The fairytale of election fraud

I saw this phrase in another post and I'm at my wits end. I can't understand why this has been allowed to happen. I've tried to understand the arguments. I've tried to understand the reasoning. I can't.

The election of November 3 was changed. The process. The reason cited was corona virus. I get that. I think the changes were unreasonable but I can't deny they were neccesary. What we got was a circus given the cognomen "election". Fine.

Tens of millions of mail-in ballots. Substantial changes to an election system, tried and true though not without flaws, to an untested and unproven new system. A system with minimal checks and balances. A system overwhelmed by modifications. This cannot be disputed.

Here is where I lose the plot. It stands to reason the validation of this system be a top priority. A thourough, transparent, impartial and nationwide audit. After all, if the system can be changed due to the corona virus pandemic surely the validation process should be changed as well. This hasn't happened. Why?

Here is where I'll address the arguments. I'll list only a few of the more assinine ones.

Assertion: No court has proven fraud occured.
Answer: Of course not. It is impossible to prove fraud without the proper procedure. The first step is to audit the vote. The results of that audit lead to the next step. The next step is dependant on those results. The above assertion does not hold water because it skips the begining of the process, assumes the results of the audit being in the negative(no fraud) and creates the argument from that point. In a sense this assertion is fraud.

Assertion: An audit will disenfranchise voters.
Answer: A neccesary consequence of the changes made to the election system. It is impossible for an untried and untested to system to be without error. To allow these errors to stand without challenge is the greater crime.

Assertion: There was not enough fraud to change the election.
Answer: Impossible to know without the audit.

Assertion: There was enough fraud to change the election
Answer: Impossible to know without the audit.

Assertion: Voting machines used weighted votes.
Answer: Impossible to know without the audit.

My favorite next.

Assertion: Election fraud is a fairytale.
Answer: Impossible to know without the audit!

I could go on but I beleive I've made my point. "The audit" is the one thing that could have put this debacle to rest. It didn't happen. I'll close this post with an assertion of my own.

Assertion: The election is a fraud because nothing was done to insure transparency, propriety and legality.
Answer: Impossible to prove without "The Audit"(TM)

You’re a day late and a dollar short.

a reply to: Humbaba

I agree, for the sake of healing and uniting the country why not have some bipartisan commission similar to the 911 commission do a thorough investigation of all the facts and evidence gathered from all the states that allegedly had voter fraud and ballot manipulation issues, this is not going to go away anytime soon.
For all those that say there’s nothing to see here, they would be fully vindicated and finally put this issue to rest.
There could be amnesty for anyone implicated in voter fraud and whistleblowers would be protected.

Separately, they really need to reform the whole voting process and standardize it nationwide, voter ID would be essential to guarantee that the voters are verified legitimate voters. Also bipartisan plus independent ballot workers.

Things are too helter skelter in the election process not only by state to state but even within cities and counties within an individual state.

a reply to: Humbaba

At some point, one has to acknowledge our full transition into a banana republic.

The world will not be the same for a very long time.

There are a few things that wont let that happen.
1. The auditor doing the audit would be the same people that fraudulently, whoops sorry, the same people that counted the votes in the first place.
2. The whole judiciary has shown to be in on, or ignoring the fraud. Why.
3. Tons of signed affidavits (that in a court of law would be admitted as evidence and see you in the electric chair) the judiciary have ruled that they are not evidence of fraud. That is correct because it's only someone's testimony. Buuutttt, the nature of the affidavits is "look, I witness this cheating, please investigate and you'll find the evidence". That was the "grey" area that the judiciary threw the cases out.

If we take Trump seriously, and I don't, we have to recognize that voting practices have ALWAYS been in question. This was his assertion prior to winning in 16. However if we check back in his history prior to 16 we can find other examples of him saying that the only way he can lose anything is if he was cheated out of it.

As we began approaching the election in 2020, he was making this claim again. Early on he began with the ''no mail in voting'' mantra. But in the entire four years of having been POTUS and after having stated that he did not trust the election process did he do one thing to correct it? Did he appoint a commission to recommend procedures to insure the safety and accuracy of the vote? No he did not. NO HE DID NOT. Did he appoint a commission to work with the states to insure that the voting machines were secure? No. He did nothing.

All he did as the 2020 election cycle rolled around was to tweet and claim, once again, that the only way he could lose was if there was fraud. What did happen though was in a number of conservative states, drop off boxes were removed from highly liberal communities . As well, he appointed a new post master general who was loyal to him and began to dismantle the US Postal service. Remember that ?

There is an audit in place. It's called the counting of the ballots. Each state has gone to measures to insure their voting tabulation is as correct as they can make it. There are two parties represented in the counting of all ballots. There are overseers and supervisors chosen for their positions for honesty and patriotism. Questionable ballots are scrutinized by other bipartisan officials again.

