Benford’s Law, Part 2: Inflated Vote Totals, or Just the Nature of Precinct Sizes?

November 12th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

SUMMARY: Examination of vote totals across ~6,000 Florida precincts during the 2016 presidential election shows that a 1st digit Benford’s type analysis can seem to suggest fraud when precinct vote totals have both normal and log-normal distribution components. Without prior knowledge of what the precinct-level vote total frequency distribution would be in the absence of fraud, I see no way to apply 1st digit Benford’s Law analysis to deduce fraud. Any similar analysis would have the same problem, because it depends upon the expected frequency distribution of vote totals, which is difficult to estimate because it is tantamount to knowing a vote outcome absent fraud. Instead, it might be more useful to simply examine the precinct-level vote distributions, rather than Benford-type analysis of those data, and compare one candidate’s distribution to that of other candidates.

It has been only one week since someone introduced me to Benford’s Law as a possible way to identify fraud in elections. The method looks at the first digit of all vote totals reported across many (say, thousands) of precincts. If the vote totals in the absence of fraudulently inflated values can be assumed to have either a log-normal distribution or a 1/X distribution, then the relative frequency of the 1st digits (1 through 9) have very specific values, deviations from which might suggest fraud.

After a weekend examining vote totals from Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential primary, my results were mixed. Next, I decided to examine Florida precinct level data from the 2016 election (data from the 2020 general election are difficult to find). My intent was to determine whether Benford’s Law can really be applied to vote totals when there was no evidence of widespread fraud. In the case of Trump votes in the 2020 primary in Philadelphia, the answer was yes, the data closely followed Benford. But that was just one election, one candidate, and one city.

When I analyzed the Florida 2016 general election data, I saw departures from Benford’s Law in both Trump and Clinton vote totals:

Fig. 1. First-digit Benford’s Law-type analysis of 2016 presidential vote totals for Trump and Clinton in Florida, compared to that of a synthetic log-normal distribution having the same mean and standard deviations as the actual vote data, with 99% confidence level of 100 log-normal distributions with the same sample size.

For at least the “3” and “4” first digit values, the results are far outside what would be expected if the underlying vote frequency distribution really was log-normal.

This caused me to examine the original frequency distributions of the votes, and then I saw the reason why: Both the Trump and Clinton frequency distributions exhibit elements of both log-normal and normal distribution shapes.

Fig. 2. Frequency distributions of the precinct-level vote totals in Florida during the 2016 general election. Both Trump and Clinton distributions show evidence of log-normal and normal distribution behavior. Benford’s Law analysis only applies to log-normal (or 1/x) distributions.

And this is contrary to the basis for Bendford’s Law-type analysis of voting data: It assumes that vote totals follow a specific frequency distribution (lognormal or 1/x), and if votes are fraudulently added (AND those fake additions are approximately normally distributed!), then the 1st-digit analysis will depart from Benford’s Law.

Since Benford’s Law analysis depends upon the underlying distribution being pure lognormal (or 1/x power law shape), it seems that understanding the results of any Benford’s Law analysis depends upon the expected shape of these voting distributions… and that is not a simple task. Is the expected distribution of vote totals really log-normal?

Why Should Precinct Vote Distributions have a Log-normal Shape?

Benford’s Law analyses of voting data depend upon the expectation that there will be many more precincts with low numbers of votes cast than precincts with high numbers of votes. Voting locations in rural areas and small towns will obviously not have as many voters as do polling places in large cities, and presumably there will be more of them.

As a result, precinct-level vote totals will tend to have a frequency distribution with more low-vote totals, and fewer high vote totals. In order to produce Benford’s Law type results, the distribution must have either a log-normal or a power law (1/x) shape.

But there are reasons why we might expect vote totals to also exhibit more of a normal-type (rather than log-normal) distribution.

Why Might Precinct-Level Vote Totals Depart from Log-Normal?

While I don’t know the details, I would expect that the number of voting locations would be scaled in such a way that each location can handle a reasonable level of voter traffic, right?

For the sake of illustration of my point, one might imagine a system where ALL voting locations, whether urban or rural, were optimally designed to handle roughly 1,000 voters at expected levels of voter turnout.

In the cities maybe these would be located every few blocks. In rural Montana, some voters might have to travel 100 miles to vote.   In this imaginary system, I think you can see that the precinct-level vote totals would then be more normally distributed, with an average of around 1,000 votes and just as many 500-vote precincts as 1,500 vote precincts (instead of far more low-vote precincts than high-vote precincts, as is currently the case).

But, we wouldn’t want rural voters to have to drive 100 miles to vote, right? And there might not be enough public space to have voting locations every 2 blocks in a city, and as a results some VERY high vote totals can be expected from crowded urban voting locations.

So, we instead have a combination of the two distributions: log-normal (because there are many rural locations with few voters, and some urban voting places that are over-crowded) and normal (because cities will tend to have precinct locations optimized to handle a certain number of voters, as best they can).

Benford-Type Analysis of Synthetic Normal and Log-normal Distributions

If I create two sets of synthetic data, 100,000 values in each, one with a normal distribution and one with a log-normal distribution, this is what the relative frequencies of the 1st digit of those vote totals looks like:

Fig. 3. 1st-digit analysis of a normal frequency distribution versus a long-normal distribution (Benford’s Law).

The results for a normal distribution move around quite a lot, depending upon the assumed mean and standard deviation of that distribution.

I believe that what is going on in the Florida precinct data is simply a combination of normal and log-normal distributions of the vote totals. So, for a variety of reasons, the vote totals do not follow a log-normal distribution and so cannot be interpreted with Benford’s Law-type analyses.

One can easily imagine other reasons for the frequency distribution of precinct-level votes to depart from log-normal.

What one would need is convincing evidence of that the frequency distribution should look like in the absence of fraud. But I don’t see how that is possible, unless one candidate’s vote distribution is extremely skewed relative to another candidate’s vote totals, or compared to primary voting totals.

And this is what happened in Milwaukee (and other cities) in the most recent elections: The Benford Law analysis suggested very different frequency distributions for Trump than for Biden.

I would think it is more useful to just look at the raw precinct-level vote distributions (e.g. like Fig. 2) rather than a Benford analysis of those data. The Benford analysis technique suggests some sort of magical, universal relationship, but it is simply the result of a log-normal distribution of the data. Any departure from the Benford percentages is simply a reflection of the underlying frequency distribution departing from log-normal, and not necessarily indicative of fraud.


353 Responses to “Benford’s Law, Part 2: Inflated Vote Totals, or Just the Nature of Precinct Sizes?”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Tim Folkerts says:

    “What one would need is convincing evidence of [what] the frequency distribution should look like in the absence of fraud. But I don’t see how that is possible, unless one candidate’s vote distribution is extremely skewed relative to another candidate’s vote totals.”

    One simple option is to look at history. If a given precinct was 40% for Republicans 4 years ago and 20% now, that is useful evidence. (Of course, there are other factors. if the whole city went from 35% to 25%, then 40%$ to 20% in one district is not so surprising. And boundaries change, so the precinct itself could have changed).

    Also, if the order of the votes is recorded, then 100 consecutive extra votes for one candidate would be a red flag. It might indicate someone running the same ballot through 100 times in a row.

  2. Roy W. Spencer says:

    Yes, I can imagine a variety of things to look for. But nothing beats eyewitness evidence in signed affidavits from poll watchers and workers, as is now coming out in Detroit.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Well, eyewitnesses are actually not nearly as reliable as people think. They interject their own biases (whether consciously or subconsciously) and their memories are often a bit malleable. And sometimes they outright lie.

      I am sure there are instances of problems — from fraud to clerical errors to poorly-trained volunteer poll-workers who misunderstand the rules. But when I read things like

      “Instead, the campaign produced 238 pages of affidavits from Republican poll watchers across Michigan containing no evidence of significant fraud but rather allegations about ballot-counting procedures that state workers have already debunked and in some cases, complaints about rude behavior or unpleasant looks from poll workers or Democratic poll watchers.”

      I am not convinced that the problems rise to a sufficient magnitude or sufficient level of illegality to overturn results in multiple states to give Trump a win.

      Maybe a ‘smoking gun’ will still show up, but we haven’t seen it yet.

      • It would take some guts for an observer to lie on an affidavit.

      • Nate says:

        Trump is naturally laser focused on ‘fraud’ in big cities but he actually did slightly better in these cities than historically. His real problem was in the suburbs..

        https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/dont-blame-fraud-dwindling-suburban-support-lost-michigan-trump

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”eyewitnesses are actually not nearly as reliable as people think”.

        Tim…the point is that something stinks and an investigation is required. It has just been revealed that the Canadian company who supplies voting machines in key states are using software supplied by a company that specializes in rigging Third World elections.

        When Biden can make up 500,000 votes in Pennsylvania based on mail-in ballots alone, I’d cry foul. That’s the state where the Democrat governor swore that Trump would never win there.

        • Adam says:

          “When Biden can make up 500,000 votes in Pennsylvania based on mail-in ballots alone, Id cry foul.”

          Why? Republicans avoided mail-in ballots like the plague and Democrats avoided day-of voting like the plague (very literally like it, in fact). Everyone who knew even a bit about it expected Trump to dominate in day-of voting and Biden to dominate in mail-in voting. That’s not fraud, it’s just different preferences about when to vote between the parties.

        • Adam says:

          “It has just been revealed that the Canadian company who supplies voting machines in key states are using software supplied by a company that specializes in rigging Third World elections.”

          It was revealed by a single anonymous post on a conspiracy forum. That’s it, that is literally 100% of the evidence for this claim. Do you have any additional evidence? Not “claim” but “evidence”. I doubt it.

    • Nate says:

      “But nothing beats eyewitness evidence in signed affidavits from poll watchers and workers, as is now coming out in Detroit.”

      ‘Now coming out’ ???

        • CM says:

          Dr. Spencer: When you write about climate science, you come across as honest and open, objective, and with an appropriate level of skepticism. Your statements are typically well-nuanced too. (You also explain it very well, which also gives you high credibility with me.) But when you write about politics, you often don’t sound very objective, and your level of skepticism here on the affidavits, and general allegations large-scale fraud, seems woefully short.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            CM…”But when you write about politics, you often dont sound very objective…”

            You’re the one who is not being objective, you are simply regurgitating the biased opinions of fake news outlets.

