Setting things straight.

Things have gone off the rails lately. Yes, they were headed that way for some time, but not at this pace. So I'd like to back up a little and explain a few things that I feel like most of the folks on my side are feeling, but not able to articulate due to the toxic nature of recent conversations.

Trump isn't presidential, he isn't proper, he isn't nice. He's brash, bombastic, egotistical and opinionated. He was elected president. Amazingly enough I think not because of those negative qualities, but because he was an outsider, a guy with different untried ideas, and a middle finger to the establishment. Perhaps those are bad reasons to elect a leader, but none of that matters now, it was already done.

So we had 4 years of a Trump presidency. Those of us who don't hate him, look at both the accomplishments and the failures. Sadly, the failures don't get much air time since so many non failures were manufactured and billed as such to create a negative conversation with every mention of his name. This isn't debatable, it's fact. But there were good accomplishments. Removing NAFTA. Renegotiating trade agreements more agreeable to the US. Ending the constant war machine. Appointing constitutional judges to the SCOTUS. Bringing peace to some middle eastern nations without bombing them into compliance.

So by some standards, he was a good president. If you judge by how hurt your feelz were at any given point, you may have an alternative view.

But with regard to the election, we have some serious animosity that needs to be resolved. Declaring martial law isn't the solution Subverting social norms isn't the solution. Proving that the claims of fraud are unfounded IS a solution.

I had the thought early on that if a recount in Georgia was done, and nothing changed, it would show that everything was kosher there, and likely translated to other areas. yes there were some localized fraud, but as of yet nothing pointing to a widespread conspiracy, which is what would be needed for the claims to be true. But here is where it got murky. A recount was done, but not correctly and not looking at the main charge of why there was questions in the first place.

Signature verification of the massive amount of mail in ballots. We were told there are signatures on file with the state for each registered voter. We know from previous elections that a percentage of mail in ballots are usually found to have issues and be rejected. In this election, due to Covid, things were done completely different. Instead of having those who wanted to vote by mail request a ballot, they were sent to everyone in some sates. Georgia being one of them. And the amount of ballots with issues was at an amazingly low level, while the amount of ballots turned in was at an amazingly high level. Many people of both political affiliations have stated that mail in ballots of this kind are avenues for fraud. It doesn't take a high IQ person to realize that in this situation, ballots could be collected, and filled out by someone other than the voter. A whole bunch of them. One way to verify that legal voters were the one's who cast the ballot, is to verify their signature. This wasn't done in any meaningful way. It sure looks like that was by design.

If it could be verified that the mail in ballots in Georgia were indeed signature verified, and the ones who's signature looked wrong, could be checked with the person who filled that ballot out, we could end the speculation on that front, and likely end the entire fiasco. It's now more important than ever to find a way to restore confidence in this process. it would go one of two ways. Either the ballots would show nothing out of the ordinary happened, or it would show irregularities that may have changed the outcome of the election. I don't think this is really about changing the results at this point, I don't even know if a constitutional avenue exists on that front.

If you feel that the signatures aren't a valid reason to re-check those ballots, why? Is election integrity not important if the desired outcome has been achieved?

And lastly, perhaps most importantly as well. Some news is meant to make you feel good, while not offering factual reporting. In fact, I don't know of any journalism today that actually does report facts. So bringing a garbage unvetted story into the fray doesn't help, it hurts. it feeds the addiction of the AWB. (Always right brigade) These are folks who watch a thread progress, and jump on some inaccuracy they can easily disprove. Trouble is, they are usually correct, and that just digs the knife in more with a twist. If you deal in verifiable facts, those people won't have the ammunition needed to make those condescending posts. They would be relegated to discussing the facts. Which in a better place in a better time, is how all of this should work. If you bring garbage, don't look surprised when it's pointed out how much you stink.

a reply to: network dude

but because he was an outsider, a guy with different untried ideas, and a middle finger to the establishment.

