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

1 minute ago, Uwe Blab said:

I know what you're saying.  I do.  I kinda feel like Rudy has no reputation of note left.  He's kinda in bumbling clown territory now, isn't he?  I get that feel everywhere.  Hard to believe who he was in like 2005.

I don't follow politics all that much unless really big events are happening.  I may have some left-over nostalgia from 9/11.  I watched a documentary on 9/11 a few days ago and Rudy played a significant role.  I think of him in a way that may not lineup to what he currently is, but I have no idea if that's accurate or not.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shader said:

On the flip-side, Rudy is exposing himself to an extreme degree.  If he says all this, and is proven a liar, he's destroyed his reputation.  Pretty high stakes game he's playing.

Come on, man. Rudy has fallen on his face a hundred times in the past 4 years and it hasn't harmed his reputation (among Trump supporters) in the slightest.

He's been pushing already debunked conspiracies for weeks, and it hasn't damaged his reputation in the slightest.

It seems like it's gotten to the point where conservatives are actually using Rudy's staying power as some sort of sign that his conspiracies have merit. "Hey, Rudy must be doing something right if he keeps getting hired!" (not a real quote obviously) It's bizarroland.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, shader said:

They believe Rudy.  Liberals don't.  That's the difference. When he talks about the evidence, they assume it exists.  Liberals assume he's lying. 

I will give the twittersphere on right one thing, they are growing tired of being told about the evidence too, they want to see it.  

Id think most people being actual critical would not believe Rudy given his history especially recently.  Because he has not given people reason to believe him.  its not just "liberals".

The assumption is lying based on history...based on the fact that he keeps making claims...but not actually backing up any of the claims he is making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, shader said:
9 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

No, my words were accurate.  He has produced no evidence.  He claims to HAVE evidence, but he has NOT produced it.

If someone says they have 60 sworn affidavits (which equals evidence), I tend to believe them.  Perhaps that's naive of me.  If this evidence is never given to a court, or released to the press/public or verified by anyone, then we can call him a liar.  But you said there's no evidence, which is factually untrue unless you're claiming he's lying..  Your "he has not produced it" revision is accurate.

I think if we wanted to be accurate in a geek lawyer way, we might say there is no "credible evidence" or "admissible evidence."  It is true that a vague, rambling, sworn declaration based on hearsay that states opinion and supposition rather than fact is "evidence" but it has no value in a court - is not credible and not admissible to prove a claim in a legal proceeding.  The affidavits we've seen so far are in this inadmissible category.

Earlier this week, Rudy tried to put some pictures into the record in the PA case.  It was bizarre, because there's no reason to submit evidence in the context of an argument hearing on a motion to dismiss.  But the judge properly noted - who took these pictures?  When?  Where were they taken?  How do we know they were taken in Pennsylvania?  These are the basic foundation questions you have to answer to put evidence in the record in court.  He can't just submit pictures and then argue, as a lawyer (non-witness) what they purport to show.  Same with these affidavits - for them to be admitted as evidence, they need to allege facts on personal knowledge.  Not, "I heard someone say" or "I think many of the ballots were ..." or "I couldn't see what was in the boxes but I think they were illegal ballots" and similar useless statements we've seen so far. At minimum, they need to allege facts on personal knowledge and there has to be a foundation laid, and an opportunity for cross examination.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Great.  So I was wrong, the media has looked at the evidence.  It appears they summarily dismissed it.  Not my idea of journalism, but not surprising from the media.  If the Trump team doesn't use them in a court of law, then these affidavits are meaningless and we are wasting our time discussing them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Uwe Blab said:

Dilbert writer Scott Adams: "Rudy is pushing the slaughtermeter up to 98%. He's making a strong case that the fraud is big enough to change the result and the evidence is clear."

:shrug:

Yeah, this dude went off the rails a long time ago and is no better than your average faux-intellectual incel magnet.  Who would've thought the DIlbert guy would have a prominent second act - he's like a more useless version of Rudy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Rudy is sweating so bad his hair dye is running down his face.  Or he's leaking oil.  Or the black liquid from X-Files.

Also, supposedly the Sidney Powell lawyer that people had mentioned used to be respected once upon a time is alleging that Chavez supporters injected votes into the system via Dominion software.  The raw vote for Trump was "'so overwhelming' that it 'broke the algortihm' that had been programmed"

(Editor's note: the counties in Wisconsin that actually use Dominion machines were not asked to be recounted...because they're red)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, shader said:
42 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

That's not how the press works. At all.