            I am a socialist, not the Russian Bolshevik fake-socialists, but one of the kind who fought in unions for freedoms and benefits many people now take for granted. Trump’s economic policies are the opposite of mine but I can live with those differences because we agree on democracy and with regard to global warming and the covid virus nonsense.

            Trump is not as dumb as he is portrayed, he has a gut instinct for politics and he knows how to get across his message to people. The world needs this guy to have another 4 years rather than the politically-correct Democrats who will screw this world over.

            The Democrats have been whining since 2016 and have gone to extreme measures to get rid of Trump. Do you seriously think they would not jump at the chance to rig an election after the despicable manner in which they conducted themselves the past 4 years?

          • Svante says:

            Yes, the two of you are very stable geniuses.

      • Nate says:

        Ugggh

        Partisan hacks in desperation mode filing the void..

        Isnt it odd that the Trump campaign’s own lawsuit fails to mention this accusation.

        https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/11/trump-campaign-lawsuit-over-detroit-vote-counting-process/6243218002/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…there was no software glitch in Antrim County, the error (glitch) was human. The question is, how many of those errors are there? Trump has a right to know and the Democrats are desperate that he not find out.

          • Adam says:

            If he’s so desperate to find out, why is he not asking the courts? He asks on Twitter and his lawyers ask in press conferences, but they have yet to bring it up in court. Don’t believe me? Read the transcripts, for example:

            Giuliani (PA): This is not a fraud case.
            Langhofer (AZ): Were not alleging fraud in this lawsuit.

            Why is that do you suppose? Is it because you can be found in contempt or guilty of perjury in court but not at a press conference?

            No, that can’t be it, it must be because… (fill in your preferred excuse).

        • Nate says:

          According to who? Q?

          You are being conned.

      • barry says:

        40 000 votes fraud challenge thrown out.

        https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/judge-rejects-bid-wayne-county-audit-halt-election-certification/6278120002/

        It’s stunning how few of these numerous law suits carry any evidentiary basis.

        Here’s a list of many of them, including their status:

        https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Its stunning how few of these numerous law suits carry any evidentiary basis”.

          Maybe you don’t know how the court system works in the US and Canada. First, you are required to complain at the state/provincial level. If you get no satisfaction, you take it to the Supreme Court.

          Time after time here in Canada, I have seen lower courts make deplorable decisions only to have them reversed at the Supreme Court level. I don’t know what it is with lower courts, many of the judges are plain dumb-asses.

          I know one thing. Before the election, at least two US federal judges took note of a decision made by a state court which allowed extended time for mail-in vote counting in Pennsylvania. They thought it unconstitutional but did not interfere due to the closeness of the election. You can be sure that will reach them again.

          On election night, when it was plain that Trump was winning, the mail-in ballot counting in several states was suddenly stopped. At the time, I began to suspect something was wrong.

          • Adam says:

            “On election night, when it was plain that Trump was winning, the mail-in ballot counting in several states was suddenly stopped.”

            Which states? Most states don’t count mail-in ballots overnight because there’s rarely a rush for them. That’s why, for example, Clark county in Nevada packed up shop on election night and waited till the morning to start counting remaining ballots. They weren’t planning on being a swing state with the whole world watching. Once that became apparent, though, they ramped up throughput.

            It’s almost like nobody watched an election before and this is all so new and strange.

        • Nate says:

          “l. If you get no satisfaction, you take it to the Supreme Court.”

          No Gordon, you are ignorant.

          Most cases will never get anywhere near the SCOTUS.

          A case would have to have a legitimate legal issue that is in question. These cases mostly do not.

    • Rune Valaker says:

      Roy, I had no idea you were that stupid. Trump’s lawsuits is collapsing in state after state. Not a single case is about actual election fraud, but small and insignificant technicalities. I’ve been reading about these crazy cheating for a whole week. Not a single one of them has reached the courts. Even the postman who had written two contradictory affadivits Trump’s lawyers chose to drop. And now you tell me that: «But nothing beats eyewitness evidence in signed affidavits from poll watchers and workers, as is now coming out in Detroit.» Well, that train has left the station, Trump does not pay his lawyer bills so the firm has left him. In short, you should be far more concerned how close the United States was to Germany 1932, than these ridiculous attempts to provide evidence that the American electoral system is rotten.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rune…”Roy, I had no idea you were that stupid. Trumps lawsuits is collapsing in state after state”.

        You’re an ignorant SOB for making such a claim about Roy. In case it has escaped your ignorance, the failures are happening in Democrat states, likely with Democrat judges. The remedy is to get the argument before the Supreme Court. There is plenty of time for that.

        Even at that, Trump is not compelled to resign. Due to the closeness of the stats he could push this a long way, and if it gets before the House of Representatives, he wins.

        They are simply exhausting every avenue.

        • Adam says:

          “the failures are happening in Democrat states, likely with Democrat judges.”

          You’re right, it’s strange that Trump isn’t trying to overturn the election in red states where he won… oh, wait. So far most judges are either Trump or GW appointees, so I guess that’s not true either.

          “Due to the closeness of the stats he could push this a long way, and if it gets before the House of Representatives, he wins.”

          2016 was much closer, so that’s a load of crap.

    • jane says:

      the only chance trump has is the election day is supost to be nov. 3. but the election went on for 2 months. trumps goes to the suprems and says this election is unconstotional because it did not happen on nov. 3 so we need a do over.

    • jane says:

      we need a do over election, a run off election between trump and biden.

      • barry says:

        As soon as we see some hard evidence of widespread fraud.

        Instead of partisan speculation and fishing expiditions.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”As soon as we see some hard evidence of widespread fraud”.

          It’s not up to you, or the fake news outlets, or the Associated Press. As it stands, at the moment, it will be the Supreme Court making such decisions.

          Let democracy work.

          • bobdroege says:

            Trump needs to win some cases in the lower courts to get to the Supreme Court.

            What’s it now, like 0 for 20?

          • Adam says:

            “it will be the Supreme Court making such decisions.”

            Come back here on Jan 21 and let us know how that went.

  3. slp says:

    Check Matt Parker’s video on Benford’s Law:

    https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78

  4. Tim Folkerts says:

    For anyone who likes this sort of mathematical forensics, you might check out “Freakonomics”. Those two authors (and their ilk) are the ones who should be turned loose on this issue. (But of course, the analysis would take more than a month to really parse out all the details).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…”But of course, the analysis would take more than a month …”

      Time should not come into it, this is about democracy. 50% of US voters are backing Trump.

    • Nate says:

      Actually 47% voted for Trump, 51% Biden.

      Perhaps you think thats a minor difference that can be ignored…

  5. Nate says:

    The overall gist of this article seems to be to debunk the Benford Law analysis for precinct vote counts. Thank you for that.

    But this part is confusing

    “What one would need is convincing evidence of that the frequency distribution should look like in the absence of fraud. But I dont see how that is possible, unless one candidates vote distribution is extremely skewed relative to another candidates vote totals.

    And this is what happened in Milwaukee (and other cities) in the most recent elections: The Benford Law analysis suggested very different frequency distributions for Trump than for Biden.”

    Are you implying here that this difference was meaningful???

    Clearly it is arising from the fact that as you noted, the Precinct Sizes are narrowly distributed, and Biden received the vast majority of Votes in almost all of these precincts.

    Say Biden received 60-90 % of a narrowly distributed number. In Milwaukee. That results in a still narrowly distributed number. And so happens to peak near 500 votes

    Trump received 10-40 %, that results in a broader distribution than Bidens. And it just so happens to peak near 100 votes, a better but partly accidental match to Benford.

  6. Tim S says:

    I think this kind of investigation and analysis is important. The basic problem is that a very significant number of ballots were mailed to people who did not request them and did not complete them. A more fundamental question is whether there is any accounting of how many ballots were actually printed and distributed. Were excess ballots printed?

    • Nate says:

      Uhhhh…

      Most states kept track of who submitted votes by mail, required signatures, and thus voting twice was avoided..

      • Tim S says:

        Are you pretending not to understand my post? The important question that deserves an answer is how many unaccounted-for ballots are left floating around country? That number plus how many actually voted as you explain would equal the total number that were printed. Sorry that I have to explain something so simple.

        Some may think it is okay to abuse Trump for various reasons. Please consider the fact that next time it could be your candidate who is being abused. We need to have fair elections that are accountable and tallied on election day.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim s…”The important question that deserves an answer is how many unaccounted-for ballots are left floating around country?”

          That’s why an investigation is required. The identity of each voter needs to be ascertained and that cannot be left in the hands of Biden. As it stands, as each main-in vote was tallied, the ID was thrown out.

          That’s grounds for throwing out all mail-in ballots or doing the election again.

      • Nate says:

        There are undoubtedly unreturned ones. And so?

    • Adam says:

      “whether there is any accounting of how many ballots were actually printed and distributed.”

      Every county that uses mail-in ballots has this information, and it’s publicly available. You have to go to each county’s website, but it’s there, and has been since long before the election. They’re not just sending out ballots willy-nilly, they keep track of every single one, to whom it was sent, and whether it was received. You’re not the first person to think this may be important information.

      You should really take some time to learn about election processes and security, a lot of great minds have spent decades (mail-in voting started during the civil war) thinking about how to do it securely.

  7. Bruce Kay says:

    “I would think it is more useful to just look at the raw precinct-level vote distributions (e.g. like Fig. 2) rather than a Benford analysis of those data. ”

    Even more useful, by the law of Occam’s’s razor , would be to simply pay attention to the numerous institutional evaluations of election integrity and take note of what they say about it all.

    Unless of course, one is is more inclined to the epistemology of The End Times, Qanon and Alex Jones

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bruce…”simply pay attention to the numerous institutional evaluations of election integrity and take note of what they say about it all”.

      Consensus is not the solution, an investigation is required. 50% of US voters are being represented and have their doubts, enough of a reason to investigate.

      • Adam says:

        “Consensus is not the solution, an investigation is required.”

        An investigation is required if there’s evidence of fraud, and so far none has been presented in any of the 32+ cases that have been dismissed or withdrawn.

