The 2020 U.S. Election Irregularities.

Kumejima

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1357645896343834624

Kumejima

Kumejima wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1357645896343834624

Any of you guys want to comment on this? According to Time magazine " A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it."


Now why oh why would Time magazine be peddling an alt-right conspiracy theory that the Left, Big Tech and Big Business came together to rig the election against Donald Trump and in so doing disenfranchise 75 million Americans? I mean that's crazy right? Tin foil hat stuff? When did Time magazine begin peddling such obviously baseless and evidence free claims of election interference? Thats the world view of crazy drooling Trump cultists, right? Right?

everlast75

Lads, call it a day.

What Trump and his unlimited resources of lawyers couldn't prove in over 60 cases, some random lad on Boards has managed to prove with the only tool being google.

Someone call the White House. Surely Joe and Kamala will have to step down...

Kumejima

Kumejima wrote: »

Any of you guys want to comment on this? According to Time magazine " A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it."


Now why oh why would Time magazine be peddling an alt-right conspiracy theory that the Left, Big Tech and Big Business came together to rig the election against Donald Trump and in so doing disenfranchise 75 million Americans? I mean that's crazy right? Tin foil hat stuff? When did Time magazine begin peddling such obviously baseless and evidence free claims of election interference? Thats the world view of crazy drooling Trump cultists, right? Right?

Did you read the article?

Mr Meanor

Kumejima wrote: »

Any of you guys want to comment on this? According to Time magazine " A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it."


Now why oh why would Time magazine be peddling an alt-right conspiracy theory that the Left, Big Tech and Big Business came together to rig the election against Donald Trump and in so doing disenfranchise 75 million Americans? I mean that's crazy right? Tin foil hat stuff? When did Time magazine begin peddling such obviously baseless and evidence free claims of election interference? Thats the world view of crazy drooling Trump cultists, right? Right?

What has been the Republican party's response to this?
Looking at the article its hard to know to what degree the Democrats have either screwed themselves in the long term, or if this is a 'useful idiots' that can now be dispensed with scenario.

Kumejima

It isn't some random lad, its Time Magazine. Do you want God to come down and write it on stone tablets for you? Its not about election fraud its about how a finger was placed on the scales, or rather a fist was pushed down on it in order to affect the outcome.

But hey, it was for "the good guys" so yay! We're not destroying democracy, we're saving it!

Tell me how

Kumejima wrote: »

Any of you guys want to comment on this? According to Time magazine " A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it."


Now why oh why would Time magazine be peddling an alt-right conspiracy theory that the Left, Big Tech and Big Business came together to rig the election against Donald Trump and in so doing disenfranchise 75 million Americans? I mean that's crazy right? Tin foil hat stuff? When did Time magazine begin peddling such obviously baseless and evidence free claims of election interference? Thats the world view of crazy drooling Trump cultists, right? Right?

That has been commented on in several locations on this forum today.
In all cases, people are confused at the idea that there is something wrong with this. Bit in Bold my emphasis in an attempt to ensure that it is read this time.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.

Now, given you introduced this article at this time, what part of this statement do you think is false, or have a problem with?

briany

Tell me how wrote: »

That has been commented on in several locations on this forum today.
In all cases, people are confused at the idea that there is something wrong with this. Bit in Bold my emphasis in an attempt to ensure that it is read this time.



Now, given you introduced this article at this time, what part of this statement do you think is false, or have a problem with?

Obviously corporate America should have butted out of Trump's blatant attempts to sow doubt in the veracity of the US election.......

That's Donald Trump who said that the only way he would lose the election was if the election was rigged. Good on anyone who fights that kind of guff, and if enfranchising voters and educating them about the electoral process is putting your thumb on the scale, then thumb on.

Kumejima

Tell me how wrote: »

That has been commented on in several locations on this forum today.
In all cases, people are confused at the idea that there is something wrong with this. Bit in Bold my emphasis in an attempt to ensure that it is read this time.