Otherwise, the Republican party could just produce a million affidavits and then force the press to go on a wild goose chase to track down and interview them all.

In this day and age, an "affidavit" can be little more than a computerized form letter submitted by an anonymous person on the internet. They're not the sacrosanct document that they were in bygone eras.

This seems like a cop-out.  Saying "these could be computerized letters from anonymous people" is like saying "there could be fraud".  

Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but many of the so-called "affidavits" cited by Trump and his associates ARE INDEED computerized letters from people on the internet. That's why it's so ridiculous to toss around the word "affidavit" like it carries some kind of legal weight.

Still don't believe me? Read this:

techdirt.com/articles/20201112/15314645697/trump-campaign-gets-laughed-out-court-claiming-bunch-unvetted-webform-submissions-is-evidence-voter-fraud.shtml

"A Trump campaign attorney conceded in court on Thursday morning that he tried to enter hundreds of dodgy form-filed affidavits into evidence, even though their own investigation found that a subset of the sworn statements that they received were filled with lies and “spam.”

“This is concerning,” Judge Daniel Kiley, from Arizona’s Maricopa County, remarked with some understatement."

Still don't believe me? You can actually submit your own "affidavit" to the Trump legal team here: defendyourballot.formstack.com/forms/voter_fraud?utm_source=graphic

I just submitted one, and it felt great. I can't wait for the liberal press to track me down to verify my claims. Because that's their job, right?

Edited by Joe Summer
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Uwe Blab said:

Apparently Rudy is sweating so bad his hair dye is running down his face.  Or he's leaking oil.  Or the black liquid from X-Files.

Also, supposedly the Sidney Powell lawyer that people had mentioned used to be respected once upon a time is alleging that Chavez supporters injected votes into the system via Dominion software.  The raw vote for Trump was "'so overwhelming' that it 'broke the algortihm' that had been programmed"

(Editor's note: the counties in Wisconsin that actually use Dominion machines were not asked to be recounted...because they're red)

This is the type of statement that should be easy to prove or disprove.  Seems HIGHLY IMPROBABLE and seems like something that can be quickly disproved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Summer said:

Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but many of the so-called "affidavits" cited by Trump ARE INDEED computerized letters from people on the internet. That's why it's so ridiculous to toss around the word "affidavit" like it carries some kind of legal weight.

Still don't believe me? Read this:

techdirt.com/articles/20201112/15314645697/trump-campaign-gets-laughed-out-court-claiming-bunch-unvetted-webform-submissions-is-evidence-voter-fraud.shtml

"A Trump campaign attorney conceded in court on Thursday morning that he tried to enter hundreds of dodgy form-filed affidavits into evidence, even though their own investigation found that a subset of the sworn statements that they received were filled with lies and “spam.”

“This is concerning,” Judge Daniel Kiley, from Arizona’s Maricopa County, remarked with some understatement."

Still don't believe me? You can actually submit your own "affidavit" to the Trump legal team here: defendyourballot.formstack.com/forms/voter_fraud?utm_source=graphic

I just submitted one, and it felt great. I can't wait for the liberal press to track me down to verify my claims. Because that's their job, right?

Fair points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Uwe Blab said:

Apparently Rudy is sweating so bad his hair dye is running down his face.  Or he's leaking oil.  Or the black liquid from X-Files.

Also, supposedly the Sidney Powell lawyer that people had mentioned used to be respected once upon a time is alleging that Chavez supporters injected votes into the system via Dominion software.  The raw vote for Trump was "'so overwhelming' that it 'broke the algortihm' that had been programmed"

(Editor's note: the counties in Wisconsin that actually use Dominion machines were not asked to be recounted...because they're red)

Rudy?

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shader said:

This is the type of statement that should be easy to prove or disprove.  Seems HIGHLY IMPROBABLE and seems like something that can be quickly disproved.

Why???  Is it the media's job to disprove things.  Are they supposed to answer the 100's of claims of voter fraud and disprove them one by one.

Last I checked, you have to prove something.  To even check on the machines without actual evidence would be wrong.  Now if the Georgia hand-counts differ a lot from the machine counts, then this might give them reason to investigate.  But just because someone says the machines COULD be programed does not give enough cause for an investigation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we're done with the "affidavits" thing, right?  I just filled one out.  The text of mine read "I watched someone vote for Joe Biden.  No one in their right mind would vote for Joe Biden.  This is clearly fraudulent."  I also listed my phone number as 212.867.5309 and my e-mail address as johndoe@trump.com.  My submission was accepted without issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Laughing 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chaz McNulty said:

Why???  Is it the media's job to disprove things.  Are they supposed to answer the 100's of claims of voter fraud and disprove them one by one.