        What you’re actually asking for is a “fishing expedition” and it’s just not going to happen. You can’t tell a court that your gut says a crime happened and if you could only go through the files of so-and-so you can prove your case. That doesn’t fly, you need to have evidence and simply saying “it smells fishy” doesn’t count.

        Again, not evidence in a press conference, evidence in a court of law. Put up or shut up.

  8. SHanslien says:

    JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES:

    “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

    “When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

    “Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.

    “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”

    https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

  9. Steve CASE says:

    Nate provided a link on the previous thread that coughed up this chart:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/El-kXOTX0AMcf98?format=png&name=small

    The question is whether or not that represents reality?

    It says ABC News at the bottom. Anyway I’d need a official timeline of tabulated votes received in Milwaukee. A link to that would be great. Otherwise you have to recognize that it could be a total fiction.

    • Nate says:

      Significance??

    • ClintR says:

      “The question is whether or not that represents reality?”

      I’ve seen that same “spike” in several close States. And, it occurred late at night!

      That’s what needs to be investigated, because it’s just too suspicious to ignore.

    • Nate says:

      “Thats what needs to be investigated, because its just too suspicious to ignore.”

      As explained countless times in the news, this was simply votes being counted, and unfolded entirely as predicted weeks before.

      In some states, like PA, the in-person votes were counted first and the Mail-in votes last.

      The in-person were majority Trump votes, because he encouraged that. The mail-in were majority Biden votes.

      Naturally, in Pa type states, there was an early lead for Trump followed by catch-up by Biden.

      In Ohio it was the reverse. An early lead for Biden followed by catch-up by Trump. Because they counted Mail-in ballots FIRST.

      Again no surprise.

      If you are suspicious of Pa you should be equally suspicious of Ohio. Are you?

      But really it is only suspicious to those who cannot understand basic logic and math who also favor Trump.

      • ClintR says:

        Nate, your problem is you have zero credibility. You have no problem distorting reality.

        At this time, you have made 11 out the 28 comments. That exemplifies your usual desperation.

    • barry says:

      I dopn’t get why people are suddenly so stupid. Trump asked his followers to vote on the day, not mail it in. Democrat mail votes were predicted well in advace of the election to outweigh Republican mail votes. And then we saw the results of that, in places where mail ballots were counted after on the day ballots. Well before election day it was noted that there were a record number of mail ballots cast. Most of these were from Democrats.

      Conservatives are playing dumb to all this so they can make spurious accusations. This mendaciousness is very contagious!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Trump asked his followers to vote on the day, not mail it in. Democrat mail votes were predicted well in advace of the election to outweigh Republican…”

        According to normal voting patterns, mail-in ballots should follow the regular voting pattern. As it stands, an enormous amount of mail-in ballots have been for Biden.

        The election ballot is supposed to be filled in for not just the President but for other people running. Thousands of ballots were simply marked ‘Biden’ as if someone was in a hurry to stuff the ballot box.

        If this election had been a landslide for Biden, as predicted, that would be another matter. As it stands, they are only separated by less than 0.5% in key states. It’s not fair to the 50% of US voters on the losing side if this situation is not investigated to the nth degree.

        The fake media, especially CNN, do not want to see democracy work. They want to inaugurate Biden right now, depriving Trump of his right to investigate.

        • Adam says:

          “According to normal voting patterns, mail-in ballots should follow the regular voting pattern. As it stands, an enormous amount of mail-in ballots have been for Biden.”

          There’s your problem, there was nothing normal about this election. Between Trump making Republicans scared of mail-in ballots, the pandemic making Democrats scared of in-person voting, and two swing states using universal mail-in ballots for the first time, it’s amazing that it didn’t diverge further from normal.

          “Thousands of ballots were simply marked Biden as if someone was in a hurry to stuff the ballot box.”

          Weird that this bit of evidence wasn’t attached to a lawsuit. It’s because it’s not true.

          “depriving Trump of his right to investigate.”

          What? He’s been investigating and filing suits all over the place. He has a right to file them, but not a right to win (that’s where actual evidence comes in).

  10. DaCob says:

    однофазные стабилизаторы напрЯжениЯ https://msk-stabilizator.ru/cat.php?cat=stab-1 | https://msk-stabilizator.ru/

  11. Bindidon says:

    I’m still waiting for an intelligent commenter to explain to us why on the one hand

    – the poor Trumping guy got his election stolen

    while at the same time

    – The Republicans (whose House and Senate ballots certainly will have been cast – in person or by mail – at the same time as those for the Trumping guy, enjoyed

    – the rescue of their short majority in the Senate
    – the reduction of the majority of the Democrats in the House.

    How is that possible? Ignoring this is sheer paranoia.

    *
    The reason Republicans stay close to Trump is simply because if they break up with him, they will be disregarded by millions of his supporters in the next elections.

    And the reason for Trump not to leave the White House is simply that if he doesn’t stay there for a few more years he will be prosecuted by the US Justice department for a large number of offenses.

    And what some of you here possibly don’t know: The Trumping boy owes the German ‘Deutsche Bank’ 400 million US dollars … peanuts!

    J.-P. D.

    • Tim S says:

      At the risk of not seeming as intelligent as yourself, I would simply point out that your analysis is irrelevant. I have no evidence of fraud beyond the fact that the long delay in counting ballots opens the door for fraudulent activity that might not be possible if the ballots are counted quickly. To the exact point you raise, without the fraud, if it did occur, the Republicans may have taken the majority in the house.

      I think Biden did win. I think there was likely a significant amount of local and isolated fraud, and that is the evidence being presented in various media. But it is not large enough to overcome the huge advantage Democrat governors gained by mailing out ballots to every registered voter, and increasing the turnout which always helps Democrats. Casual voters tend to vote Democrat, and both side know that.

      • Nate says:

        “to overcome the huge advantage Democrat governors gained by mailing out ballots to every registered voter, and increasing the turnout which always helps Democrats. Casual voters tend to vote Democrat, and both side know that.”

        The more people that vote, the less Republican we get?

        So R policies dont need to address voter concerns, they just need to supress more votes!

        Not supposed to say this out loud.

        • Martin23233 says:

          I’d offer up to those that can’t grasp the human condition and try to obfuscate the facts by using their opinion- If Ohio had removed and blocked poll watchers – harassed officials and ignored their state legislature too allow for voting rules to be illegally changed days before Nov 3rd (thank you PA.) then folks would be hollering about Ohio too….. so there goes that silly comment from above –
          Next the corny comment about how could it be possible that down ballot votes shifted for Conservatives while top of the line went the other way….. because only one vote was made on those ballots…. for soon to be prez sleepy slow Joe. now one just needs to ask why only one vote? hmmmm
          Best to be confident in the vote than to whine and cry about it – so neither side should be complaining about further verifications being performed. Got nothing to hide – stop whining about things and let the validations progress…… I Don’t mind the further scrutiny where warranted , worst case it will turn a light on the issues encountered this cycle…. best case it can show more acceptance that the vote is valid

          • Nate says:

            “or voting rules to be illegally changed days before Nov 3rd (thank you PA.) then folks would be hollering about Ohio too.. so there goes that silly comment from above ”

            Rule changes unable to account for 60,000 vote difference.

            “Next the corny comment about how could it be possible that down ballot votes shifted for Conservatives while top of the line went the other way.. because only one vote was made on those ballots. for soon to be prez sleepy slow Joe. now one just needs to ask why only one vote? hmmmm”

            Wow, conspiracy theorists have weird answers for everything..

          • Martin23233 says:

            Wow those that have their heads buried up their sandbox…. have no answers but fake news-y comebacks “its a conspiracy” lol…. maturity at its best we see.

          • Nate says:

            Point is, “because only one vote was made on those ballots. for soon to be prez sleepy” is not data, it is just speculation, and not logical for DEM fraud scenario.

          • Adam says:

            “then folks would be hollering about Ohio too”

            Oh, BS. If Ohio had voted for Biden it’d be getting hollered about just as much as PA.

        • Tim S says:

          What is said out loud and needs to be said out loud is that people who are not informed on the issues tend more often to vote Democrat, and more importantly, Republican voters tend to be more informed. In general, Democrats tend to lie about things people want hear, and Republicans tend to tell the truth about things people do not want to hear. For example, Trump and the Republicans in congress proved that tax cuts are good for the economy and improve the level of employment for everyone. Democrats want people to believe that tax cuts only benefit high wage earners. Resentment toward wealthy people is a good selling point for Democrat politicians event though it is wealthy investors who fuel the economy.

          • Svante says:

            Trump proved that if you borrow a lot during good times you can temporarily force employment below its long term equilibrium.
            Borrowing is not the way to build sustainable prosperity, it’s just populism.

          • ClintR says:

            Silly snowflake Svante, are you now pretending to be knowledgeable about the economy?

            You need to let people know about your failings in basic science. Full disclosure.

            160 Watts/m^2 can NOT produce 640 Watts/m^2, as you tried to claim.

            You’re just an idiot, like the rest of your cult.

            Glad to help.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, a budget deficit will lower unemployment, ceteris paribus.

            Predicted by John Maynard Keynes in 1936.
            In the 1960s, Milton Friedman pointed out that it doesn’t work long term.

            And input – output = heat.
            640 W/m^2 – 480 W/m^2 = 160 W/m^2.

          • ClintR says:

            Silly snowflake Svante, are you STILL pretending to be knowledgeable about the economy?

            You need to let people know about your failings in basic science. Full disclosure.

            160 Watts/m^2 can NOT produce 640 Watts/m^2, as you tried to claim.

            You’re just an idiot, like the rest of your cult.

            Glad to help.

          • Nate says:

            “who are not informed on the issues tend more often to vote Democrat”

            Oh puleeez, they mostly have Dunning Kruger.

            Informed by propaganda perhaps.

            Lots of interviews of people at Trump rallies show they are horribly misinformed.

          • Nate says:

            “Trump and the Republicans in congress proved that tax cuts are good for the economy and improve the level of employment for everyone. Democrats want people to believe that tax cuts only benefit high wage earners.”

            OMG, proved

            Great, if taxes are 0 we’ll have the best economy!

            The particular tax cuts DID benefit high wage earners, and ballooned the deficit.

            Rs used to care about the deficit.