Now, given you introduced this article at this time, what part of this statement do you think is false, or have a problem with?

I've no issue with wanting to ensure free and fair elections. Its just amazing that these self same forces who had apparently spent 17 years working on this project, so understood more than most the primacy of the American electorate having trust in the election process, came together immediately in the days after the election to anoint one winner even though the outcome was in the balance.


I mean if your entire raison d'etre isn't that your side wins, but the election is fair and seen to be fair and honest and transparent, why would your side need to immediately start shutting down genuine queries about completely irregular voting patterns, anomalies, sworn affadavits, election machine inconsistencies. Why would you demonise and ridicule people just as passionate as you are about seeing a fair result? You're both on the same side right?


Surely you would welcome the chance to dispel any doubts that rigging had occurred, you would allow signatures be inspected, you wouldn't allow unconstitutional rule changes etc. You certainly wouldn't censor any honest inquiries on social media, you would welcome the chance to show exactly how free and fair the system was?


This is as basic as it gets. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
These heroic defenders of democracy, transparency and faith in the electoral system did none of the things their lofty words aspired to. One side was told to sit down, shut up and stop questioning the result. Anyone who did was banished from social media.


As one person so well pointed out, one of the first fruits of the removal of a dictator is an explosion of free speech - the previously unsayable becomes sayable.


In America, it's been the exact reverse. With worse to come



Couple that with the newly militarised zone in Washington DC, the branding of basically half the american electorate as Insurrectionists and extremists and the refusal to countenance any questioning of election foul play just screams authoritarianism, not any desire for openness, transparency or unity.


If Biden won fair and square, most Americans, and most conservatives are fair people. They would take it on the chin. The fact that so many cannot accept the result should prompt more transparency, not censorship, more desire to understand their concerns rather than ridicule or demonise them, and most of all it should lead to a sincere desire to ensure that any such efforts in future should be a broad coalition of all political stripes rather than just people who, one can safely assume, couldn't tolerate Donald Trump being their president.

Christy42

Kumejima wrote: »

I've no issue with wanting to ensure free and fair elections. Its just amazing that these self same forces who had apparently spent 17 years working on this project, so understood more than most the primacy of the American electorate having trust in the election process, came together immediately in the days after the election to anoint one winner even though the outcome was in the balance.


I mean if your entire raison d'etre isn't that your side wins, but the election is fair and seen to be fair and honest and transparent, why would your side need to immediately start shutting down genuine queries about completely irregular voting patterns, anomalies, sworn affadavits, election machine inconsistencies. Why would you demonise and ridicule people just as passionate as you are about seeing a fair result? You're both on the same side right?


Surely you would welcome the chance to dispel any doubts that rigging had occurred, you would allow signatures be inspected, you wouldn't allow unconstitutional rule changes etc. You certainly wouldn't censor any honest inquiries on social media, you would welcome the chance to show exactly how free and fair the system was?


This is as basic as it gets. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
These heroic defenders of democracy, transparency and faith in the electoral system did none of the things their lofty words aspired to. One side was told to sit down, shut up and stop questioning the result. Anyone who did was banished from social media.


As one person so well pointed out, one of the first fruits of the removal of a dictator is an explosion of free speech - the previously unsayable becomes sayable.


In America, it's been the exact reverse. With worse to come



Couple that with the newly militarised zone in Washington DC, the branding of basically half the american electorate as Insurrectionists and extremists and the refusal to countenance any questioning of election foul play just screams authoritarianism, not any desire for openness, transparency or unity.


If Biden won fair and square, most Americans, and most conservatives are fair people. They would take it on the chin. The fact that so many cannot accept the result should prompt more transparency, not censorship, more desire to understand their concerns rather than ridicule or demonise them, and most of all it should lead to a sincere desire to ensure that any such efforts in future should be a broad coalition of all political stripes rather than just people who, one can safely assume, couldn't tolerate Donald Trump being their president.