I"m pretty sure you know this already. Other things you know is that Trumps AG said it was secure. Trumps ''Supreme Court'' said don't bother us with this fall-de-rall. Trump's cyber security chief said it was secure. States with questionable outcome according to Trump, were recounted again and in one case again.

Let me ask you a question. If Trump had won this election, do you think there would be one iota of complaint from him about fraud? For that matter, given his track record on securing our election system during his first term, to you have any idea what he would do about it in his second? I do, and that ideas is not a damn thing.

It’s funny that the lowest of IQ’s on this site think it’s President Trump that has raised the issue of this election being fraudulent.

All the other people who are questioning the validity are only doing so because of President Trump’s assertions

It must be hard to be so thick

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
If Trump had won, do you think you'd accept the results or push till the 4th on recounts and impeachment?

I'm to accept mail ins being secured after watching videos of Illhan Omar representives stealing ballots out of mail boxes, filling the car up with them and "going to work" by bringing to her administration office to fill out?

I became aware of voter fraud long before I even knew who Donald Trump was.

When I say voter fraud and vote manipulation it goes for both parties.
Voter fraud has been evident in large democratic cites for years and it was just accepted or ignored.
They have total control of the whole operation and no outsiders are allowed to independently count and verify votes.


The democrats have been rabid against enacting voter ID’s while encouraging illegal immigration, which is an important part of their base.

I say again, if the Democrats truly want to “heal” and unite the country they will create a bipartisan commission to investigate it.

Regardless, independent of the government, people are gathering together and sharing their evidence of voter fraud and vote manipulation, maybe down the road honest people in government will have the moral integrity to look at this and start the process of a standardized, verifiable voting system in any state.
They could declare amnesty for any US citizen caught up in the fraud and protect whistleblowers.

This issue is not going to go away but it is a really good place to start the healing process in the country.

BTW, I voted for Bill Clinton the first time he ran for President lol

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

First, if Trump had won the election under the same circumstances that he lost I'd want an audit. Winner or Loser is irrelevant. It's the circumstances of this election that is the problem. We are beyond the point of assigning blame because, at this point, it doesn't matter. Nothing will change the outcome. This is for posterity. It is about preventing this from happening again. Perhaps thats naive. I don't know. The alternative, doing nothing...the implications of that, worries me.

I'll respectfully disagree with your assertion that counting the ballots is an audit. A proper audit would scrutinize the legality of all ballots. A proper audit would investigate all claims of impropriety. The changes made to this election due to the pandemic requires proper investigation. Officials saying the election was secure is one thing. Proving it is different. I'm trying my best to leave politics out of this reply because this issue is above politics. Speculation and rumor about the election is out of hand and rightly so. I can't say with certainty this election was legitimate. I can't say with certainty it was illegitimate. This is a dangerous place for a democratic republic to be. Its an issue that needs to be resolved. Swiftly.

How can this be resolved without politiking? That's the question. That's the answer.

a reply to: loam

I'd have to say we are in the begining of the transition. It can be stopped at this point. Outside of some general ideas that seem obvious...like taking politics out of the equation...dropping the extremism around the board...identifying the forces that are making it happen...I don't know where to begin.

a reply to: Nivhk

I know that I accepted the count in 16. That for a start. Had the vote come in for him again, I would have accepted that as well. I would have accepted that the previous administration had done nothing to improve the modernization of our voting process as Trump had complained about yet done nothing to resolve.

You watched videos. Yet none of these videos have been presented in court? Trump's own Supreme Court was not presented with these videos? Do they live in a cave? Do you think them and Trump's own DOJ to be so corrupt that they ignored these damning videos? Is there not a chance that what you saw was someone ''saying this is what happened'' in those videos?

a reply to: Humbaba

I have little hope for the Biden administration however what little hope I do hold will take a serious blow should this new administration not take serious actions to make clear to the public that the election of 24 is secure and an above board result of the American voter.

There is plenty on his plate but for me, and I would assume many many others that this issue be resolved. States of course establish their own rules for voting regulations as it is a state function. But I"m sure that if Biden takes this issue seriously as he should, a more secure system can be established by each and every state.

a reply to: Humbaba

Now apply that reasoning to the proposition that Donald Trump is a shapeshifting alien.

You cannot prove that he is not.

This line of reasoning is something some old Greek philosophers played around millennia back. They concluded it was silly.

originally posted by: choomsuba
a reply to: Humbaba

I agree, for the sake of healing and uniting the country why not have some bipartisan commission similar to the 911 commission do a thorough investigation of all the facts and evidence gathered from all the states that allegedly had voter fraud and ballot manipulation issues.

Because that premise is divisive per se.

It's like the way heavyweight public figures don't get into public arguments. To squabble with someone is to accept that they have a valid point.