@dave
> That democrats were more likely to use mail-in ballots during the pandemic

Sure. what ratio would you expect? 60:40? 55:45?

That the final results roughly matched polling?

Yes, I believe, that polling is bullshit, especially, if a leftie asks someone reasonable. If someone were to call me today, trust me, that diversity would be my strength...

But the main problem is this.
1) The democrats were boasting about the fact they will cheat. They were even openly calling for it.

2) This had to be THE most transparent election. Yet, all I heard was democrats saying, that even questioning the results was an attack on THEIR democracy.

3) The mere fact, that mail in voting was possible is a problem.

4) The push to get rid of trump was so well planned, they managed to
4.1) Get an universal excuse to stop anyone from questioning the integrity of election
4.2) Get a shiny object (Jan 6th) to distract attention and scare republicans by demonstrating brute force
4.3) Banned Trump from all social media WHILE HE WAS A PRESIDENT. (again, to demonstrate force)

If you get a group screaming against transparent election, I am sorry, but I simply cannot believe, that they aren't hiding something. Simple as that.

@dave
So, the most important point is this:
There were several hostile demonstrations of power taken against innocent people in order to show, that they will force their will through, even if it requires bloodshed.

That is not how a democracy works. That simply does not happen after a fair election.

Sure. what ratio would you expect? 60:40? 55:45?

Much higher. See attached. In a lot of states the spread was huge, and there was evidence that this was going to be the case before the election, hence the term “The Red Mirage”. One of my preferred political commentators, Kyle Kulinski, was calling this a few days before the election, since many states count their mail-in ballots after the in-person ones.

Note that we saw the opposite trend in Texas, where counties started counting their ballots before election day, and so had a lot of them counted when election night began.

The people that love to point to the charts where Trump was leading early in the night but then flipped to Biden at 2AM don’t really have a good answer when you point out that this same phenomenon made it look like Biden had a chance of winning Texas for a while, even though he didn’t.

@dave
Yes, this is the final data.
You have shown me the result, not the cause.

The cause is that the democrats were taking the pandemic more seriously. Don’t you remember how it was blue states that did lockdowns first, tended to have stricter masking requirements, etc.? You had people like Candace Owens bragging about how many needless errands she was running, claiming COVID was overblown, etc?

@dave No, you missed the point.

You cannot disprove claim "the mail in votes were fake" by saying "the mail in votes were mostly blue."

That's not how burden of proof works my dude. Vote share flipping to Biden once mail-in ballots were counted was expected. That alone isn't proof of anything nefarious, and the people claiming it is are just refusing to understand the impact of COVID on politics.

All of the "proof" of mail-in ballot fraud that I've seen so far has been misrepresentation, or bad analysis in the case of that one guy claiming "anomalies" in Arizona or Nevada or whatever that "forgot" to include the sizeable portion of Independents in their analysis, rendering his findings worthless), or straight up fake news.

Audits were conducted in a lot of states, many with republican governors and leadership because they're swing states, and none of them found evidence of widespread fraud. Georgia even re-did their investigation like twice because people couldn't accept that Trump lost the state.

Anyways, to quote Hitchens, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

@dave
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Exactly my point.
The election was not transparent. Therefore the result was asserted without evidence.

@dave
Tell me, what is the unreasonable claim, that needs extraordinary proof?

1) The control of one of the richest nations in the world was decided without any manipulation

2) Someone who bragged about cheating, who attacked people for questioning the results and fought against transparent election on every single oportunity MIGHT have cheated

You're doing that NEETzsche thing where you try assume your own premises in formulating the polling questions

@dave
Oh, realy?
And what else do you think I am supposed to be talking about?

Elections must be transparent, and cannot be trusted otherwise. If you cannot agree with this, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. (You'll be rich if you tax it properly.)

"bragged about cheating" is vague bullshit. Who bragged? What "cheating" did they brag about? Was it the ballot stuffing you claim happened, or something else that for whatever reason you still think proves ballot stuffing?

"attacked people for questioning the results" is more vague bullshit. Who attacked who? In what manner were the results questioned? What was the "attack" in response?

> Elections must be transparent

Yes, and they were. If you disagree, give me specifics. What part of the election process do you believe was hidden that shouldn't have been?

I refuse to believe that with how much you like citing your sources you’ve never seen any of the videos of key districts locking people out of the counting centers and literally boarding up the windows.

I haven't. Got a link?