Literally no one has been silenced. They are complaining about being silenced while on national news and in national newspapers.

Indeed any complaints that they had went through the court system. That isn't being told to shut up and sit down. They have been heard on their legal merits.

Militirisation is due to the attacks on the capitol. Remember them? People hanging white supremacist flags in the capitol in the name of Trump?

Your last point is literally we believe we are right and therefore are right. That is not a good argument.

Many arguments have been listed on these forums and shown to be nonsense. Again that isn't being told to shut up. They have been heard, they just don't make any sense. Thinking something is nonsense is not the same as not hearing it.

Tell me how

Kumejima wrote: »

I've no issue with wanting to ensure free and fair elections. Its just amazing that these self same forces who had apparently spent 17 years working on this project, so understood more than most the primacy of the American electorate having trust in the election process, came together immediately in the days after the election to anoint one winner even though the outcome was in the balance.


I mean if your entire raison d'etre isn't that your side wins, but the election is fair and seen to be fair and honest and transparent, why would your side need to immediately start shutting down genuine queries about completely irregular voting patterns, anomalies, sworn affadavits, election machine inconsistencies. Why would you demonise and ridicule people just as passionate as you are about seeing a fair result? You're both on the same side right?


Surely you would welcome the chance to dispel any doubts that rigging had occurred, you would allow signatures be inspected, you wouldn't allow unconstitutional rule changes etc. You certainly wouldn't censor any honest inquiries on social media, you would welcome the chance to show exactly how free and fair the system was?

Surely you would welcome the chance to dispel any doubts that rigging had occurred, you would allow signatures be inspected, you wouldn't allow unconstitutional rule changes etc. You certainly wouldn't censor any honest inquiries on social media, you would welcome the chance to show exactly how free and fair the system was?

This is as basic as it gets. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
These heroic defenders of democracy, transparency and faith in the electoral system did none of the things their lofty words aspired to. One side was told to sit down, shut up and stop questioning the result. Anyone who did was banished from social media.

As has been pointed out, there have been recounts and rechecks and most tellingly, 60 plus cases where Trump/Republicans had the opportunity to present evidence that the election was unfair, and they failed to do so at every one of these cases. They. Have. No. Evidence. What does that tell you?

Di you listen to the full hour of the call between Trump and the Georgia officials where he implored them to find only the number of votes which would overturn the result in his favour. He literally said all I need is the 11,580 votes because the margin was 11,579. That's all he cared about. Where was the desire to uphold free and fair elections there that you are suggesting everyone should have?

Kumejima wrote: »

As one person so well pointed out, one of the first fruits of the removal of a dictator is an explosion of free speech - the previously unsayable becomes sayable.

In America, it's been the exact reverse. With worse to come

Couple that with the newly militarised zone in Washington DC, the branding of basically half the american electorate as Insurrectionists and extremists and the refusal to countenance any questioning of election foul play just screams authoritarianism, not any desire for openness, transparency or unity.

What do you mean by this bit in Bold? Trump spent a further 12 days as President after he was banned from Twitter. He had access to a dedicated press office and he did not use them at all. Why do you think this was the case?

A lot of his supporters were on the most watched cable news network in the US, talking about being silenced. Is that not a contradiction in terms?

They are calling people who supported an insurrection, insurrectionists. What else should they call them?

Kumejima wrote: »

If Biden won fair and square, most Americans, and most conservatives are fair people. They would take it on the chin. The fact that so many cannot accept the result should prompt more transparency, not censorship, more desire to understand their concerns rather than ridicule or demonise them, and most of all it should lead to a sincere desire to ensure that any such efforts in future should be a broad coalition of all political stripes rather than just people who, one can safely assume, couldn't tolerate Donald Trump being their president.

He did win fair and square, and they are not taking it on the chin. The Georgian Head Election official, a Republican, went through all of Trumps supposed claims, and denounced all of them. Why do you think he did that?

There is a thread in the conspiracy theory on this topic which I think might be a more natural location for you position.

eagle eye

I think you put up a fair argument there Kumajina.