          • Svante says:

            I do think it’s important to keep taxes low, but you can’t do it by borrowing and hope “dynamic effects” will fix the deficit. It may take twenty years so you go bankrupt before it materializes.

          • Nate says:

            Svante,

            What do you make of this?

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

            Fed revenue as a % GDP. Hovers around 18% for decades. Only time we balanced the budget was when it was ~ 19% in 2000, after taxes were raised and defense budget was cut.

            But, the budget as % GDP has grown because of entitlements. All else in the budget has gotten squeezed. Tax cuts just made that worse.

          • Svante says:

            Taxes have been fairly flat but spending has gone up.

            Yes, Clinton balanced the budget in his last few years.

            Bush got 9/11 and Obama got the financial crisis so they had to borrow.
            Obama was closing the gap, but then Trump cut taxes and increased spending when he should have been saving for the Covid-19 crisis. In essence borrowing to buy votes from silly people like Tim S.

            The deficit is 18% of GDP for fiscal year 2020.
            We have been nowhere near that since 1945.

            If rates ever return to normal it means serious problems.

            As a side note, you can not have trade deficits without borrowing, so the trade deficit with China is perfectly voluntary.

          • Svante says:

            I don’t think I answered your question but I let off some steam.

          • Nate says:

            No, makes sense to me.

            I think my point was that taxes are low by historical standards, in fact they are too low to be sustainable.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, either that or cut spending, but not now since we have a crisis on our hands.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Im still waiting for an intelligent commenter to explain to us why on the one hand…”

      You’ll never understand, being from an authoritarian state like Germany. Just look at the crap being laid down by Merkel re covid.

  12. barry says:

    It’s disappointing that the “debate” about eection fraud has gotten so much traction. I’ve had the opportunity to watch Fox news (and opinion) over the past couple of weeks, and their shameless promotion of speculation dressed as allegations is truly revolting.

    The numerous lawsuits underway are so obviously a fishing expidition that it is incredible any sober-minded, rational person could fail to see it. The president has certainly helped understand the partisan motive of these legal challenges, asking for the count to cease in places where he was winning, and in the same speech to contiunue where he was losing. Let no one pretend that this is about maintaining the integrity of the electoral system.

    It is a shame to see America so traduced by this abysmal circus. Even if every lawsuit succeeded, the votes attached to them are not sufficient in number to change the result of the election as called. The Republicans, who have been utterly craven in their capitulation to the worst of Trump’s behaviour over the last four yyears, have sunk to a new low by aiding and abetting this vain exercise in undermining the election.

    And obviously, a great many conservatives in the US have no interest in character or integrity when they vote. They seem to prefer ‘alternative facts.’

    • Bindidon says:

      Hi barry

      Here is what I just have read in the Washington Post:

      Sixteen assistant U.S. attorneys specially assigned to monitor malfeasance in the 2020 election urged Attorney General William P. Barr on Friday to rescind his recent memorandum allowing investigators to publicly pursue allegations of “vote tabulation irregularities” in certain cases before results are certified, saying they had not seen evidence of any substantial anomalies.

      In a letter — an image of which was shown to The Washington Post — the assistant U.S. attorneys told Barr that the release of his Monday memorandum — which changed long-standing Justice Department policy on the steps prosecutors can take before the results of an election are certified — ‘thrusts career prosecutors into partisan politics’.

      Yeah.

      And… I’m still not sure the Trumping guy will manage to understand.

      But… It’s almost 2 a.m. now, and Trump’s pathological behavior is sure not to prevent me from getting a good night’s sleep.

      J.-P. D.

    • Rune Valaker says:

      The President’s primary duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The US has established institutions that ensure free and fair elections, and the electoral process seems to be working not well, but with few cases of deliberate vouter fraud. Nevertheless, large sections of the American population believe the system is rotten. I can hardly imagine a greater threat to democracy. If this distrust is allowed to develop further, it is only a matter of time before the United States will experience a deep constitutional crisis where the outcome is uncertain. Trump must bear the main responsibility for this development, he has been whining about rigged elections for years, this time Trump and his collaborators made completely unfounded allegations on an industrial scale. They knew what they were doing and the intention was precisely to destroy the population’s confidence in the electoral system. To me, this is treason and a blatant attack on the constitution, Putin could not have succeeded better.

      In a well-functioning democracy, Trump had been impeached and this time convicted.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Bravo.

      • Tim S says:

        For those who don’t know, the actual election will take place with the Electoral College on December 14. Until then, each state has its own process for sending electors. If Trump defies the outcome at that point, then the people who have ignored the Crossfire Hurricane scandal in the Obama administration will something to complain about.

        • Martin23233 says:

          Great Post Tim sadly there some unbalanced minds on the lefty lib (and yes the right too)…. sad to see some ignorant folks posting that it is such a horrible thing to protect our votes from various violations…. next month when the real vote is counted….. and the verdict is in… should be pretty clear who the prez is.
          but to whine and cry about contesting specific oddities … is just silly and pathetic…. (like cHillary Clinton….er like she said do not concede no matter what…. lmao)

        • Rune Valaker says:

          Although I am Norwegian, I probably know more about the American constitution and the customs associated with American presidential elections than you. First, for decades it has been a tradition that when various numbercrunchers and election experts have “called” the election, the loser call the President elect and the election is practically over. And to take the next bullshit argument, everyone knows that the election in each state is not officially and legally declared until the individual state’s Secretariat of state has declared it. That is not the theme here. You have a president who systematically tears down confidence in all of American democracy. The only way he can win now is to get a sufficient number of theElectoral Colleges to vote against what their states decided.

          If so, the USA is toast.

          • Martin23233 says:

            Sadly your comment about the current US president Trump is true… that clown does a lot of egotistical BS it is sad… but Biden too is a BSr and liar and likely won’t make it 2 years. Now to the part where you get it wrong. As a tourist you probably don’t know about Bush v Gore…and just how fast Gore called to concede the end count.

          • barry says:

            I am a tourist, and I seem to recollect that the networks called the election and then rescinded that call (perhaps with the exception of Fox?), so that in 2000 we did not have the same situation as 2020.

            Reading the history just now to be sure, Gore privately conceded to Bush when the networks caled it, then rescinded when the networks rescinded their call.

            The value of being a tourist is that we don’t come in with too much red/blue bias. It also helps make it clear when red/blue bias is talking.

          • Tim S says:

            You did not comment on Crossfire Hurricane, so let me help you. The normal way to handle a person who is suspected of being a foreign agent is a defensive briefing. The elected official or candidate is informed and told to remove the person from their team. The Obama administration did just the opposite. Rather than inform the campaign, they withheld the information. Based on fake evidence, they used the FBI to spy on the campaign in secret rather than inform the campaign to remove the person, Carter Page, who turned out to be working for the CIA, and they knew it. Trump has every right to be upset about that, and most importantly not trust Democrats.

          • Martin23233 says:

            Alvin Gore conceded to Busch on December 13th “reluctantly” . Yes it was different times, different political climate different players and different ‘irregularities’ the point is that all who paid attention Gore did not concede for over a month…while they hotly contested every vote in a bi-partisan and open process. We here in the US felt better about the votes after the process played out fairly.
            Has Trump been an egotistical child-man? certainly does he pout and whine and bully too much tweeting certianly so… but he has done more the minorities that Biden ever has and ever will. the sad truth about the lefty agenda is lower standard of living for the poor through ‘well meaning’ taxes they don’t grasp economics of taxing the rich…. they can’t see past bumper sticker vote getting mottos like “paying one’s fair share” Sadly Biden has already announced in advance he will waste US $ on Paris Accord … pump $ into more failed Green Deals – again while well intentioned, it is just not thought out

          • Nate says:

            The guy who said DEMS tend to be uninformed, is taken in and misinformed by various conspiracy theories promoted by the chief con artist.

            “Based on fake evidence, they used the FBI to spy on the campaign ”

            There was real evidence of interactions with Russian operatives (eg from Australian intelligence), and the FBI decided to investigate. There is no evidence that the President ordered them to investigate.

            Only in the Trump era has the Attorney General and Justice Dept become the President’s personal attorney and attack dog.

          • Nate says:

            “next month when the real vote is counted.. and the verdict is in should be pretty clear who the prez is.
            but to whine and cry about contestin”

            Whachu takin bout Willis? The REAL vote has been counted. There will be no change between now and next month.

          • Martin23233 says:

            LOL the Real vote has already…. most just need a slight refresher in the who elects the US Prez…. so we all wait..till the real vote comes – and is certified you bet it likely won’t change the out come much but so far there are count differences… and no where near the amount needed to keep racist , liar , cheater Biden out of office but sure would be good to have some better confidence in the system that’s what recounts are for… to allow the Alvin Gores and Trumps of the world to stew.

          • Tim S says:

            “There was real evidence of interactions with Russian operatives (eg from Australian intelligence), and the FBI decided to investigate. There is no evidence that the President ordered them to investigate.”

            The solution here is a defensive briefing, not a spy campaign. FBI field notes from an oval office meeting quote Obama telling Comey to use “the right people”. These right people are ones who made a total of 17 unexplained errors.

          • Nate says:

            “meeting quote Obama telling Comey to use ‘the right people’.

            Nope. Fake news, as discussed.

          • Nate says:

            “the who elects the US Prez. so we all wait..till the real vote comes and is certified you bet it likely wont change the out come much but so far”

            It is Trump invention that we should wait til the elctors meet to decide who won. And you have swallowed it. That has always been a formality with no practical consequence.

            But the delaying of the transition process has consequences for the country.

            But obviously DT cares only about himself, not a bit about the country.

          • ba says:

            I think you missed the main point, Martin. Gore conceded when it was clear who had won – there was a few hundred votes in it. The networks withdrew their call for Gore and then Bush as the race tightened each way. Gore and Bush followed that lead.

            It has been abundantly clear who has won for over a week now. The networks called it Nov 9. There is no possibility of that changing, even if all the standing lawsuits succeed, which they won’t. Theyt don’t cover enough votes. That has also been known for more than a week.

            The delay in 2000 was due to a genuinely close call. This is not the case in 2020.

            Republicans should not let Trump’s ego hold sway. The fisco is having a corrosive effect on US democracy, even while the outgoing administration is claiming that it is shoring it up. It’s pathetic, and damaging.