I think you're spot on about this. At least that's part of the reason I voted for him.

As far as the fraud stuff goes, it really gets off the rails quickly when people jump on CIA/Delta Force shootouts, nano tech ballots tracked from space, etc. It really detracts from any legitimate claims there may be. Maybe that's by design or maybe people are just so angry they'll jump on anything that confirms what they believe to be true. There is a ton of BS claims being floated around that just doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

As far as me, and I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion around here, but I trust the courts to do the right thing if sufficient evidence could be provided. Which to date it hasn't. There are lots of opinions on why that is. I lean towards ocams razor on that one.

People like to say they just know there was fraud or it just doesn't feel right. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

a reply to: network dude

I was immediately drawn to Trump in the early primaries because I saw this as well.

He was elected president. Amazingly enough I think not because of those negative qualities, but because he was an outsider, a guy with different untried ideas, and a middle finger to the establishment.

I cheered. That finger needs to be held up high. I once voted for Barry Commoner running on the ''Citizen's Party'' ticket. I voted for him based on a one word platform. That platform was ''bull$hit''.
Trump's demeanor was and is as you say '' isn't presidential, he isn't proper, he isn't nice. He's brash, bombastic, egotistical and opinionated. That ''wrecking'' ball persona seemed to me almost mandatory to back up the finger.

However, for me at least, that was as far as it got. The level of braggadocio and school yard bullying seemed over the top to me. School yard bullies are bullies because they are ''compensating''. And his incessant bragging on his own superiority also appeared to be frantic covering for inadequate skills and intelligence.

This notion that he was an outsider also at first was attractive to me. When he won against Clinton I thought to myself, OK, let's see how he and his ''outsider'' connections fare in kicking out the swamp. But where did his ''connections come from''. From his own family and from inside the Republican swamp itself. His connections with the best and the brightest never, ever prevailed.

I suppose that if we define ''insiders and outsiders'' strictly on the basis of government lackeys we could still see him as an ''outsider''. But expanding that term to include the movers and shakers of not only government but to those who run in the higher circles of business, well then there he is, right in the center of those who strive to hold power either through elected position or by means of their wealth and manipulation of economic loopholes designed to benefit the rich.

a reply to: network dude

Great post, IMHO as long as the new President Elect doesn't at least try to explain the "sudden" 100,000's of votes he got between 3am-6am in some states he'll be known as "Jao Bi Den"

a reply to: network dude

Good Opening post, pretty accurate all around.

Anyone care to comment on the mail in ballots in Georgia aspect of this?

a reply to: network dude


Just another day at the CNN offices.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I was switching between newsmax and cnn a week ago. It's crazy how different they were. Newsmax saying Trump was almost certain to win once election fraud was solved, and CNN saying how biden won by a landslide.

Then CNN showing a death counter and how dangerous covid is. And newsmax saying we should start ending all lockdowns. Then both stations saying how each other is basically biased fake news.

It's crazy how bad all msm has become. They all cater towards what their targeted viewer base wants to hear. Zero integrity.

originally posted by: network dude
Anyone care to comment on the mail in ballots in Georgia aspect of this?

I can try...but, haven't much to add really. I've read it's already been done, and is done, by law, when the votes are counted. Once the ballot is opened from it's envelope the ballot and envelope are separated.

Georgia has a state law about ballot privacy. While it retains the envelopes the ballots came in, they cannot be re-connected without compromising that privacy and thus, that law.

So, legally, they can't be signature matched (again).

That's my best understanding.

a reply to: blueman12

They all cater towards what their targeted viewer base wants to hear.

And that IS the message.

originally posted by: network dude
Anyone care to comment on the mail in ballots in Georgia aspect of this?

Same crap they pulled in PA and elsewhere, orchestrated by Stacy Abrams. Elimination of sig verification on all mail in ballots, stopped counting on election night, Trump winning big, resumed counting early am, Trump losing...

