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?  

470 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

29 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Yes.

I'm surprised you're not providing a link since you frequently request one. Remember, we're talking about this 25 page thread so you can just quote them.

Found one!

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/790081-how-much-voter-fraud-happened-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=23071281

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 9
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Yes.

I'm surprised you're not providing a link since you frequently request one. Remember, we're talking about this 25 page thread so you can just quote them.

Look at the poll above there were 16 Trump voters and 5 Biden voters on here that claimed as much.  And I didn’t provide a link as I dod not make an assertion not was I asked to provide one.  I asked if you really believe its a straw man.  I can point to multiple posters talking about  it if you wish and don’t want to accept the poll results where 21 people voted in here that it was rampant.

 

And yeah, there is where Luther quoted even you thinking it was maybe bad enough.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Look at the poll above there were 16 Trump voters and 5 Biden voters on here that claimed as much.  And I didn’t provide a link as I dod not make an assertion not was I asked to provide one.  I asked if you really believe its a straw man.  I can point to multiple posters talking about  it if you wish and don’t want to accept the poll results where 21 people voted in here that it was rampant.

 

And yeah, there is where Luther quoted even you thinking it was maybe bad enough.

Time to move on to better things sho’.

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

5 hours ago, Lutherman2112 said:

:lmao:  Not sure that counts as "rampant voter fraud" or undermining the election but sure, that guy should have no role in politics :thumbup: I think we're all in agreement here.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Look at the poll above there were 16 Trump voters and 5 Biden voters on here that claimed as much.  And I didn’t provide a link as I dod not make an assertion not was I asked to provide one.  I asked if you really believe its a straw man.  I can point to multiple posters talking about  it if you wish and don’t want to accept the poll results where 21 people voted in here that it was rampant.

 

And yeah, there is where Luther quoted even you thinking it was maybe bad enough.

At least you can take heart that people are still voting.

In this thread I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the politicians and their media amplifiers that stated there was massive voter fraud.  People like our current president, his children, his lawyers, bloggers like Gateway Pundit, websites like Newsmax, television commentators (I'm sure there were some, but i don't post attention to those spaces), etc.

Those people have pushed false claims that corrode the faith of the populace in free and fair elections. They should be held accountable for those actions by losing credibility and eyeballs.  They shouldn't be silenced per se, but I think they should l relegated to the trash bin of history and called out for what they really are: purveyors of political propaganda.

Edited by The Z Machine
  • Like 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

At least you can take heart that people are still voting.

In this thread I mean.

Maybe...but between this thread and the Trump 2020 thread, there were, in fact, people touting Powell and talking about voter fraud and people proclaiming some  confidence that Trump would still win.

To say so is not a straw man.  It happened.

And its long been time to move past that thinking and accept that Biden won a fair election and that what Trump is doing is what is actually undermining democracy and the integrity of our election process.  Hat he and his legal team and some Republicans are doing is bad for the country.  I think that much is clear.

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

27 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I was talking about the politicians and their media amplifiers that stated there was massive voter fraud.  People like our current president, his children, his lawyers, bloggers like Gateway Pundit, websites like Newsmax, television commentators (I'm sure there were some, but i don't post attention to those spaces), etc.

Those people have pushed false claims that corrode the faith of the populace in free and fair elections. They should be held accountable for those actions by losing credibility and eyeballs.  They shouldn't be silenced per se, but I think they should l relegated to the trash bin of history and called out for what they really are: purveyors of political propaganda.

That's already happening. 40ish% of the country doesn't want to hear it is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Maybe...but between this thread and the Trump 2020 thread, there were, in fact, people touting Powell and talking about voter fraud and people proclaiming some  confidence that Trump would still win.

To say so is not a straw man.  It happened.

And its long been time to move past that thinking and accept that Biden won a fair election and that what Trump is doing is what is actually undermining democracy and the integrity of our election process.  Hat he and his legal team and some Republicans are doing is bad for the country.  I think that much is clear.

And especially the likes of Jenna Ellis, Rudy and all the legal people putting out such lies should very much face legal discipline by anyone over their legal licenses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

I was talking about the politicians and their media amplifiers that stated there was massive voter fraud.  People like our current president, his children, his lawyers, bloggers like Gateway Pundit, websites like Newsmax, television commentators (I'm sure there were some, but i don't post attention to those spaces), etc.

Those people have pushed false claims that corrode the faith of the populace in free and fair elections. They should be held accountable for those actions by losing credibility and eyeballs.  They shouldn't be silenced per se, but I think they should l relegated to the trash bin of history and called out for what they really are: purveyors of political propaganda.

