President Trump and the First Lady have tested positive for Covid

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If the guy in the next town is a effing jerkoff does that make you one?

Well, you haven't rubbed off on me yet...

Turkey is a theocracy with a strong man dictator at this point

And how did they get to "this point" exactly?

if it takes you more than one second you need to upgrade your microprocessor.

C'mon now, get with the program. We are all using quantum processors now.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
And how did they get to "this point" exactly?

Putting an idiot in charge who vilified all his opponents and jailed some of them while using the military to control election locations. You worried about that happening with Trumpy Bear?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So they basically cheated in elections? Weird. Who would have thought. Why would I have thought that was in any way relevant to the ongoing ripening election fraud in the US? I must be crazy. No question about it.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
So they basically cheated in elections?

By using the military and criminal justice system. You kinda need to focus on that part, it was government-driven, not some grass roots thing.

Kind of like how Pooty Poot gets 104% of the vote.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

By using the military and criminal justice system.

So like, using the FBI, intelligence community, and a special counsel to try to unseat a president? Or like, spying on your political opposition and trying to frame them for collusion with another country? Or like, the top military brass slamming their commander in chief, questioning whether they should listen to him to quell terrorism in the streets? Is that the kind of stuff a corrupt party would do?

Kind of like how Pooty Poot gets 104% of the vote.

So when places in california and pennsylvania have >120% turnout, is that something to worry about or is it just a-ok? I'm sorry, I'm slow. I'm just trying to understand when I can be concerned about the results of an election. When I can admit that elections don't matter and therefore means outside the ballot box are necessary.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
So like, using the FBI, intelligence community, and a special counsel to try to unseat a president?

That's rigging the election? Seems like it didn't work out that well since the election had already happened. You just gonna keep going all non sequitur on me?

So when places in california and pennsylvania have >120% turnout, is that something to worry about or is it just a-ok?

When they do let me know.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

When they do let me know.

Would you be concerned?

That's rigging the election? Seems like it didn't work out that well since the election had already happened. You just gonna keep going al non sequitur on me?

I thought I was supposed to focus on how they used the military and criminal justice system on their opposition, not on elections. Sorry.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Would you be concerned?

As much as I would about a piano landing on my head later today since neither one will ever happen.

I thought I was supposed to focus on how they used the military and criminal justice system on their opposition, not on elections. Sorry.

They used it to control the election, not oust someone AFTER an election.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As much as I would about a piano landing on my head later today since neither one will ever happen.

Would you also be this concerned if, say, there were far fewer or far more ballots in the ballot box than the poll workers recorded having had visited to cast their votes?

They used it to control the election, not oust someone AFTER an election.

My bad, here I thought a plot to undermine a campaign to install their preferred candidate and then follow through and cripple the presidency if they were unsuccessful, might register as a red flag.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Would you also be this concerned if, say, there were far fewer or far more ballots in the ballot box than the poll workers recorded having had visited to cast their votes?

Call me when it happens, but not before alerting your local election monitors.

My bad, here I thought a plot to undermine a campaign to install their preferred candidate and then follow through and cripple the presidency if they were unsuccessful, might register as a red flag.

It's okay, you obviously like to conflate one thing with another non-related scenario. In this case campaign fraud with an impeachment attempt.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Call me when it happens, but not before alerting your local election monitors.

Sir, you have a call on line 1

It's okay, you obviously like to conflate one thing with another non-related scenario. In this case campaign fraud with an impeachment attempt.

So the FBI, intel community, and president being in on a plot to undermine a campaign of the opposing party is not a big deal then?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Sir, you have a call on line 1

Christ, dude, did you read the article? The votes were not counted so therefore nothing was stolen. If there was fraud it was caught.

So the FBI, intel community, and president being in on a plot to undermine a campaign of the opposing party is not a big deal then?

It's not election fraud. But feel free to add some other non-related subjects.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Christ, dude, did you read the article?

Yes.

The votes were not counted so therefore nothing was stolen.

Incorrect. The votes were counted and tabulated but they were ineligible for the recount. So as long as they got their fraud in before the recount it was all good (for the fraudsters). The original numbers stood.

If there was fraud it was caught.

Sadly, not. The fraud may have been allowed to stand.

Let me explain it a little better. At one precinct, they reported 306 votes on election night. When it came time to recount only 50 of the reported 306 ballots were in the box.

So, were there actually 306 votes on election night or did they try to tip the scales by reporting more?
OR was it that there were 306 votes and they tried to remove some to achieve the desired result in the recount?
OR was it that they had incorrectly tabulated the votes and who they were for so they made it so the recount couldn't find more votes for the candate they didn't want?

Personally I find the first scenario most plausible. But pick your poison, all are fair game.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Incorrect. The votes were counted and tabulated but they were ineligible for the recount. So as long as they got their fraud in before the recount it was all good (for the fraudsters). The original numbers stood.

Huh? If they don't get counted in the recount then THE VOTES DON'T COUNT.

Sadly, not. The fraud may have been allowed to stand.

Uh, no, it's clear they were not used.

The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They were not recounted, but they were originally counted. If they reported 306 votes on election night, that was what would be noted in the recount. Sadly I can't show you the data on it because the recount was stopped and never completed as Jill Stein didn't have standing to request a recount.

Quite frankly, even if you were correct in how you think it would have worked, since the recount didn't happen the fraud was allowed to stand.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
They were not recounted, but they were originally counted.

Exactly, the recount is what the final numbers came from, so fraud was prevented, if there was any.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Incorrect in two ways. One the recount was never completed, therefore the original stood. Two, had the recount happened, those ballots would not have been thrown out, the original count at the ineligible precincts would have stood.

Here, read this

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's interesting how that 'stolen election' worked out in Trump's favor then, isn't it? Or maybe it wasn't stolen and there is a more rational explanation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The funny part about this argument is that the allegations of possible fraud I'm talking about in 2020 will not be possible in Michigan, but will be possible most other places. All due to this law.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I never alleged the 2016 election was stolen. I'm alleging the 2020 election may very well be stolen.