Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Craig Lamson]

But Craig, they ARE looking into it.  It's been taken to court *12 times* so far, and they keep coming up with *nothing*   You can read the transcripts.  When asked for evidence, Trump lawyers keep admitting that they have none.

Yes, in those 12 cases.  More are being filed and evidence is being submitted.  Early cases not an indication of where this is going.  In many instances you need to wait until the counting is complete before you can file cases to question the results. 

But I'll ask again does it not bothter you that the MSM is not bothering to invesitgate the anomolies in this years election?

[James Clark]

Yes, in those 12 cases.  More are being filed and evidence is being submitted.  Early cases not an indication of where this is going.  In many instances you need to wait until the counting is complete before you can file cases to question the results. 

But I'll ask again does it not bothter you that the MSM is not bothering to invesitgate the anomolies in this years election?

They are investigating.  You just don't like the fact that they, like 12 judges so far, think they're a) not indicative of a systemic problem, and b) don't in any way support undermining the idea that more people voted for Joe Biden than voted for Donald Trump.

I, like everyone else, will say it again - some fraud occurs, some clerical errors happen, and some people unknowingly and unintentionally break the rules,  and any incidents of fraud should be investigated an prosecuted.  But stop implying that it makes the outcome illegitimate, because it doesn't.  Officials are constantly watching for these things - stop pretending they aren't.  Ans stop trying to use the same things that happen in small ways every election to undermine the legally binding vote of the people in a few convenient states.  It's an ugly look.

[Craig Lamson]

Why this year?  Why just in PA WI and GA?   Why just in a way that seeks to delegitimize the results of an election that doesn't actually have any signs of being tampered with?

There are a lot of signs if you look past the MSM. You might not agree with them, you might think they are silly or have no relevance but they exist never the less.  And of course the MSM will simply tell you they are all crackpots, and keep with the predetermined line that there is no vote fraud.  And if they don't look, it never existed

Why this year, because unlike a lot of milktoast Republicans Trump is willing to continue the fight.  Why just in these states?  Because thats where the results might most help Trump if they are challanged.  You know that answer James. 

Will it work for him, I don't think so.  Will it shine a very bright light on the process? You bet. Will the MSM do its best to downplay it. Oh yea.

[faberryman]

Why look where it will do you no good. Time and money are limited.    I agree lets see what happens, but does it bother you at all that the MSM is convinced there is no fraud and they are not even looking into the possibility.

I haven't watched much TV since the election. The stories I have read have reported on Trump losing 10-15 lawsuits because the judge determined that the didn't have any evidence.  Maybe the media are lying, and the judge didn't find they didn't have any evidence, and the suits are still ongoing despite the reports that they were dismissed. But that was last week. We have some new lawsuits this week. Maybe something will come of them.

[James Clark]

Why just in these states?  Because thats where the results might most help Trump if they are challanged.  You know that answer James. 

Right.  So it's not about fighting fraud at all.  It's about delegitimizing a national election and an incoming president-elect in order to help Donald Trump.  Great.

And yes, the media is going to downplay it, because finding 2 fraudulent votes *does not invalidate an election that someone won by 20K*  To give credence to anyone that says it does is irresponsible.  And stupid.

[Craig Lamson]

They are investigating.  You just don't like the fact that they, like 12 judges so far, think they're a) not indicative of a systemic problem, and b) don't in any way support undermining the idea that more people voted for Joe Biden than voted for Donald Trump.

I, like everyone else, will say it again - some fraud occurs, some clerical errors happen, and some people unknowingly and unintentionally break the rules,  and any incidents of fraud should be investigated an prosecuted.  But stop implying that it makes the outcome illegitimate, because it doesn't.  Officials are constantly watching for these things - stop pretending they aren't.  Ans stop trying to use the same things that happen in small ways every election to undermine the legally binding vote of the people in a few convenient states.  It's an ugly look.

Why do you believe that its only small amounts of fraud? 
Do you beleive that decades of Democratic control in many of the major cities of this country have have created a culture where vote fraud is a part of the election process?  What happens if the 'officials' watching are part of the fraud?  When you control the process it pretty easy to hide the fraud.  Some actually get caught, so we know it happens.

Its not a big leap to think it might be happeing on a much larger scale. There is a lot at stake and I'm quite confident that there those in power who are not willing to leave the results to chance. 