I encourage you to read about the politician who started all of this hating divisiveness, Mr Newt Gingrich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JAA said:

I encourage you to read about the politician who started all of this hating divisiveness, Mr Newt Gingrich

Wait, what?  I didn't know that. So newt Gingrich started divisiveness. Hmm.  Interesting.

The 1960s it's going to be really interested in hearing about this.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mile High said:

 

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

·

40m

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court DISMISSES Republican's lawsuit seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots and block certification of the election. Trump and his allies are now 1-39 in post election litigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias

From her Twitter:

I stand by this. Even thought the PA Supreme Court dismissed this lawsuit, Congressman Mike Kelly's effort to block certification of his own election warrants a review by House Admin. If he doesn't think his election should be certified, the House should not seat him.

Congressman Mike Kelly has asked a PA judge to block certification of his own election. Even after this lawsuit is dismissed, the US House should refer his credentials to the Admin Committee prior to seating. If he doesn't think he should be certified, the House should take note.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Per our Lt Gov, every Rep involved in that suit voted in favor of the mail in ballot expansion.

Yeah, that’s a beautiful move there isn’t it? 
1)Vote to allow a method of voting before an election

 2) Hundreds of thousands use that method of voting that you voted for

 3)After said election, sue in court to get all those votes via the method you voted for invalidated.

 These guys sure love to wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots. I, for one, would call them something else, but Joe would tell me to be way cooler if I come back.

 

Edited by Uwe Blab
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR, I don't think my quote is accurate. LT Gov.said that every single GOP senator voted for it, but at least some (if not all) in the suit  are reps

It was a resolution just introduced to reject the election results that the Lt Gov said that everyone that is part of it voted for expansion. 

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/
 

BTW, it didn't get the attention Mich got, but after the Gettysburg event , PA legislature members were also called to the White Hose. Which may explain the filling of this resolution.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Uwe Blab said:

Yeah, that’s a beautiful move there isn’t it? 
1)Vote to allow a method of voting before an election

 2) Hundreds of thousands use that method of voting that you voted for

 3)After said election, sue in court to get all those votes via the method you voted for invalidated.

 These guys sure love to wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots. I, for one, would call them something else, but Joe would tell me to be way cooler if I come back.

 

That really is something, isn’t it?  No shame with some people though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is Jenna Ellis' response. They sued over constitutionality. Why would they need to prove injury for that?

"This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit saying there was no injury in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

And here is Jenna Ellis' response. They sued over constitutionality. Why would they need to prove injury for that?

"This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit saying there was no injury in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!"

The GOP and everything about them have been exposed for what they are at this point. Its rather impressive in its own way.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a little scary, too. At least, for the moment, PA has no election lawsuits.

And here is George Conway on why they can't use Article 2. Basically, you can't change the rules after the election.

Article II, § 1 does vest in state legislatures the power to determine the manner of selecting presidential electors. Pennsylvania's legislature has done that, having determined long ago that voters get to choose the electors in a general popular election.

That election took place on November 7, and was certified on November 21, in the manner specified by the legislature by statute.
Article II, § 1 does not allow the legislature to change the rules after the election is held... The time for the legislature to direct the manner for choosing electors is over, because the time for choosing them is over, and Pennsylvania has, in fact, chosen them.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

The GOP and everything about them have been exposed for what they are at this point. Its rather impressive in its own way.

I know you’re one of the good ones Y23 (along with IK), but I still sometimes have to re-read posts like this from you.  

I hope that if the shoe was on the other foot I’d be as intellectually honest as you and @IvanKaramazov are.  I know we still disagree philosophically, but I could not have more respect for the two of you in particular.  

  • Like 9
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mystery Achiever said:

And here is Jenna Ellis' response. They sued over constitutionality. Why would they need to prove injury for that?

"This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit saying there was no injury in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!"

She needs to be disbarred and likely and up in jail given her words and antics and the damage she is attempting on this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

The GOP and everything about them have been exposed for what they are at this point. Its rather impressive in its own way.

I don't know anything about any of this. But is it fair to say she or this represents everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are? That seems unfair at best. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know anything about any of this. But is it fair to say she or this represents everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are?

Well she legally represents Trump who is the de facto head of the GOP currently.

So she and Trump do seem to represent the official party as it currently stands.  Not saying voters or supporters...but the actual politicians...Id say there have been some who have pushed back and distanced...but not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Well she legally represents Trump who is the de facto head of the GOP currently.

So she and Trump do seem to represent the official party as it currently stands.  Not saying voters or supporters...but the actual politicians...Id say there have been some who have pushed back and distanced...but not enough.

