazy and because foreigners don’t like Trump?

Go over your line of thinking in your head at least a few times after relaxing and to try to address the central issue: The multiple indications of election fraud and the right of the American people to be represented by the person of their selection, not by and enity committing fraud, or a commitee who believe they know what is best for Americans.

The multiple indications of election fraud need to be addressed in the real world and here if you want to maintain credibility.

What would you like to see done about the multiple indications of election fraud that you have certainly read that has been posted by several sources?

 

[piezoe]

Modern polling, LOL.

Please answer one question, how can a precinct have more votes than registered voters? And we’re not talking just a handful, in some cases it’s 25-50% or more?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Tsing. What is the source of your "information?" Which election is that data from?

I know you have to be aware that we are in the age of disinformation, so everything has to be checked out and confirmed.

Do you realize that the courts are throwing out Trump suits for lack of evidence. If what you say is true wouldn't that be evidence?

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Tsing. What is the source of your "information?" Which election is that data from?

I know you have to be aware that we are in the age of disinformation, so everything has to be checked out and confirmed.

Do you realize that the courts are throwing out Trump suits for lack of evidence. If what you say is true wouldn't that be evidence?

Piezoe, I've provided the evidence in the thread of the statements I made. Which, I have to say, is more than you've done when I've asked you to provide evidence.

Feel free to read the thread and then ask a specific question. I'll be happy to respond.

 

[El OchoCinco]

In Oklahoma all mail-ballots must be notarized. It’s free, against the law for a notary to charge for the service, and many places have the service set up and advertise it.

I’ve mentioned this before on these boards only to have the usual libs dismiss it as “making it to difficult, blah blah blah. But it eliminates most of what we see happening.

Here you simply request from your country election board an absentee ballot. It’s mailed to your address on file. This starts about a month before the election, plenty of time. It is up to the voter to make sure their notarized ballot is received by the election board either by mail or drop off 3 working days prior to the election. If it’s late it does not count. There are certain exceptions fir military abroad. Everyone knows this as it is repeated on the local news adnausium. You can check with your election board or online ensuring they received your ballot.

Once it’s received you name is removed from the voter list in your precinct.

Everyone who shows up at the poll to vote, their name on the voter roll is matched with the voters ID, either picture or a free voter registration card provided by your local election board and the voter signs their name on the list. If they voted early the name will not appear on the list.

If you show up and your name is not found you may cast a provisional ballot along with your information. As long as you are registered in the precinct and did not submit an accepted absentee ballot or vote in-person early, it will be counted once verified.

There are early in-person voting sites the week before to the same three days prior to an election. There again your name is removed once you vote.

Very simple, everyone gets one vote, the identity of each voter identified. And no one here bitches about election fraud.

All mail in ballots require a witness signature.

Also you think it is that easy to get something notarized? I had to get a trust document notarized and that was a bitch to find one notary still doing that, imagine 20,000 people in a small area doing a mail in?