          • ba says:

            Furthermore, Bush was receiving the presidential briefing shortly after election day, even with the count in dispute and the race not called. National security came first. Country came before party.

            Trump’s vanity is costing America. He is truly a loathsome, petulant, feckless delinquent. That Republicans are supporting him in this pretty much traitorous.

          • barry says:

            I agree with ba. That is word for word what I would have written.

    • This is an election circus. But the circus is entirely caused by angry, nasty leftists like yourself, for whom the truth is not important — only political power is important.

      From a high level point of view, WAY over your head, there are good reasons to believe the vote count was “fixed” in some urban cities to favor Joe Biden. Such as Philadelphia, and Detroit.

      The Republicans did very well in this election EXCEPT for Trump, which is a very unusual in any election, especially because Trump was very popular among Republicans.

      Joe Biden barely campaigned, as if he knew he was going to win in advance. When Trump caught COVID, it might have been a good Biden strategy to stay in the basement playing it safe and criticizing Trump for being careless, not wearing masks and holding crowded rallies. But when Trump recovered and started campaigning like a man half his age, drawing huge crowds. Any other opponent would have stepped up his campaign. But Joe Biden barely campaigned at all. Who does that?

      Back in 2016, when I launched my politics blog, I predicted that the Russian Collusion claim was a hoax, most likely invented by Hillary Clinton to distract from the stolen DNC emails. Four years later we know that was true. You probably don’t know, but smart honest, people do.

      This year I will be publishing an article on Monday about 2020 election fraud. I’m sure it doesn’t exist in your mind, because you have a closed leftist mind. You probably don’t even recognize that the Biden family is guilty of influence peddling, and Joe got a share, and that makes Joe Biden the most corrupt man to ever win the popular vote for president.
      because the smarmy leftist-biased media pretended nothing ever happened. I’m sure your head is in the sand on Biden family corruption . I wrote about the subject at least six times, starting in summer 2019.

      The main problem Trump has is how to convince judges or justices to force some states to repeat their elections within the next month. That’s very little time. And about half of judges /justices are liberals who would never hurt their own party, so forget about justice from them. If this voter fraud is not attacked by the Trump team, it will repeat in Georgia (that’s a U.S. state) in January 2021, and in every future U.S. national election/

      My politics blog: http://www.ElectionCircus.blogspot.com

      stay away nasty Barry, I just cleaned up there

      • barry says:

        Everyone is still waiting for concrete evidence of widespread voter fraud. We’ve been waiting for months, ever since Trump said there would be.

        I’m forced to stay away from your website, as my browser alerted me that it is unsafe to visit.

        !

        Your connection is not private

        Attackers might be trying to steal your information from http://www.electioncircus.blogspot.com (for example, passwords, messages or credit cards). Learn more

        NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

      • Nate says:

        “repeat their elections within the next month.”

        OMG.

        Guys. Your candidate was a looza!

        Oh well. It happens to all of us.

        Get over it. Move on.

        Go back to getting your reality TV from the Kardashians.

      • Nate says:

        BTW. Trump just tweeted that Biden won, followed by lots of BS about cheating. Hes still that sore loser kid that we all met in 3rd grade.

        BUT, looks like hes going to take his ball and go home.

      • Bindidon says:

        Greene

        ” From a high level point of view, WAY over your head… ”

        Hmmmmh.

        No matter where I see your comments, no matter what you write about, such stuff always gives the impression of an arrogant person who greatly overestimates himself.

        *
        ” … there are good reasons to believe the vote count was ‘fixed’ in some urban cities to favor Joe Biden. Such as Philadelphia, and Detroit. ”

        This is not a sign of intelligence, but of a mix of stubbornness and paranoia.

        In my native tongue we write in such cases: “Plus bête, tu meurs.”

        *
        Btw: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN

        If you lack the ability to clear analysis, so try at least to get low technical details working fine.

        J.-P. D.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        Listen jerk, I’ve been voting conservative all my life. This is not a question of Republican or Democrat, left or right. It is about the foundation of the Western liberal democracies. And I see that you still have faith in a Trump victory. As long as it is about the election, he has long since lost. And you poor cannon fodder boys still believe in this. It is always tragic to see the soldiers still fighting while the general waves the white flag.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Its disappointing that the debate about eection fraud has gotten so much traction. Ive had the opportunity to watch Fox news (and opinion) over the past couple of weeks, and their shameless promotion of speculation dressed as allegations is truly revolting”.

      Barry…you’re out of touch. Fox has recently pulled their support of Trump and they suspended Judge Jeanine Pirro for defending Trump re election fraud. I first noted their switching bias on election night and wondered what was happening.

      • barry says:

        On election night Fox was the most neutral I’ve ever seen it, particularly the news anchors. CNN by comparison had a clearer bias on the night.

        But after election night the entire Fox narrative was about election fraud. Reporting gave credence to the numerous lawsuits while other networks pointed out that they lacked evidentiary basis. Fox continues to be a faithful voice for the Republican party.

        The latest legal efforts have been a circus, with some of the acts too bizarre for even Fox to swallow, such as the allegation that the Dominion voting software was commissioned by Hugo Chavez.

        The ‘conservatives’ who continue to dwell in Trump’s alternative reality don’t get enough succour from Fox, incredibly, and are drifting to the more extreme right ‘news’ services, like Newsmax.

        Yes, Newsmax has remained faithful to Trump, despite the fact that he has been sitting in his garret tweeting about the election and failing to do his job for two weeks. Not to mention the fact he has no chance of overturning the results of the election around, even if all standing lawsuits succeeded. Newsmax, of course, hasn’t called the election for Biden, and so the rabid Trump supporters have gravitated to where their delusions can flourish.

  13. I have to say Biden won get over it. It is not even close. Trump’s down playing of the virus was/is horrible.

    Trump deserved to loose.

    • ren says:

      In Poland, the Constitution is bypassed and laws passed by the parliament are not published. Covid takes a bloody toll. I hope the US will not go this way.

      • ClintR says:

        The sheep are so afraid they will do whatever their masters command.

        Centuries of fighting for human rights, down the drain.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          I am not expecting any intelligent or thoughtful answer from you. You are not very smart nor do you seem to possess logical thought process.

          So I am wondering why you think trying to slow the spread of a virus that has proven to be deadly makes you think that it is somehow against human rights? You make some stupid comments so I am sure you will not answer in a thoughtful or intelligent manner.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, I don’t know how you got so full of yourself. With no more talent than you have, it must be a mental disorder.

            Possibly from too many flu shots….

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            I wish you would surprise me with a little intelligence. I wish you were not as dull minded as I can clearly see you are. Your response was lame and low brow intellect. You really are not very impressive. Had you responded intelligently it would have been interesting. As it stands you will continue to post your low intellect responses and prove to others how ignorant you actually are. Like I keep saying you are not a smart person. Very dull and dim I would say.

          • ClintR says:

            Norm, that’s only about 100 words. You can do better. Let’s see a 500-word spew of your usual crap — insults, false accusations, and righteous indignation.

            Go for it. Impress your other cult members.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Fitting response to your posts, Duh. I don’t think you are capable of intelligent thought.

          • ClintR says:

            I agree Norman, you don’t think.

        • ren says:

          The dictatorship is born slowly, step by step. Without strict adherence to the law, it is possible.

        • ren says:

          It is very bad for the country when one party takes over the judiciary.

      • barry says:

        You may not agree with me, but I will to defend to your death my right to disagree.

        In grown-up socieities the adults recognize that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. They aren’t so terminally self-centred that they disagree with prioritising health in a pandemic, nor so witlessly paranoid to imagine their liberty is being permanently abridged.

        • ClimtR says:

          IOW, never let a crisis go to waste.

        • ClintR says:

          barry, after you and Norman finish telling yourselves how brilliant you are, remember you both tested positive for “idiot”.

          We can schedule a re-test, if you want.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”In grown-up socieities the adults recognize that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures’.

          In grown-up socieities, STUPID adults recognize that STUPID extraordinary times call for STUPID extraordinary measures.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…”the Constitution is bypassed and laws passed by the parliament are not published. Covid takes a bloody toll. I hope the US will not go this way”.

        That’s what Trump is fighting at the moment. The Democrats have been trying for 4 years to remove a democratically elected President and they began with a lie that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the 2016 election.

        The Democrats represent the politically-correct who think they have the answers for everything and that the rest of us should follow their beliefs without questioning them.

        Covid is not so bad that it should be referred to as ‘bloody’. Even in populations where the number of deaths is higher, it never exceeds 0.06%. That’s 6/100ths of 1%. Trump has advised people not to worry about the virus and he is right.

        In California where there has been a virtual lockdown, the Governor was caught partying with friends, none of whom were wearing masks. Those in power know this is a scam and they are playing power games with people with no evidence to back it.

    • Dave says:

      Salvatore,
      We haven’t seen you on this blog for ages. How are your predictions for a cooling world looking?

    • Bindidon says:

      Hi Salvatore

      100 % agreed!

      J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”I have to say Biden won get over it. It is not even close”.

      Sorry to hear you say that Salvatore, I have regarded you as a thoughtful person. It is extremely close with regard to the number of votes in key states separating Biden and Trump. If it was as you describe, it would be over.

      As for covid, we are being subjected to idiots who cannot find the virus using the standard method that requires a virus to be viewed on an electron microscope and are creating a phantom virus based on genetic material with no known source. This is far worse than the anthropogenic global warming scam.

  14. barry says:

    Good to see you again, Salvatore.

  15. ghalfrunt says:

    How are the hurricanes this year. You seem very quiet on this . Normally you are crowing about how few Cat x hurricanes have landed in the US.
    (ignoring all others)

    • barry says:

      Laura hit Louisianna as a CAT4

      Delta hit Louisianna as a CAT2

      Eta hit Nicaragua as a CAT4

      Iota hit Nicaragua as a CAT4

      (landfall outside the US doesn’t usually count on this blog)

  16. Svante says:

    Which means the exact opposite if you translate it from ClintR’s lunatic reference frame.

  17. Rune Valaker says:

    Here’s why Trump has a huge problem. In 2000, there was a dispute over one county in one state, Miami – Dade, FL.

    Biden now has 306 of the Electoral College, he needs 270 to be the President.