Will fraud extend beyond your small examples? I think it will if its deeply and fully investigated.  Your mileage may vary.

[Craig Lamson]

Right.  So it's not about fighting fraud at all.  It's about delegitimizing a national election and an incoming president-elect in order to help Donald Trump.  Great.

And yes, the media is going to downplay it, because finding 2 fraudulent votes *does not invalidate an election that someone won by 20K*  To give credence to anyone that says it does is irresponsible.  And stupid.

No its about WINNING.  And if you lost because of fraud then find it and expose it.  The media is going to downplay it if at all possibible because they have a vested interest in making Biden the President.

Your strawman is duly noted.

[James Clark]

Why do you believe that its only small amounts of fraud? 
Do you beleive that decades of Democratic control in many of the major cities of this country have have created a culture where vote fraud is a part of the election process?  What happens if the 'officials' watching are part of the fraud?  When you control the process it pretty easy to hide the fraud.  Some actually get caught, so we know it happens.

Its not a big leap to think it might be happeing on a much larger scale. There is a lot at stake and I'm quite confident that there those in power who are not willing to leave the results to chance. 

Will fraud extend beyond your small examples? I think it will if its deeply and fully investigated.  Your mileage may vary.

I believe that every time the problem has been studied, whether by liberal organizations or governments or by conservative ones, the result has been the same - fraud does not occur in a statistically relevant amount. 

 

[TechTalk]

I believe that every time the problem has been studied, whether by liberal organizations or governments or by conservative ones, the result has been the same - fraud does not occur in a statistically relevant amount. 

Try to enjoy the ride James. It's going to be a long and bumpy one.

[James Clark]

No its about WINNING.  And if you lost because of fraud then find it and expose it.  The media is going to downplay it if at all possibible because they have a vested interest in making Biden the President.

Your strawman is duly noted.

What strawman?  You're going on about how "all frauds matter" but you're totally cool with just examining the allegations that are supposedly  going to help Donald Trump, and apparently the idea that only Democrats try to cheat elections.  What am I missing?

[Peter McLennan]

, but for me the larger picture is if people are willing to cheat on a small level what keeps them from doing it on a large

So does that opinion apply to those who cheat at golf, too?

[digitaldog]

I believe that every time the problem has been studied, whether by liberal organizations or governments or by conservative ones, the result has been the same - fraud does not occur in a statistically relevant amount.

Correct. But facts and history are easily ignored when absolutely necessary.

[Craig Lamson]

I believe that every time the problem has been studied, whether by liberal organizations or governments or by conservative ones, the result has been the same - fraud does not occur in a statistically relevant amount.

We are talking about now, not sometime in the past. 

[Craig Lamson]

So does that opinion apply to those who cheat at golf, too?

Sure why not.  Trump cheats.  Does that make you feel better.  I have no doubt that most business leaders and politicians, along with may regular folk cheat.  Its human nature.

[Craig Lamson]

What strawman?  You're going on about how "all frauds matter" but you're totally cool with just examining the allegations that are supposedly  going to help Donald Trump, and apparently the idea that only Democrats try to cheat elections.  What am I missing?

 

Yes I'm cool with it because its what he needs at this moment.  I would love it if the Congress or even the parties took deep dive into the mess this election has become.

Your strawman:

"because finding 2 fraudulent votes *does not invalidate an election that someone won by 20K*  To give credence to anyone that says it does is irresponsible"

I never said it did.

[Craig Lamson]

Correct. But facts and history are easily ignored when absolutely necessary.

History is a reflection of what happened before.  It is not always a prediction of current events.

[James Clark]

 

Yes I'm cool with it because its what he needs at this moment.  I would love it if the Congress or even the parties took deep dive into the mess this election has become.

Your strawman:

"because finding 2 fraudulent votes *does not invalidate an election that someone won by 20K*  To give credence to anyone that says it does is irresponsible"

I never said it did.

So then we agree that Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the election?

[Peter McLennan]

Sure why not.  Trump cheats.  Does that make you feel better.  I have no doubt that most business leaders and politicians, along with may regular folk cheat.  Its human nature.

So, if it really is, as you say, "human nature", does that mean that we should support, even condone it?

[Craig Lamson]

So then we agree that Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the election?

No. Not at this point.

[Craig Lamson]

So, if it really is, as you say, "human nature", does that mean that we should support, even condone it?

I think we just accept it.