Last I checked, you have to prove something.  To even check on the machines without actual evidence would be wrong.  Now if the Georgia hand-counts differ a lot from the machine counts, then this might give them reason to investigate.  But just because someone says the machines COULD be programed does not give enough cause for an investigation.

Dominion has a business and they are being absolutely trashed by the right.  I'd imagine they'd want to clear their name if they want to stay in business?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

So, we're done with the "affidavits" thing, right?  I just filled one out.  The text of mine read "I watched someone vote for Joe Biden.  No one in their right mind would vote for Joe Biden.  This is clearly fraudulent."  I also listed my phone number as 212.867.5309 and my e-mail address as johndoe@trump.com.  My submission was accepted without issue.

If the affidavits they are claiming to have are web-submitted, then certainly they have very little validity.  I had no idea this was the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

Dominion has a business and they are being absolutely trashed by the right.  I'd imagine they'd want to clear their name if they want to stay in business?

It doesn't matter.  The people that believe these claims wouldn't believe any proof Dominion, or anyone else, could provide.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

Dominion has a business and they are being absolutely trashed by the right.  I'd imagine they'd want to clear their name if they want to stay in business?

Has the right actually said anything that is Libel?  They have said that the machines could be reprogrammed.  Any piece of software can be reprogrammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

So, we're done with the "affidavits" thing, right?  I just filled one out.  The text of mine read "I watched someone vote for Joe Biden.  No one in their right mind would vote for Joe Biden.  This is clearly fraudulent."  I also listed my phone number as 212.867.5309 and my e-mail address as johndoe@trump.com.  My submission was accepted without issue.

The other day I saw a man on TV who claimed to be the president-elect.  I believe his name was Biden, probably related to Hunter somehow.  How can he claim to be president-elect if TRUMP is president?  WHY WONT SOMEONE INVESTIGATE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> Giuliani is now suggesting that the campaign cannot get a fair hearing in the courts. Because they keep losing. This is something I've seen a lot on Trumpian websites. Dangerous stuff, because it's a short step to "and therefore something must be done." See Whitmer, Gretchen.<<

https://mobile.twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1329493781196976128

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's superstar lawyer Thor Hearne dismissed his Federal Court in Michigan earlier today. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Trump-voluntary-dismissal-1.pdf

This case was filed 8 days ago and never got off the ground. It was dismissed before the defendants filed their answer.  This is the lawsuit seeking to halt certification of the election results in all counties statewide, but focused on Wayne County.  What a great racket these trump lawyers have.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoBeDad said:

>> Giuliani is now suggesting that the campaign cannot get a fair hearing in the courts. Because they keep losing. This is something I've seen a lot on Trumpian websites. Dangerous stuff, because it's a short step to "and therefore something must be done." See Whitmer, Gretchen.<<

https://mobile.twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1329493781196976128

Then throwing in the statement "this is the 1775 of our generation" makes me think they aren't interested in the courts.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, was Sidney Powell's grand evidence of mass vote rigging by Dominion voting machines based on an unsourced statement from someone in Venezuela claiming an entirely unrelated company switched votes in an election in 2013? The evidence is really just "someone said it happened somewhere else, so it definitely has happened here"?

Edited by mcintyre1
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shader said:

Then throwing in the statement "this is the 1775 of our generation" makes me think they aren't interested in the courts.  

You're a smart person.  You have to realize by now there's nothing to any of this, right?  They are literally just making stuff up, one after another.  No precinct in Wisconsin had 300% voter turnout as Rudy claimed today.  He knows it didn't happen.  No one trucked hundreds of thousands of Biden-only ballots (i.e. no down ballot votes) in garbage bags into Detroit in the middle of the night.  He knows it didn't happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

So wait, was Sidney Powell's grand evidence of mass vote rigging by Dominion voting machines based on an unsourced statement from someone in Venezuela claiming an entirely unrelated company switched votes in an election in 2013? The evidence is really just "someone said it happened somewhere else, so it definitely has happened here"?