    If Trump manages to turn AZ (11) and GA (16), Biden still has 279. Biden can even lose NV (6) and still has 273. If Trump turns PA (20), it is not enough, even if Trump turns GA (16) Biden still has 270.

    AZ and GA are traditionally republican states with a republican administration, in AZ Trump has given up suing, in GA there is a recount where Trump leads with approx. 14,000 votes. Recounts usually lead to the relocation of a few hundred voices. The largest ever was 2000 votes in Miami – Dade which is a very populous county.

    If Trump turns PA (20) and one of the battle ground states MI (16) or WI (10) it still isn’t enough, he needs all three.

    So there must be a hell of a lot wrong with the American electoral system for Trump to win.

    • ClintR says:

      Rune, you must be worried if you’re altready starting the spin….

      • Rune Valaker says:

        Spin? Is there anything wrong with this lineup of the various options Trump has? If so, it would be nice if you could contribute corrections.

        If not, your comment seems to be spin.

        • ClintR says:

          You seem to be concerned that Trump might win, even with so much stacked against him. Likely you really know there were fraud ballots involved. You’re hoping the fraud works. If it somehow fails to work, your plan is to then claim the system has “a hell of a lot wrong with” it.

          • Rune Valaker says:

            >>>Likely you really know there were fraud ballots involved.

            How did you know, I’m exposed, but I confess if the alternative is to be subjected to a third degree interrogation by Clint and Gulliani. Here is the case;

            -15,433 votes for Trump is placed under my mother’s mattress in a nursing home, I picked them up from the election in Georgia in June last year.

            -187,098 votes, also for Trump, that I picked up in Pennsylvania I have hidden in the wheelhouse of the Titanic, it cost me a hell of a lot of money to get them down there, as You know it’s more than 4000 meters deep.

            But that’s all I’ve done in this election, nothing more, I swear.

            And Biden is still president with 270 of the Electoral College.

        • Nate says:

          “Likely you really know there were fraud ballots”

          Sure, blog guy Rune from Sweden knows stuff, that the Trump team is unable to dig up.

          Brilliant Clint!

    • Tim S says:

      You are correct about one thing. There is something wrong, and that is the practice of dumping unsolicited ballots into the population. An absentee ballot has to be requested and has better control than just sending ballots to every address in the system where there is now, or used to be, a registered voter. This is precisely the problem that has lead to the IMPRESSION that fraud has occurred even if it has not. It was not ever necessary to mail out so many ballots. The absentee system works very well. Some people such as myself are signed up to always receive an absentee ballot.

  18. RW says:

    Rune, I cant believe you’re that stupid. The Pennsylvanian postal worker did not drop his claims, as he posted so himself on YouTube. Go run back behind the robes of your fake news priests.

    • barry says:

      Interesting story. Postal worker had his affadavit written for him by ‘Prokect Veritas’, a group that seems to be behind spurious claims, offering money to people to help them cast the claims.

      Postal worker’s claims are questionned, and he walks back a lot of it, signs a new affadavit which turns facts into allegations, and acknowledges he didn’t actually hear fully what he said he’d heard.

      He recants his recant, and is flimed by ‘Stop the Steal’ and again by Project Veritas, who it seems recruited him in the first place.

      So it’s this guy’s word against another guy’s word.

      Also, it seems that ewven if what he says is true, it amounts to a handful of ballots, which undercuts the allegation of what he thinks he heard in the first place.

      https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-a-postal-worker-witness-ballot

      Looks to me like interested parties are fishing for any and all sound bytes they can to hunt down widespead election fraud.

      And they have pretty much zero evidence as of today.

      • Nate says:

        Im sorry your guy lost the election. And it really wasnt that close.

        Now its time to get a grip on this reality. And move on. Like half the country did 4 y ago, and every 4 years for 200 + years.

        Its just the way democracy works.

        • The other Brad says:

          Half the country moved on 4 years ago? You must be living in an alternate universe.

        • Nate says:

          Yes, 4 y ago Hillary conceded the result on election night. DEMS unhappily accepted the result. And the transition began immediately. There were later protests about his policies.

          There is simply no comparison to what is happening now. False Equivalence.

          DTs own Justice Dept appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate Russian collusion/interference that grew out of the FBI investigation. Indeed several people were prosecuted and were found guilty. And yes, not surprisingly, congress investigated as well.

          He THEN abused his power wrt to Ukraine and was indeed impeached. That was all HIS doing.

          • The other Brad says:

            Alternate universe.

            Bush stole the election.
            Bush did 9/11.
            Bush lied about WMD.
            Diebold stole the election for Bush.
            Trump is a Russian agent.
            Trump likes to get peed on.
            Trump impeached over a phone call.
            Kavanaugh is a rapist.
            Violent riots are peaceful.
            All Republicans are Nazis.

            Trump: I think Democrats cheated.
            Media: THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.

            Someone I know actually has a Resist license plate.

            Get bent.

          • Nate says:

            Most not found in my universe, but yes there are extreme views on both sides.

            But the main problem right now, as I see it, is that the President lives in an extremist alternate reality, and his supporters seem willing to go there with him there.

            He is pushing a narrative that the election was rigged, full of fraud, and that he was the true winner.

            Poll shows that more than half of Republicans believe this narrative.

            https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526464-half-of-republicans-in-new-poll-say-rigged-election-was-stolen-from-trump

            But thus far, there is no actual evidence to support this narrative.

            I was told by another poster that Rep voters are ‘better informed’.

            Then how the hell are they getting ‘informed’?

    • Rune Valaker says:

      I’m afraid the stupid one is You. The postman first issued an affidavit where he confirmed that he had been told by superiors to backdate, then he issued a new affidavit where he had not heard this anyway. What he says on You Tube has no legal interest. How much do you think this witness is worth in a lawsuit?

  19. RW says:

    PS Hey Rune! Don’t forget to tithe 10% to the big guy!

    • Rune Valaker says:

      >>>>PS Hey Rune! Don’t forget to tithe 10% to the big guy!

      Do not worry RW, I already had an agreement of 16% in 2017, and if Joe wins the election, the percentage scale will be unrecognizable. Just like Trump, he also runs and wins elections with 110% or 140% of the popular vote.

  20. Rune Valaker says:

    RW and Clint.

    Believe me, I have been awake all night, I have been thinking and pondering, back and forth for several days. I have not had a thought about climate change or what to do with my basements that is full of water, and just that has nothing to do with climate, I forgot to clean the drain. I have sacrificed all my thinkingcapasety to satisfy you two, now I expect thanks, I have solved the problem, what is required is a constitutional amendment:

    Ammentment 28

    The eternal president and the light of the universe, Donald John Trump, has the right to override any constitutional provision, any constitutional amendment and whatever else he feels for.

    Suggest it to Lindsey Graham, he will certainly take it straight to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further discussion and confirmation, unless he runs straight over to Trump to get it sanctioned to avoid all this unnecessary paperwork.

  21. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    The left is telling us if we don’t certify the election for Biden then there will be violence. I choose violence.

    • barry says:

      Ah, the monolithic left has spoken has it? I wonder where you heard this voice that speaks for all the lefties?

      • Steve Case says:

        Ah, the monolithic left has spoken has it?

        Oh yes the thespian “Ah” pronounced with raised eyebrows and pedantic index finger. I suppose you fancy yourself as Ian McKellen or Alec Guinness.

        I wonder where you heard this voice that speaks for all the lefties?

        It’s called the news media ABC CBS NPR MSNBC NPR PBS New York Times, Washington Post and lots of local venues, it really is a long list. Oh who said it? Camilla Harris said the the protests will go on as they should.

        Businesses in the U.S. are boarding up their windows in anticipation of riots. I know this by observation not the media.

        • Nate says:

          “Businesses in the U.S. are boarding up their windows in anticipation of riots. I know this by observation not the media.”

          Sure thing, point us to some articles about that in NYT or any of the others.

          Riots from Left about what? Biden winning the election?!

          Most political killing these last few years have been due to far right extremists, as noted by the FBI.

        • barry says:

          Gee, Steve. You’re a lot less of an asshole in person. Guess when there’s a safe distance you’re less afraid. So you don’t like my tone, huh?

          I don’t like your lack of substantiation. Not one link to the monolithic voice of the left promising violence if Biden isn’t elected.

          Because it doesn’t exist. But we get baseless demonisation of the left from lackwits on an hourly basis. It’s easier on the brain for dumbass conservatives to see life like a Marvel movie. That’s not all conservatives, just the loud ones.

          • Steve Case says:

            I’ve always taken pot shots at you. On the old Random International forum I said you pretend to take the high road, but are in there kicking, biting and eye gouging along with everyone else. I haven’t changed my spots and neither have you.

            I like the internet forums, you get to say what you want without anyone interrupting. Unless you’re banned of course, and I’ve been banned a few places but not for being an asshole.

          • barry says:

            They bordered up the White House and some shops nearby because of the BLM protesters. But nothing came of it.

            I didn’t think anyone would riot. It was nice to see some dancing after the election was called for Biden.

            You do know someone in the US is 10 times more likely to be killed by a rightie than a leftie for ideological reasons?

            “The data show three notable trends. First, right-wing attacks and plots accounted for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994. In particular, they made up a large percentage of incidents in the 1990s and 2010s. Second, the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown substantially during the past six years. In 2019, for example, right-wing extremists perpetrated nearly two-thirds of the terrorist attacks and plots in the United States, and they committed over 90 percent of the attacks and plots between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Third, although religious extremists were responsible for the most fatalities because of the 9/11 attacks, right-wing perpetrators were responsible for more than half of all annual fatalities in 14 of the 21 years during which fatal attacks occurred.”

            https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

            “As is typically the case, the extremist-related
            murders of 2019 were overwhelmingly (90%) linked to
            right-wing extremists. All but one of the incidents had
            ties to right-wing extremism.”

            https://www.adl.org/media/14107/download

        • Nate says:

          “Businesses in the U.S. are boarding up their windows in anticipation of riots. I know this by observation not the media.”

          I see now this is anecdotal evidence…

          My anecdotal evidence is the opposite of yours. I see no such thing in my state. Where are you seeing it?

          I think the point here is that a key chapter in the Authoritarian Playbook is to gin up FEAR. Fear of street violence. Fear of the ‘other’.