Here I even have a CNN link for you. That should be up your alley.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/05/media/detroit-windows-covered-ballots-vote-center/index.html

See goy? Boarding up the windows is actually transparency and LOOK!!!! Democracy!!!

Were the votes that came out of this office out of line with expected results?

Nigger, what?

>use fake polling to drive narrative
>come Election Day, count ballots in secret
>wow look at that we were right all along yay democracy

Is that what you were trying to set me up for?

What you’ve presented is an interesting lead for potential fraud, but what you’re telling me that in 2 years no Trump supporters followed up on this lead to find out whether there was actual fraud?

If there was fraud, then there should be some kind of evidence of it in the data. An anomalously high number of votes, a shift towards Biden that deviates from polling in the county, etc.

Also, no, polling isn’t bullshit. In 2016, maybe you saw some dumb projections that claimed HRC had like a 97% chance to win, but those were based on cherry-picked polls. Looking at all of them, 538 projected her chances of winning at something like 71%.

71% is by no means a foregone conclusion. Play some poker and you’ll understand what losing almost 30% of the time feels like. Hillary was only favored to win, not a shoe-in.

In the end, Trump only won like 1% more of the popular vote than he was projected to. But that 1% was enough, because it was a tighter race than CNN wanted to admit.

And then what happened in 2020? Biden was further ahead in polling, 538 had him at like 90% based on all polling data, and even though Trump once again slightly outperformed polling, it wasn’t enough to overcome the gap.

“Polling is bullshit” is bullshit. There’s a margin of error where you sometimes get surprises in close races, but Trump’s 2016 victory wasn’t only really a surprise if you cherrypicked your polling data.

@dave @LukeAlmighty @matty oh oh ive got this

@dave @LukeAlmighty @matty LOL, "anomalous data"? Listen to yourself. I'd love to get you on the stand in front of a jury. They broke laws to get dropboxes and mail-in ballots. You can't have a normal baseline if you never done it before. Laws were broken, the jury understands that. The jury also understands what I just said. You tried to make an argument that requires comparison to past data that doesn't exist.

I'm gonna be honest with you man I didn't read a single line of that shit. There's plenty of evidence of the fraud (not that it matters at this point) but you will just hand waive it away because some blue haired screeching ree ree wrote an op ed about how there was no fraud.

@dave @matty @LukeAlmighty We watched the vote tally flip in real time on live television.

@dave @Matty
This is democracy... As long as it ends up as the Zog expects, it's working.

Btw, here's a collection. Quality will varry, but at least, I hope it will help you see why I have a problem with saying, that the election was perfectly transparent.
https://files.shittyurl.org/fraud.7z

It happens. Tons of people believe that Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired isn’t true…then they see the video.

Do you have a source for that? Preferably one that confirms my preconceived notions

All of my liberal news comes from occupydemocrats

Democracy NOW! Cracks me up. The whole NOW! Part just kills me. Right NOW!

No no no, not some independent reporter who was there and filmed it-I mean a CREDIBLE source

@dave
> "attacked people for questioning the results" is more vague bullshit. Who attacked who? In what manner were the results questioned? What was the "attack" in response?

I quit.
I mentioned the Jan 6th hearings several times already. If you're still asking what do I mean, then this conversation is pointless.

If hearings occurring nearly 2 years after the supposed fraud as some kind of distraction is your strongest evidence of election fraud, you don't have evidence of election fraud.

@dave @LukeAlmighty
>dave acting like a nig
nothing new

>"bragged about cheating" is vague bullshit. Who bragged? What "cheating" did they brag about? Was it the ballot stuffing you claim happened, or something else that for whatever reason you still think proves ballot stuffing?
You might have missed the source of the term "fortifying the election". The article talked openly about a secret cabal steering the wheels towards a desired result. If that's not bragging, I don't know what is.

@dave
Do you REALY want a proof?

Look at the Jan 6th hearings.
That is my proof.

@dave @LukeAlmighty >kike kulinsky

eww why

Because I like people on the left that are willing to call out establishment bullshit. He was calling out the Steele Dossier for what it was very early on. He's certainly wrong sometimes, but he doesn't lie to me.

@dave @LukeAlmighty You know what real forensic analysis would say to that? Our accountants are bunch of snivelling cowards who won't speak out about their own written and professed rules. I dream of conscripting the lot of them, locking them in rooms with data alone, stripped of labels. They know it in their hearts. They have seen fraud at every level of society, from public schools to chambers of commerce. They know. Oh, they know.