Anyone who thinks this is not outright fraud is just blind, stupid, or both.

Several lies here:

Signature verification on all absentee ballots was conducted in Georgia as required by law.

There was no counting stopped on election night.

Trump certainly didn't win big in Georgia.

a reply to: blueman12

You're not even looking at misinformation any longer.

We are witnessing pure reality fabrication.

And there's two for now ... but wait, there's more ...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Anyone who thinks this is not outright fraud is just blind, stupid, or both.

Or they don't mind that the U.S. has rigged elections rife with fraud,
which is exactly the case here. The end justified the means,
Trump out at any cost.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Several lies here:

Signature verification on all absentee ballots was conducted in Georgia as required by law.

There was no counting stopped on election night.

Trump certainly didn't win big in Georgia.

Georgia 2016-6.42% 2018-3.10% 2020-0.60%
ballotpedia.org...:_Analysis_of_rejected_ballots

Biden didn't win big either. My reasons for asking about this has to do with the above numbers. If you can show where the signatures were indeed verified during the recount, I will be wrong, and will have no complaint here.

a reply to: network dude

The fraud continues in Georgia, even during the signature audit you alluded to.

Legal observers are being kept so far away, they cannot see what is going on.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: network dude

I've never said that Biden won big.

I've also never said that the signatures on absentee ballots were verified during the recount (and you know it.)

The signatures on the ballots are checked when the application for absentee comes in (based on Georgia Real ID) and again when the ballot is recieved and processed for counting.

The ballots were recounted, and there was a required audit, both by Georgia law.

Beginning December 21, Fulton County will be doing a public verification of signatures at the Georgia World Congress Center ... you should go watch.

The main reason I voted for Trump is he wasn’t an establishment guy. I honestly didn’t think he would govern as conservatively as he did, which for a lot of his policies I was surprised. I just didn’t want another career politician in there playing his favors game.

I also think one reason why he had such turnover in his administration and why a lot of the establishment politicians don’t like him is he wants to get things done. I think most people can agree that Government is a slow moving turtle some of it is by design but a lot of it is just the people and the high school level politics. I think Trump was used to pushing people to achieve his goals and many people don’t like or want that management style especially wit Trump often times being crude and condescending.

The idea that we have to elect a good person or someone we like is crap. If you look back over history I don’t think there are many politicians or government officials that were what most people would label as good people.

The thing that stands out about Trumps admin is how slow and corrupt the whole system is. The people are supposed to have the power but we don’t. If things don’t change soon it is a lost cause because moving forward it is going to be the same group running everything forever

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

I've never said that Biden won big.

I never said you did. ?

I've also never said that the signatures on absentee ballots were verified during the recount (and you know it.)

Again, I never said you did. I just tried to re-iterate why I said that in the OP. You seem to be trying like hell to build up a straw man. Why not just discuss facts?

The signatures on the ballots are checked when the application for absentee comes in (based on Georgia Real ID) and again when the ballot is recieved and processed for counting.

The ballots were recounted, and there was a required audit, both by Georgia law.

Yes, and my question has to do with the recount. As I stated above, the percentage of discarded ballots was quite low, when the amount of mailed in ballots was quite high. I may be wrong, but when the argument had to do with fraud possibilities for mail in ballots, reviewing them and the signatures would be of importance if the desired outcome was honesty and clarity.

Beginning December 21, Fulton County will be doing a public verification of signatures at the Georgia World Congress Center ... you should go watch.

If they are honest, and actually do care about honest and clarity, there will be observers there who can actually see what's happening, and there should be some from all parties. this isn't looking for a fight, or presenting some garbage news story, it's a simple discussion on fairness. If you feel checking signatures in a recount isn't fair, why? If you feel that is fair, what is the issue?

a reply to: network dude

THIS is NOT 'fine.'

GA STILL KEEPING OBSERVERS AWAY

This level of frustration is just too much to expect people to deal with reasonably.

Unbelievable.