          All Authoritarians have done it successfully. Hitler did this by having his militia, the Brown shirts, go out and get in street fights with Communist protesters/marchers.

          The public were naturally fearful.

          Only HE could put stop to this violence in the streets, because they were being encouraged by him!

          Not saying Trump is Hitler, but its the same playbook.

          The rather minimal violence happening in the streets is being exaggerated. In reality it is clashes between Leftists and Rightists, who are being encouraged by Trump.

          But by far, the most serious political violence is coming from far right extremists, who have committed mass murder in eg black churches and synagogues, and planned kidnapping and murder of DEM leaders.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”All Authoritarians have done it successfully. Hitler did this by having his militia, the Brown shirts, go out and get in street fights with Communist protesters/marchers”.

            You are really scraping the bottom with your comparison of Trump to Hitler. If you knew anything about the motivations of Hitler and how crazy he was and you still made such a comparison you’d be a stupid troll.

            Come to think of it, you are s stupid troll.

          • barry says:

            “Not saying Trump is Hitler, but its the same playbook.”

            Learn to read, Gordon.

          • Steve Case says:

            I see now this is anecdotal evidence…

            My anecdotal evidence is the opposite of yours. I see no such thing in my state. Where are you seeing it?

            A suburb of Milwaukee. George Floyd died in police custody on Monday night, by Friday there were, according to CBS news, riots in over 34 U.S. cities – that didn’t just happen. There were reports of pallets of bricks put out for the rioters – could be bullshit. I saw a bank with boarded up windows after the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha. Some of the boarded up windows were places closed due to the covid 19 shutdown. And Camilla Harris did say the protests should continue. She knows they will turn into riots.

          • Nate says:

            The magnification, the “ginning up FEAR. Fear of street violence. Fear of the ‘other’” is working on you.

            Meanwhile the real threat of harm to the public, the one that has caused 250,000 deaths, has been consistently minimized, downplayed, botched by the administration.

          • Nate says:

            “And Camilla Harris did say the protests should continue. She knows they will turn into riots.”

            Well historically such large protest movements end mainly in two ways:

            a. Real reforms are enacted. Like in the case of Womens suffrage or Civil Rights movements.

            b. An authoritarian crackdown, w/ many killed, injured, locked away, as in the case of the Chinese democracy movement, Tianamen Square.

            Which do you prefer?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Not saying Trump is Hitler, but its the same playbook.

            Learn to read, Gordon”.

            Your message was clear, you are mentioning a President who has done no real harm to people to a dictator who murdered 12 million Jews and Slavs.

            You need to learn to read yourself. Go read what Hitler did, not only to Jews and Slavs, but to his own people who disagreed with him.

          • barry says:

            I didn’t make the comment.

            Learn to read.

          • Steve Case says:

            My post from November 19, 2020 at 10:31 PM
            said CBS reported more than 34 protests across the country just a few days after George Floyd died in police custody. For some reason this screenshot image at postimage dot com wouldn’t resolve yesterday:

            https://i.postimg.cc/639CbXS5/image.png

            Four days after Floyd died protest & riots sprang up in Iowa, Nebraska, and 32 other places. My opinion is the riots were in place ready to go before George Floyd got up that morning. The organizers were waiting for the first incident to occur and George Floyd was it.

          • barry says:

            Can’t follow the conversation?

            “The left is telling us if we don’t certify the election for Biden then there will be violence.”

            Did you have a link to substantiate this claim, or did you chime in here just to do some eye-gouging?

          • Nate says:

            “My opinion is the riots were in place ready to go before George Floyd got up that morning. The organizers were waiting for the first incident to occur and George Floyd was it.”

            Sure. Events and actions of millions of people are orchestrated by puppeteers… is something you think is plausible.

            “A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5]”

            Most of the rest of humanity thinks it it is highly probable that the latest and most egregious, in a long series, of acts of police misconduct against black people, could easily inflame the passions of hundreds of thousands of people, who see this act as the last straw.

        • barry says:

          Steve nominates Kamala Harris as the voice speaking for the left promising violence if Biden isn’t elected. Implies she’s promising it along with the protests.

          Let’s get a quote.

          “We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder.

          And Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”

          Calling for violence, huh? Maybe her boss has done it.

          “Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right.”

          So the leader and deputy leader of the socialist left are not calling for violence if the venerated leader is not elected. Rather, they are condemning violence.

          So who is this monolithic voice speaking for the left in the US calling for violence if Biden isn’t elected?

          Or did some conservative twit blurt out yet more BS on the internet?

  22. Nate says:

    “Presidential Transition Live Updates: Trump Invites State Lawmakers to White House in Bid to Subvert Election” NYT

    He desperately hopes to convince Michigan legislators to overrule the voters, and appoint their own electors.

    Good idea?

    I recall the many R Congressmen during the Impeachment Trial stating that ‘the people should decide’ in the upcoming election, whether to remove Trump.

    Shameless.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…”I recall the many R Congressmen during the Impeachment Trial stating that the people should decide in the upcoming election, whether to remove Trump”.

      The opinions are split down the middle and so close it’s uncanny. Let democracy work!!!

    • barry says:

      Yeah, Gordon mised the point entirely.

      If Trump is pushing legislators to choose electors that weren’t chosen by the majority in a given state, then that is of course ANTI-democratic.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”If Trump is pushing legislators to choose electors that werent chosen by the majority in a given state, then that is of course ANTI-democratic”.

        I don’t agree with the US system but the electors are free to vote according to their conscience. Based on the rules as they stand, I see nothing wrong with Trump appealing to them.

      • barry says:

        You continue to misunderstand.

        The issue is not about electors chosen by the people changing their minds and “voting with their conscience.”

        The issue is about state legislatures choosing different (pro-Trump) electors against the will of the people.

        Either way, you are content to have the will of the people overturned by “the US system.” So don’t pretend that you want democracy to work.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Either way, you are content to have the will of the people overturned by the US system.”

          I would agree if it was clear Biden had won by a significant margin. Till the last 6 or 7 states were counted, Trump was leading. Then, mysteriously, several of those states stopped counting for the night. Why? That’s basically what is being challenged, that mysterious processes have occurred that need to be investigated.

          As a Canadian it’s none of my business. However, I’d like to see this exercise in democracy extended till a proper investigation is done. I’d also like to see fascist media like CNN kicked up their perverted butts. One of them, Toobin, was caught masturbating on a break. He did not even bother doing it in private, he did it behind a camera because he thought the camera was off. This is a married man with a family.

          They are all sleezebags at CNN and this is basically where you are getting your information.

        • barry says:

          I get my news from the BBC, Australia’s ABC, Fox, CNN, Time, The Atlantic, The Independent, and a lot of local US papers that are online, regarding the post-election fiasco.

          Biden has won by more than 10 000 votes in even the closest state.

          No recount has ever shifted a result by more than a few hundred votes. The Georgia recount changed the margin by 496 votes.

          Biden has won by a significant margin – Trump would have to flip 3 key states to overturn the results. It aint going to happen. Trump won’t be able to flip even one.

          Out of about 30 cases so far rules, the Trump administration has won one – to let poll watchers stand closer to the counters – and lost the rest.

          Stop reading Newsmax and whatever other extreme right news service. All they do is parrot Trump and his “elite” legal team of people who aren’t election litigators, and who come unprepared and without evidence.

          Stop reading facebook for news.

          And in true Trumpian fashion, you’ve got it completely the wrong way around. No battleground states stopped ballot counting overnight:

          https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/04/fact-check-no-vote-counting-democrat-led-states-hasnt-stopped/6163978002/

          Furthermore, it was the Trump campaign which called for counting to stop the day after election day.

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/trump-files-lawsuit-stop-michigan-vote-count-temporarily/6164647002/

          No lawsuit has been filed claiming that any state stopped counting votes on election night.

          Seriously, Gordon, where do you get your news from?

          Do you have a link for what you’ve just claimed about the election? Or does it come from facebook? Because it is the opposite of reality, as usual.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…”This symbolizes the legitimacy of the case the Trump team is trying to make”.

      They have not revealed their case(s) yet, no good lawyers would do so before appearing in court. As I told you, this is all heading to Supreme Court.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        Your ignorant fool, no lawyer can even arrive in court before he has shown the court and the other party the evidence. And no, SCOTUS will not process any cases unless they are able to tip the election. Now GA and AZ are lost for Trump. If he is to win, he must take the lead in PA, MI and WI, ie all three states, and he is not on track to take any of them.

        All he has left now is to openly try to get the Republican lawmakers to change the rules by electing other members of the electoral college so that they will vote against the will of the people. Even Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe would have refrained from such a move.

    • Nate says:

      “As I told you, this is all heading to Supreme Court.”

      Yes, and as I told you, you are a highly ignorant and confused Canadian.

      You don’t get to declare fraud in court without having facts to support it.

      You don’t get to go to the SC with just a conspiracy theory, or while on a fishing expedition.

      • Steve Case says:

        Nate says:
        November 20, 2020 at 8:43 AM
        As I told you, this is all heading to Supreme Court.

        Yes, and as I told you, you are a highly ignorant and confused Canadian.

        You dont get to declare fraud in court without having facts to support it.

        You dont get to go to the SC with just a conspiracy theory, or while on a fishing expedition.”

        The supreme court ruled to stop the counting December12th 2000 – As they say in New York, you can look it up. Does Trump have evidence of massive fraud? The Duck Test says it looks like fraud. Did the Supreme Court apply the Duck test in 2000? It was a 7-2 ruling that the recounts were illegitimate. If it goes to the supreme court, Ginsberg won’t be there to be one of the dissenters.

        I expect Biden will become officially President Elect December 14th and sworn in this coming January. Investigation of fraud in the 2020 election will continue for a long time.

      • barry says:

        Of the lawsuits initiated by the Trump campaign, none are alleging widespread voter fraud, and many of the lawyers when asked by the judges, have specifically stated they are not pleading a case of election fraud.

        The ducks stop quacking when they go to court. How does that float, do you think? Looks to me like the endless drone about fraud, which began in June this year, is just the Trumpian method of pushing a lie in the hopes it will catch on (which it has), and nothing to do with a serious legal challenge.