I don't think there was any foul play in the election but there is that element of wanting to deny people their right to free speech if they don't agree with you. I don't like that but it's become very common in recent times.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

I think you put up a fair argument there Kumajina.

I don't think there was any foul play in the election but there is that element of wanting to deny people their right to free speech if they don't agree with you. I don't like that but it's become very common in recent times.

There is a difference between what you said here, and what happened.

It is simple, the people who have been curtailed have been done so because they communicated known falsehoods which had the impact of inflaming a significant group in society such that the Democracy of the most powerful country on the planet was threatened.

This is not barring people from Press Briefings, taking the pass from a White House Correspondent or lamenting in speeches that something should be done about the media.

12gauge dave

Kumejima wrote: »

I've no issue with wanting to ensure free and fair elections. Its just amazing that these self same forces who had apparently spent 17 years working on this project, so understood more than most the primacy of the American electorate having trust in the election process, came together immediately in the days after the election to anoint one winner even though the outcome was in the balance.


I mean if your entire raison d'etre isn't that your side wins, but the election is fair and seen to be fair and honest and transparent, why would your side need to immediately start shutting down genuine queries about completely irregular voting patterns, anomalies, sworn affadavits, election machine inconsistencies. Why would you demonise and ridicule people just as passionate as you are about seeing a fair result? You're both on the same side right?


Surely you would welcome the chance to dispel any doubts that rigging had occurred, you would allow signatures be inspected, you wouldn't allow unconstitutional rule changes etc. You certainly wouldn't censor any honest inquiries on social media, you would welcome the chance to show exactly how free and fair the system was?


This is as basic as it gets. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
These heroic defenders of democracy, transparency and faith in the electoral system did none of the things their lofty words aspired to. One side was told to sit down, shut up and stop questioning the result. Anyone who did was banished from social media.


As one person so well pointed out, one of the first fruits of the removal of a dictator is an explosion of free speech - the previously unsayable becomes sayable.


In America, it's been the exact reverse. With worse to come



Couple that with the newly militarised zone in Washington DC, the branding of basically half the american electorate as Insurrectionists and extremists and the refusal to countenance any questioning of election foul play just screams authoritarianism, not any desire for openness, transparency or unity.


If Biden won fair and square, most Americans, and most conservatives are fair people. They would take it on the chin. The fact that so many cannot accept the result should prompt more transparency, not censorship, more desire to understand their concerns rather than ridicule or demonise them, and most of all it should lead to a sincere desire to ensure that any such efforts in future should be a broad coalition of all political stripes rather than just people who, one can safely assume, couldn't tolerate Donald Trump being their president.

Fantastic post.

Tell me how

12gauge dave wrote: »

Fantastic post.

It could be considered fantastic if it was entered as the outline to a script for a new drama series for Netflix or HBO but here, in the context of the reality of what happened, it is literally propaganda.

That's the politest way to describe it.

Kumejima

eagle eye wrote: »

I think you put up a fair argument there Kumajina.

I don't think there was any foul play in the election but there is that element of wanting to deny people their right to free speech if they don't agree with you. I don't like that but it's become very common in recent times.

Thanks Eagle Eye, nice to get a fair trial.:D
Am I sure there was foul play in the election? I don't know I can't say. All I know is that at least 60 million americans at best hold my scepticism.



Was going to write a long response, but look anyone who can look at the number of long standing election patterns and indicators ( some going back pretty much unbroken back to 1852) that were turned on their head by Biden winning and not think "Hmmm, thats weird" is simply not being objective.


The non-polling indicators have been pretty much 100% correct since 1960 and now there are nearly a dozen of them looked at ( number of individual donations, internal party support, enthusiasm etc) and not one, not two but ALL got the 2020 election wrong. ALL predicted Trump. Never been wrong in 6 decades. Now they're all incorrect. At the same time.


Of the 19 Bellweather counties, 16 I think went with Trump.


