Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

464 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

We gonna have to audit ALL the sigs. That's all there is to it.

Like go back and review all the signatures for mail in ballots and in-person voting for all votes in the entire state of GA?  And if they cannot accomplish that before the deadline to certify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

So don't worry about verifying? LMAO.

I think you're missing a key dynamic. ;)

I think you're missing a fundamental concept in a free country. Votes are private. Period.

Perhaps you don't even realize it, but you are advocating for a scenario in which the (deep state) government keeps a copy of your voting record. That may be OK for authoritarian governments, but it shouldn't fly in a true Republic.

You're arguing against freedom here.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Then please enlighten me.I didn't say to skip verification. I'm suggesting the party of the verifier is irrelevant. 

Yeah, I already looked around earlier to make sure I was thinking right. Lots of contention with no bi-partisan effort to verify sigs.

That's because areas heavily (D) would cause potential fraud dynamics to favor (D). By the same token, a bi-partisan way to verify sigs would make heavily (R) areas transparent.

But you knew that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

MIB will no doubt get changed in the future, but I'm worried about vetting THIS election right now.

Gotta do it. If Biden gets in fair & square, then he gets in & I'll call him my President.

What else is left to vet?  What specific states or counties do you think still have issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Football Jones said:

MIB will no doubt get changed in the future, but I'm worried about vetting THIS election right now.

Gotta do it. If Biden gets in fair & square, then he gets in & I'll call him my President.

The states are going to follow applicable laws regarding the auditing of elections.

They are not going to make up new laws on the spot to satisfy the whims of upset supporters of a losing candidate. They are not going to allow logical fallacies to dictate how their government is run.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok....so, here we are.  We have a huge stack of ballots with votes on them.  We have a huge stack of secrecy sleeves with signatures on them.  This is per LAW in the state of Georgia.  Now, we go through and look at the signatures.  Let's say we find 1,000 that don't pass the second analysis/test.  How are we supposed to translate that into their vote and remove the vote?  I am confident this will go unanswered in any meaningful way.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

That's up to Trump, the GOP, lawyers, etc.

I don't have that kind of info (& neither does anyone on this board).

Let it play out. SIMPLE.

If Trump just wanted to let it play out, he should quit tweeting nonsense and let it play out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Ok....so, here we are.  We have a huge stack of ballots with votes on them.  We have a huge stack of secrecy sleeves with signatures on them.  This is per LAW in the state of Georgia.  Now, we go through and look at the signatures.  Let's say we find 1,000 that don't pass the second analysis/test.  How are we supposed to translate that into their vote and remove the vote?  I am confident this will go unanswered in any meaningful way.

Just throw them all out - the whole stack. Let the state legislature decide who the electors for GA will be.

Obviously I don't believe that, but I think it is pretty close to some of the arguments the Trump camp is trying to make in the thrown out court cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Football Jones said:
3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

When is it done playing out?

I have no idea right now.

January 20th is approaching like a freight train. Donald Trump will no longer be President as of noon on that day, whether his supporters like it or not. There is no way to stop that truth from becoming reality. None.

Go ahead and say "Let it play out." Those are words of a bargainer. But the courts don't bargain. The Constitution doesn't bargain. They don't listen to illogical arguments.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

That's because areas heavily (D) would cause potential fraud dynamics to favor (D). By the same token, a bi-partisan way to verify sigs would make heavily (R) areas transparent.

At least two of three reviewers need to agree to toss a ballot. I don't know if an effort is made to have bipartisanship in that phase, but will look a little more.

" if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope doesn't match signatures on file, that reviewer must seek two others to also view it. Then, a majority of those reviewers must agree that the signature is a mismatch in order for the ballot to be thrown out."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

You might've missed it, but I said I don't have that kind of info (& neither does anyone on this board).

I guess it's done when it's done. Too many dynamics to predict.

You're asking the impossible.

 

I'm not asking the impossible. I'm asking for a resolution to this nonsense.

It seems you are open to giving Trump an open check to continue on forever making up frivolous claims. I think that's a terrible idea.

Colin Powell used to say (paraphrasing) that you should never go into war without a concrete endgame. A goal. Otherwise, you have will have a never ending conflict.

The same theory applies here. If we don't have a goal - some form of hurdle to know when this will be finished - then Trump can just continue with this foolishness forever. Of course, as Joe Summer pointed out above, come January 20 Joe Biden will be President. But I suspect he will continue afterward to say he was cheated. And a certain percentage of his followers - perhaps including you - are going to agree with him. 

Edited by whoknew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

At least two of three reviewers need to agree to toss a ballot. I don't know if an effort is made to have bipartisanship in that phase, but will look a little more.

" if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope doesn't match signatures on file, that reviewer must seek two others to also view it. Then, a majority of those reviewers must agree that the signature is a mismatch in order for the ballot to be thrown out."

Like I said, I was shocked to learn it's up to somebody working in a county election office with no bi-partisanship.

Not really hard to have a transparent bi-partisan effort to verify sigs.

If it's in question, maybe contact the voter. ;)

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

Like I said, I was shocked to learn it's up to somebody working in a county election office with no bi-partisanship.

Not really hard to have a transparent bi-partisan effort to verify sigs.