I'm not sure if that's better or worse than yesterday's argument that the audit processes worked to prevent a miscount, thus proving that the audit processes don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys you are all underestimating Trumps need for evidence. His followers believe everything he says and he provides no evidence beyond the rare instance where he cites his gut feeling. The greatest gut feeling the country has ever seen. On par with but probably a little better than Lincoln's gut feeling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Milkman said:

Guys you are all underestimating Trumps need for evidence. His followers believe everything he says and he provides no evidence beyond the rare instance where he cites his gut feeling. The greatest gut feeling the country has ever seen. On par with but probably a little better than Lincoln's gut feeling. 

It is a pretty big gut...

Edited by CentralPA
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

You're a smart person.  You have to realize by now there's nothing to any of this, right?  They are literally just making stuff up, one after another.  No precinct in Wisconsin had 300% voter turnout as Rudy claimed today.  He knows it didn't happen.  No one trucked hundreds of thousands of Biden-only ballots (i.e. no down ballot votes) in garbage bags into Detroit in the middle of the night.  He knows it didn't happen.

I don't consider myself the jury.  I find all of their claims interesting in the scope of their claims.  I feel like if someone is making claims THIS BOLD, they shouldn't be laughed off, but should be investigated thoroughly.  Why?  Because Trump is the president, and that's a respectable office.  If his claims turn out to be totally crap, and if it turns out they are literally just making stuff up, that pretty much seals it.  But my personal opinion of whether there is anything to this is kind of irrelevant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Milkman said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

He's out of time.... :shrug: 

He has until Dec 14th I thought? He's not even trying to win in court. Public opinion is where he's trying to win. 

Realistically (and I'm using that term loosely), Trump has until December 8th, which is the deadline for states to select their Electors. If any state fails to select their Electors by that date (or if the Governor and the Legislature submit competing groups of Electors), then it would be up to Congress to resolve the dispute.

If enough states certify 270 Biden Electors by December 8th, then there would be no more hail marys left for Trump to throw. The Electoral College would meet on December 14th and that would be the end of it.

edit: actually, there would be one last hail mary for Trump: he could petition Congress to deny certification of Biden's electors. But that would require a majority vote of both houses (I think) which would never happen.

 

Edited by Joe Summer
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

I don't consider myself the jury.  I find all of their claims interesting in the scope of their claims.  I feel like if someone is making claims THIS BOLD, they shouldn't be laughed off, but should be investigated thoroughly.  Why?  Because Trump is the president, and that's a respectable office.  If his claims turn out to be totally crap, and if it turns out they are literally just making stuff up, that pretty much seals it.  But my personal opinion of whether there is anything to this is kind of irrelevant.

 

But how long do you let this go on? It can't be indefinite, otherwise we'll never have a legitimate President, it will be contested forever. At some point we no longer have the ability or responsibility to try to litigate every allegation that is created. What / when is that threshold?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

So wait, was Sidney Powell's grand evidence of mass vote rigging by Dominion voting machines based on an unsourced statement from someone in Venezuela claiming an entirely unrelated company switched votes in an election in 2013? The evidence is really just "someone said it happened somewhere else, so it definitely has happened here"?

Yeah, but it's SIDNEY POWELL. And SIDNEY POWELL wouldn't have put her reputation on the line if the accusations didn't have merit!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

But how long do you let this go on? It can't be indefinite, otherwise we'll never have a legitimate President, it will be contested forever. At some point we no longer have the ability or responsibility to try to litigate every allegation that is created. What / when is that threshold?

Unless Trump makes some insane power grab, when 270 electors vote for Biden, it's over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

I don't consider myself the jury.  I find all of their claims interesting in the scope of their claims.  I feel like if someone is making claims THIS BOLD, they shouldn't be laughed off, but should be investigated thoroughly.  Why?  Because Trump is the president, and that's a respectable office.  If his claims turn out to be totally crap, and if it turns out they are literally just making stuff up, that pretty much seals it.  But my personal opinion of whether there is anything to this is kind of irrelevant.

They should be laughed off because:

1. They have, to date, produced no evidence to support any of these claims, even though it's been weeks.
2. When asked in actual court settings to produce evidence, they have declined to do so, sometimes admitting that the evidence does not, in fact, exist, or that the evidence itself is false.
3. In large part, the people making the claims have proven themselves to be less than credible as well as not particularly capable of making cogent arguments.  Earlier this year, Rudy Guiliani attempted to discredit the effectiveness of contact tracing for COVID by noting that we do not perform contact tracing for cancer or heart disease.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
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...