Did mail in voting completely upset the applecart? Yes its possible. So wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to ensure signature verification? Curiously this was not something these defenders of democracy thought important. In fact they fought against it in the courts if I recall correctly? Maybe not this coalition but plenty of democrat controlled areas did so.


You cannot create perfect conditions for fraud, then refuse to investigate claims of fraud because "it undermines the will of the people". Even if the courts felt it was not their job to rule on these matters, other mechanisms should have been in place to ensure that every legal vote was counted and every illegal vote discarded


"We had that, it was the election". Yes, and now you have a deeply suspicious electorate who for some reason feel the thing stinks to high heaven.


If you are the rightful winner, if you know no fraud occurred, why wouldn't you go to the ends of the earth to convince people. Give them recounts, live TV coverage, webcasts whatever. If it took 3 or 4 months to recount everything what harm could it do? Zero. It could only do good and restore faith.


If you're not the rightful winner that's the last thing you'd do. You'd say game over case closed and if you say I'm not the winner I 'll sue or deplatform you.


The democrats actions are not the actions of people with nothing to hide. Nor are they the actions of people seeking to restore "decency" and "unity".


It just blows my mind, not that people think that the election was won fair and square, but that they think the Democrats and the Left would not be entirely capable of pulling something like this off. That they represent anything other than a naked desire for control and power. That they are "the good guys".

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

He did win fair and square, and they are not taking it on the chin.

Technically you don't know that, you have faith in the system. I don't think we know the percentage but it seems a significant portion of people don't have that faith.

Not sure what the solution is but just repeatedly telling them they're wrong won't bring them around.

Tesla tower

relax carry on wrote: »

Greetings newly registered user. 🀣🀣

Thanks been a viewer of boards for many years but finally decided to contribute to the discussion. There is a wealth of knowledge on theses forms and the posters are always helpful. This topic though is by its nature opinionated and twisted truths everywhere. Did you watch Mary Fanning's findings?

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Technically you don't know that, you have faith in the system. I don't think we know the percentage but it seems a significant portion of people don't have that faith.

Not sure what the solution is but just repeatedly telling them they're wrong won't bring them around.

In that case, technically, none of us really don't know anything.
We don't know the food we buy in a restaurant is safe, we don't know the plane we are in is safe, we don't know the Dr who is treating us is safe.

There are sufficient checks and balances in place around all the above that we have confidence to state that they are accepted as being safe as a default position.

Just because some people choose to believe something, again, without evidence, does not mean that they have to be pandered to.

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

In that case, technically, none of us really don't know anything.
We don't know the food we buy in a restaurant is safe, we don't know the plane we are in is safe, we don't know the Dr who is treating us is safe.

There are sufficient checks and balances in place around all the above that we have confidence to state that they are accepted as being safe as a default position.

Just because some people choose to believe something, again, without evidence, does not mean that they have to be pandered to.

Right. We have to operate with a certain amount of faith in things to get through the day.

What do you mean "pandered to"? I don't think any ideas without evidence should just be validated to make them feel better, but just telling a skeptic they're wrong isn't going to bring them around. Unless you don't care to convince them.

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

What do you mean "pandered to"? I don't think any ideas without evidence should just be validated to make them feel better, but just telling a skeptic they're wrong isn't going to bring them around. Unless you don't care to convince them.

At this point, 3 months after the election, during which time county after county and state after state has followed the normal procedures to certify the results, 60 attempts have been made to get a court to investigate any case suggesting suspicious behavior influenced the outcome and the highest ranking election officials in key states, who are of the same party as the person claiming fraud mind, saying everything was above board then still entertaining that there is a strong possibility something significantly influential and illegal happened would be pandering. Not to mention that news outlets who repeated some of the claims of fraud have been sued and have issued retractions and one TV host who repeated these claims has lost their job.