If it's in question, maybe contact the voter. ;)

If we could only find non-partisan hand-writing and signature experts for each county to verify each of the 5 million votes, then we could be certain there was no fraud.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mystery Achiever said:

That's called curing and Georgia does practice it. 

Verifying, curing, & any ballot-determining method needs bi-partisanship (duh).

Like I said, can't believe I didn't know it wasn't bi-partisan.

That's going to change, but we can put that on the back-burner for now.

We need to know about GA. Verification of ALL sigs needs to be done for transparency.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Football Jones said:

We need to know about GA. Verification of ALL sigs needs to be done for transparency.

Why just Georgia?Have you found any state that has bipartisan signature checks? 
Also, have you verified that there is no bipartisanship in  the three person  review panel I mentioned? ( I haven't found any info on this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

Verifying, curing, & any ballot-determining method needs bi-partisanship (duh).

Like I said, can't believe I didn't know it wasn't bi-partisan.

That's going to change, but we can put that on the back-burner for now.

We need to know about GA. Verification of ALL sigs needs to be done for transparency.

 

Huh???  Someone just posted the verification method below.  Is this going on right now, or was this done when they received the baloots.

At least two of three reviewers need to agree to toss a ballot. I don't know if an effort is made to have bipartisanship in that phase, but will look a little more.

" if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope doesn't match signatures on file, that reviewer must seek two others to also view it. Then, a majority of those reviewers must agree that the signature is a mismatch in order for the ballot to be thrown out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:

What else is left to vet?  What specific states or counties do you think still have issues?

Nothing...also, the time to look into these efforts and mail in balloting and even strengthen when needed was all summer (pretty sure I and others even said as much as we had already had primaries and knew mail in balloting would be huge during the general election during a pandemic).

At this point...the efforts to discredit all of this are just flat out awful.  

The verifying of signatures is inherently bi-partisan...why?  Because you don't know the vote or party of the voter...you are simply verifying the signature.  It is bipartisan to the core and anyone arguing otherwise seems to be doing so disingenuously.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

If we could only find non-partisan hand-writing and signature experts for each county to verify each of the 5 million votes, then we could be certain there was no fraud.

To be honest, I am shocked that states still do this with people..computers are REALLY good at it and are used in many places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

You might've missed it, but I said I don't have that kind of info (& neither does anyone on this board).

I guess it's done when it's done. Too many dynamics to predict.

You're asking the impossible.

No. It cannot be open-ended. These types of things come to an end, and they come to an end fairly quickly, within weeks. There's no repeated recount requests, asking for audits, filing more lawsuits upon more lawsuits. At a point, the clapper comes down and the results lock. There are deadlines in play, and they don't get pushed back for look-see 'investigations'.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

To be honest, I am shocked that states still do this with people..computers are REALLY good at it and are used in many places.

When I first moved to the Tampa area in 2005  they had them. Then they went back to paper at least in Hillsborough County. No idea what it's like in other counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Ok....so, here we are.  We have a huge stack of ballots with votes on them.  We have a huge stack of secrecy sleeves with signatures on them.  This is per LAW in the state of Georgia.  Now, we go through and look at the signatures.  Let's say we find 1,000 that don't pass the second analysis/test.  How are we supposed to translate that into their vote and remove the vote?  I am confident this will go unanswered in any meaningful way.

Oh come on!!!!!  No one????? 

Hopefully the lack of response is because people are thinking of the logistics now and understanding what the GOP legislature put in place.  One can be 100% correct that this is an issue and also understand that it's the current law that is creating the issue.  That means we play by the rules and if we don't like the rules we set out to change them through the process...not by creating grand conspiracy theories and attacking them as if they are fact.  They aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, shader said:

Trump fires Chris Krebs, (Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security)

I liked this guy. Ballsy and matter-of-fact. Of course Trump would fire him. Traveshamockery. But he'll also probably have a better job by next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

He's also claiming Michigan has more votes than people. Anyone know what he's referring to there?

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1329107969137643525?s=21
 

Sounds like Trump continues  just reaching into his diaper and flinging poo hoping it’ll stink up everything. Frankly it’s just boring anymore.

The embarrassing part is that none of his party members are saying anything to stand up for real people who are getting burned by this (Ga SOS, Krebs, Ga Gov).  I’m with AOC, we do need to keep a list of people who enabled this and cowardly stayed silent. Credibility ruined for eternity

Edited by Uwe Blab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bamboo Bill said:

I'm sure the fraud will show up any minute now.

Probably this afternoon.  

And when it doesn't make up another baseless accusation that needs to be "investigated" and when no evidence of that shows up start all over again.


ETA

And if anyone has the nerve to say there isn't any evidence, like Krebs, fire them and replace them with someone that will say there's evidence.

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Doug B said:

No. It cannot be open-ended. These types of things come to an end, and they come to an end fairly quickly, within weeks. There's no repeated recount requests, asking for audits, filing more lawsuits upon more lawsuits. At a point, the clapper comes down and the results lock. There are deadlines in play, and they don't get pushed back for look-see 'investigations'.

That's what happened in FL in 2000, right?  SCOTUS said, OK, we're through.  Vote count stands as it is now.  Bush wins FL, therefore Bush wins the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...