Do think she is indicative (not just the legal representative) of everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Do think she is indicative (not just the legal representative) of everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are?

Everyone?  No.  
Seemingly a large amount and possible majority of elected officials?  Yes.  Given their support of Trump’s efforts or silence.

Again, Im not talking voters/supporters. Just elected officials who i am calling the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Do think she is indicative (not just the legal representative) of everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are?

Well, there sure doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of them speaking out and saying otherwise. I think one could be excused for interpreting their silence as tacit consent to the state of things.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

 

Again, Im not talking voters/supporters. Just elected officials who i am calling the GOP.

I don't think most people assume it's just the actual politicians when they talk about the Republican or Democratic party. 

And I hope we don't get to the point where every person has to make a declaration of everything they don't agree with. That gets pretty tiring. But it's fun to make sweeping generalizations and lump everyone into one box if you're into that. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know anything about any of this. But is it fair to say she or this represents everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are? That seems unfair at best. 

Any of the leaders,  elected representatives and power brokers that make up the structure of the GOP?  For them that support Trump,  yes.  I believe it is fair.  I'm all for grace, Joe.

You don't hide truth with it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all of Sidney Powell’s evidence for fraud in her Georgia lawsuit is reportedly from the same guy that confused MI and MN absentee ballots.

Basically the entire crux of her complaint is based off of the idea that statistics indicate that there was massive fraud in the Georgia election. Unfortunately for Powell, her statistical “evidence” is from a guy that doesn’t even know the difference between MN and MI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

And here is Jenna Ellis' response. They sued over constitutionality. Why would they need to prove injury for that?

"This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit saying there was no injury in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!"

Well, when you participate in a primary election held pursuant to that statute and accept the results, you pretty much lose the right to object to the statute.

While the majority opinion was based on laches, the Concurring Opinion of Justice Wecht pulls no punches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think most people assume it's just the actual politicians when they talk about the Republican or Democratic party. 

And I hope we don't get to the point where every person has to make a declaration of everything they don't agree with. That gets pretty tiring. But it's fun to make sweeping generalizations and lump everyone into one box if you're into that. 

Perhaps yes...though, IMO, there is a difference between saying "republicans" and saying the "GOP" or "the party" which to me then indicates those elected officials vs just people/supporters/voters.

Sure...I don't think we need to get to that point...but these are pretty big points being made by Trump and his legal team...and officials in the GOP are refusing to even comment when asked.  This isn't even just not speaking out...they won't even comment.  That, IMO, is pretty bad and should be called out from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think most people assume it's just the actual politicians when they talk about the Republican or Democratic party. 

And I hope we don't get to the point where every person has to make a declaration of everything they don't agree with. That gets pretty tiring. But it's fun to make sweeping generalizations and lump everyone into one box if you're into that. 

Well 50% of Republicans apparently believe that Trump rightfully won the election, so I think it's safe to assume that a good percentage of them support these tactics

https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/poll-half-us-republican-voters-believe-trump-rightfully-won-election

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's interview with Maria Bartiromo was about as preposterous as anything he's ever done, including vague accusations about the FBI and the DOJ conspiring to rig the election. I guess Fox is trying hard to win back the viewers who went to OAN.

Meanwhile, it looks like Trump will pick up around 45 votes in the recount of Dane County, Wisconsin --- so he's got that goin' for him, which is nice.

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Any of the leaders,  elected representatives and power brokers that make up the structure of the GOP?  For them that support Trump,  yes.  I believe it is fair.  I'm all for grace, Joe.

You don't hide truth with it. 

I don't see anyone trying to "hide truth" in this discussion. Do you think anyone is hiding truth here in this discusson? And I don't know this is about grace here.

I'm talking about I don't think it's fair to cast a blanket generalization for an entire party on these actions. And for a ton of people, they read "the party" as everyone who leans that way, not just the elected leaders. 

Mostly, just not a fan of sweeping generalizations and denigrating a huge group like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't see anyone trying to "hide truth" in this discussion. Do you think anyone is hiding truth here in this discusson? And I don't know this is about grace here.

I'm talking about I don't think it's fair to cast a blanket generalization for an entire party on these actions. And for a ton of people, they read "the party" as everyone who leans that way, not just the elected leaders. 

Mostly, just not a fan of sweeping generalizations and denigrating a huge group like this. 

You reap what you sow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't see anyone trying to "hide truth" in this discussion. Do you think anyone is hiding truth? And I don't know this is about grace here.

I'm talking about I don't think it's fair to cast a blanket generalization for an entire party on these actions. And for a ton of people, they read "the party" as everyone who leans that way, not just the elected leaders. 