It absolutely is an issue that several million (I don't believe it is 60M but somewhere between 10M and 20M tops) believe the election was fraudulent but not for the reasons advocated here. The scientist and astronomer Carl Sagan alluded to this in the mid 90's when he said'

"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster."

In a period where we saw Trump undermine first the science around the need for action in relation to the climate, the science around medical emergencies and treatments and most recently the technology around elections, and his co-conspirators at Fox News largely chose to amplify this to the point where many people on the right chose insurrection, it is very worrying.

Just wanting something to be true is not sufficient to be allowed to influence the progression of normal practices when the opportunity to demonstrate reasonable evidence was given and nothing was offered.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kumejima wrote: »

All I know is that at least 60 million americans at best hold my scepticism.

The fact that the many people (if the number is true - I seriously doubt it) are happy to belive something based on the word of one man without any evidence whatsoever, tells you a lot about the US.

King Mob

Meanwhile, in actual election irregularities:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/?sh=670df4e44181

Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, which never received a cent from the former president, moved an estimated $2.8 million of donor money into the Trump Organization—including at least $81,000 since Trump lost the election.

In addition, one of the campaign’s joint-fundraising committees, which collects money in partnership with the Republican Party, shifted about $4.3 million of donor money into Trump’s business from January 20, 2017, to December 31, 2020—at least $331,000 of which came after the election.

The money covered the cost of rent, airfare, lodging and other expenses. All the payments are laid out in filings the campaign submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Representatives for the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Smee_Again

sabat wrote: »

They're literally boasting about their conspiracy now...

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

sabat wrote: »

I'm just not going to reply to you people anymore. It's literally there in black and white. Deep state actors formed a secret group in order to prevent Trump being re-elected. They're openly in plain language saying that's what they did.

Oh man, that’s some seriously desperate and disingenuous posting right there.

Ted_YNWA

Mod

Post have been merged from Current Affairs thread

Tesla tower

Has any body else watched the My Pillow guys 2hr video on the election? From about 1:30hrs in a guest called Mary Fanning presented data from the servers the voting machines connected to in real time during the election night. The data contained the IP addresses of each voting machine and the IP addresses of each computer which connected to the machines, at what time, what was edited and location of machine and computer. Connecting them to the internet was a terrible idea. One of the companies even has 3g and 4g enabled chips in the machines for convenience. Madness!

Dohnjoe

Tesla tower wrote: »

Has any body else watched the My Pillow guys 2hr video on the election? From about 1:30hrs in a guest called Mary Fanning presented data from the servers the voting machines connected to in real time during the election night. The data contained the IP addresses of each voting machine and the IP addresses of each computer which connected to the machines, at what time, what was edited and location of machine and computer. Connecting them to the internet was a terrible idea. One of the companies even has 3g and 4g enabled chips in the machines for convenience. Madness!

A guy from a pillow company was advising the US president on the 2020 US elections. Let that sink in for a moment. It's just one snapshot of how surreal and batshiat things became.

Kumejima

Can someone please point me to a thread where we're allowed say things critical of Joe Biden? The Current Affairs Thread is some sort of protected speech area? This is a discussion board right? Is there something I'm missing? Some memo that went around where certain topics are no longer able to be even broached?

Tesla tower

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A guy from a pillow company was advising the US president on the 2020 US elections. Let that sink in for a moment. It's just one snapshot of how surreal and batshiat things became.

Yeah you're totally right it is crazy that a CEO of a random pillow company funded a private investigation for Trump. Fair play to him I wouldn't but it still doesn't make the server and ip address data from Mary Fanning any less concerning.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kumejima wrote: »

Can someone please point me to a thread where we're allowed say things critical of Joe Biden? The Current Affairs Thread is some sort of protected speech area? This is a discussion board right? Is there something I'm missing? Some memo that went around where certain topics are no longer able to be even broached?

You can say critical things all you like as long as they are truthful and coherent.

If you are going to go with the usual lies, insults and conspiracies then people will pull you up on them

What genuinely critical thing about Biden would you like to discuss?