Mostly, just not a fan of sweeping generalizations and denigrating a huge group like this. 

I'm not a fan of one of our two political parties trying to dismantle the system out of spite for the benefit of the biggest conman to ever occupy our most important office.  

I understand your concern for the average guy who happens to be a republican.  I share it.  I've posted it since the election.  That doesn't mean the power structure allowing this should be ignored so that we don't hurt someone's feelings. 

  • Like 15
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

And here is Jenna Ellis' response. They sued over constitutionality. Why would they need to prove injury for that?

"This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit saying there was no injury in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!"

Yes, frivolous lawsuits fail because they cannot show harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I'm not a fan of one of our two political parties trying to dismantle the system out of spite for the benefit of the biggest conman to ever occupy our most important office.  

I understand your concern for the average guy who happens to be a republican.  I share it.  I've posted it since the election.  That doesn't mean the power structure allowing this should be ignored so that we don't hurt someone's feelings. 

The problem of course is that this reality doesn’t fit the “both sides” narrative that dominates our politics. So instead of facing the reality as you described and trying to fix it, we bend over backwards to excuse Republican voters and legislators for supporting an authoritarian con-man. And you can make a strong argument that by buying into and feeding both-sidesism, we’re actually incentivizing bad actors, because Republican politicians aren’t being held accountable for their actions.  Why wouldn’t they continue supporting Trump?  It’s the perfectly rational thing for them to do.  

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Wait, what?  I didn't know that. So newt Gingrich started divisiveness. Hmm.  Interesting.

The 1960s it's going to be really interested in hearing about this.

If there's a genuine interest to understanding what psychologists, historians etc have to say about the demise of our political discourse, you can check out this thread.  There's this link in it talking about Newt's contribution.  I am welcoming anyone/everyone who's interested to see how we have gotten to where we're at to participate...so far few seem interested, which I find discouraging.  

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

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't see anyone trying to "hide truth" in this discussion. Do you think anyone is hiding truth here in this discusson? And I don't know this is about grace here.

I'm talking about I don't think it's fair to cast a blanket generalization for an entire party on these actions. And for a ton of people, they read "the party" as everyone who leans that way, not just the elected leaders. 

Mostly, just not a fan of sweeping generalizations and denigrating a huge group like this. 

What do you think of 50% of Republicans claiming that Trump legitimately won the election? It's really hard to not generalize that large of a group of people.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump was ‘muttering, I won, I won, like ‘Mad King George’ after election defeat, report says President ‘scrambled for an escape hatch from reality’

There's a lot of interesting tidbits in the article but this really hit me between the eyes. 

 

Quote

Mr Trump called Mr Giuliani from the Oval Office while other advisers were present, including Mr Pence; White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Johnny McEntee, the director of presidential personnel; and Mr Clark, the deputy campaign manager who had laid the legal foundations for the challenges.

Mr Giuliani, on speakerphone, told the president that he could win and that his other advisers were lying to him about his chances. Mr Clark called Mr Giuliani "an expletive," the paper reported, and said he was feeding the president bad informatio n.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nysfl2 said:

What do you think of 50% of Republicans claiming that Trump legitimately won the election? It's really hard to not generalize that large of a group of people.

Trump’s support amongst Republican voters has consistently been ~85-90% in Gallup polls throughout his Presidency.  At some point, it has to be fair to take Republican voters at their word, and acknowledge that Trumpism is a feature, not a bug.  🤷 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know anything about any of this. But is it fair to say she or this represents everyone in the GOP and everything about them and what they are? That seems unfair at best. 

Your point being we should not generalize an entire party merely because half its members, and nearly all of its leaders, are disputing validity of our democratic election? Based on literally nothing? I think it’s worthy of generalizing. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

FBI requests findings of election fraud from Voter Integrity Project. 

IMO, a more accurate description would be "Man claims FBI requested findings of illegal ballots."

Also, what's the deal with the advertising on this website?

"Love President Trump? Download our FREE Pro-Trump news app today!"

"Do You Pledge to Always Stand For The National Anthem? VOTE NOW!"

"Do You Love America? Will You Always Stand For The Flag? Sign Your Name"

"***Help Us TAKE DOWN The Liberal Media With Our TRUMP News Mobile App!***"

"Free Trump Christmas Beanie - Just Cover Shipping!"

 

I don't frown upon sites wearing their bias on their sleeve, and I understand that times are tough and conservative media has to pay the bills any way that they can, but it feels like I was browsing the Trump Campaign Store.

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   1 member

×
  • Create New...