        One or two conservative groups have gone to court alleging fraud, but they have either withdrawn their cases or been dismissed.

        https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/

        There’s no reliable evidence of fraud, Steve. Cases are being thrown out – 30 have already been dismissed or been withdrawn. People are being paid to produce affidavits. Now that quacks like a duck.

  23. Gordon Robertsong says:

    The reason people should be rooting for Trump is the following. Sleazy Joe does not look too well, maybe early onset. If his health fails, Kamla Harris will be President. The thought of that dizzy bitch being president, with her homeys AOC and company, should be enough to scare anyone straight.

    • Nate says:

      Ok so we’ve established that you are a sexist, racist, clueless Canadian, who claims he is a Leftist??

      All DEM women of color are equivalent, riggght?

      False. Harris is a former District Attorney.

      Biden chose her because their moderate views are well matched.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”All DEM women of color are equivalent, riggght?”

        Nothing to do with colour, I base my disrespect for her on comments she has made that I regard as anti-democratic.

        Harris represents the politically-correct to an extreme. She’s the type, who with power, would shut down the basic rights of US citizens. In the US, the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. Harris wants to shut that down while ignoring her brothers who use illegal guns to mug and terrorize people, mainly their own.

        Riots took place, when the cops killed George Floyd, a black. I agree that the death was unnecessary and represented police brutality. However, the number of black killed by blacks far outweighs the number killed by police by a long shot. In fact, police killed far more whites in 2020 than blacks.

        Harris is a brain-dead idiot who sees what she wants to see and feels everyone else should see the same thing.

        • Nate says:

          “Harris is a brain-dead idiot who sees what she wants to see and feels everyone else should see the same thing.”

          Gordon, what rot.

          Nothing you mentioned puts her in that box. So you still must be an ignorant racist homophobic asshole. Im shocked that you also like Trump.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…I did not say I liked Trump I just dislike the Democrats a whole lot more after 4 years of absolute bs over losing in 2016.

            They are the types to throw around a word like homophobia trying to prevent criticism of homosexuality and its excesses by shaming people into offering their opinions. A phobia is an extreme, unrealistic fear. No one has ever explained how homosexuality and phobia are related. I certainly don’t fear them but I’ll be damned if I am going to accept them as being normal just because the politically-correct says they are.

            You and the Democrats are a load of sickos posturing as caring, compassionate people. You all need extended, psychotherapy, but I doubt it would do any good with such warped minds.

          • barry says:

            A phobia is an irrational fear or aversion.

            “I’ll be damned if I am going to accept them as being normal”

            What does ‘normal’ mean here? In the majority? Or something else?

            “…homosexuality and its excesses…”

            Yes, you’re homophobic.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Yes, youre homophobic”.

            I won’t try to get into a discussion on this in Roy’s blog but I have had many exchanges with you and know you to be a narrow minded type who resorts to red-herring arguments when cornered.

            I just explained to you that a phobia is an irrational fear and I have asked what is irrational about questioning homosexuality. Only a blatant politically-correct twit would reply claiming I am homophobic. What is the relationship between questioning the roots of homosexuality and an irrational fear?

            Heterosexuals, like me, have perversions and when the issue is raised, most people simply raise their eyebrows because they know perversion is an oddity of the human mind. When someone points out that homosexuality is yet another perversion, the observer is regarded as having an irrational fear of homosexuals.

            The function of sexual attraction is the reproduction of the human race. Recreational sex is a perversion. I have said nothing about it being good or bad, I simply don’t care what people do in private. I have done it myself but I don’t hold up recreational sex as something sacred, it’s a perversion of the basic function of reproduction even though we modernists have prettied it up and had the nerve to call it love.

            Along come male homosexuals with no ability to reproduce so they become inventive by using orifices for which that function was not intended. Not only that, the orifices contain material that can make people sick unless great care is taken. Again, I don’t care what people do in private, it’s their business. Just don’t try to con the rest of us into thinking it is sacred and about love. It’s a perversion like the recreational sex of humans.

            So, call the messenger a homophobe. Only a person lacking awarenesss and intelligence would pay any heed to such a politically-correct accusation. Since you accept it as a norm then it labels you as lacking the awareness and intelligence to understand. Then again, you demonstrate the same lack of intelligence and awareness with your alarm about global warming/climate change.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I might add that love has nothing to do with sex. Love is sacred and a very natural function of the human, as is compassion. Recreational sex is not, and no expression related to sex is about love. Sex is about lust and lust cannot exist with love in the same space. You can kid yourself into thinking both can exist simultaneously but that is an illusion related to the immature and inexperienced mind.

            There is a perfectly good explanation for this. Love is about the other person. When you love someone, you are focused on the other person with no awareness of your ‘self’. Sex is exactly the opposite, the focus is on you, and your desires/physical needs.

            On numerous occasions as a young man I mad that mistake, of feeling aroused sexually and telling a woman I loved her. I cringe at the thought of such a blatant lie, unintentional or otherwise.

            Women ultimately pay the price, they get pregnant and some schmuck realizes his expression of love was sexually induced and bails on her. There is nothing equivalent to that in a homosexual relationship and that’s why I think homosexual marriages are bs.

            I can understand men feeling love for each other but once you move into the arena of sexual feeling, you cannot have love. You can move back into the space of love when sexual feeling is absent but…puleeeeze…don’t call the practice of anal sex love, any more than heterosexual sex is love. And when certain men engage in anal sex while stoned and end up with AIDS, don’t blame it on a virus.

            If you regard anything I have said as homophobia then you are a brain-dead, politically-correct idiot.

          • Nate says:

            Sure Gordon, you think you are the ‘least homophobic person in this forum’.

            Sounds familiar.

            And your psycho-sexual-babble defenses are just plain weird.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Nate…”And your psycho-sexual-babble defenses are just plain weird”.

            Nate…you are plain weird. You will never understand what I’m talking about till you lose the ego and admit you don’t KNOW anything. Then you might find the space for insight, and to allow intelligence to operate.

            Like me, you might need to visit the school of hard knocks for a couple of decades to get the piss beat out of you so much so you are willing to start looking.

          • barry says:

            You call homosexuality a perversion.

            You do this without a rational argument. You describe homosexual activities as unnatural. This isn’t argument, it’s just a declaration.

            You have an irrational aversion to homosexuality.

            That is what homophobia is.

            I’ll provide you a dictionary definition.

            -phobia (noun combining form)

            Definition of -phobia (Entry 2 of 2)

            1: exaggerated fear of
            acrophobia

            2: intolerance or aversion for
            photophobia

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

            And…

            Definition of homophobia

            : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

            You want to see what a rational line of argument looks like? Here’s a classic syllogism.

            —————————————————————-

            Same-sex sexuality is a natural occurence in the animal kingdom

            Humans are animals

            Therefore same-sex sexuality among humans is a natural occurance

            —————————————————————-

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Homosexuality is natural, but it is also abnormal. People confuse the concept that natural means normal. It doesn’t.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Humans do have an aversion or uncomfortableness with abnormal things.

          • barry says:

            Yes, some do.

          • Nate says:

            Thankfully in America, we have the freedom and liberty to not conform to what other people consider ‘normal’.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Normal or abnormal, isn’t an opinion. Only about 1-1.5% of the population are homosexuals, but homosexuality has been around since humans. Psychopaths are abnormal too. But, psychopathic behavior is natural.

          • barry says:

            I wouldn’t be too sure about those figures.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

            Let’s have a look at the word you are using:

            abnormal (adj)

            deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying

            Being left handed is ‘abnormal.’ But it doesn’t get a value judgement in modern sociaties. It used to. People used to be phobic about it. It was equated with unnaturalness and even evil.

            Do people have an aversion to my colour blindness? I don’t think people much care either way. In fact, quite a few are facinated by it. It’s certainy not the norm.

            People are averse to phyical deformity. But these doesn’t usually come with a value judgement as being someohow intrinsically perverse – unless you’re a fucking philistine.

            I guess non-white people in majority white societies are abnormal, are they? Are they averse to themselves, or is that a response that only the majority are able to experience?

            Labeling homosexuality as ‘abnormal’ – per the dictionary definition above – is rationalising homophobia.

          • Nate says:

            “Only about 1-1.5% of”

            Apparently Stephen equates Uncommon with Abnormal.

            Then it must be abnormal to:

            Collect stamps.
            Ride a 3 wheeled vehicle.
            Be a grandmother with tatoos.

            Not sure what his point is.

            But it certainly does seem contradictory to the idea of America as ‘Land of the Free’

          • Nate says:

            To expand on the conecpt of liberty and freedom in free societies: I think it applies to activities that others may find different or disagree with or even be averse to.

            We can do them unless they harm others.

            Being a psychopath that harms others, not ok.

            Being gay and having gay sex in private? OK.

  24. barry says:

    In the Georgia recount both Biden and Trump picked up more votes from missing ballots. The margin narrowed by 496 votes, from 12,780 to 12,284.

    And that was about the best the administration could hope for, judging from past recounts.

    When will they stop dicking the country around, let Biden get the security briefings, and conced so the country can get on with it.

    The commander-in-chief is tweeting his heart out about the election while ignoring national security, COVID and the economy. A massive deriliction of duty. I believe he is slated to pardon some turkeys, though.

    What an appalling disgrace he is.

    • Nate says:

      Yeah Barry.

      It is astonishing that people still think this demonstrably narcissistic, incompetent asshole, who shows so little concern for Democracy, or other people’s misery, is somehow FOR THEM.

  25. barry says:

    It’s been a 4 year train-wreck, and the carriages are now crashing into the earth.

    The out and out lies Giuliana and his cohort of crazies are telling are phenomenal. Hugo Chavez, dead for 7 years, has been named by Trump’s crack team as responsible for the Dominion voting system, which is not a Venezualan product, and is a competitor to the comapny (Smartmatic) Trtump’s finest lawyers have claimed owns the software.

    https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9740535009

    I’m curious to see how many conservatives pull away from this abject fiasco, and how long it takes them.

    I’ve never seen a modern political party that wasn’t a fringe outfit shift so far to la-la land. What a wild alternative reality! It’s wonderful entertainment. But good God, I don’t know how I would take it if I was American.

    I hope they go further. I hope they keep drifting deeper into the extraordinary delusion – so far that eventually even the staunchest fangirls realize that these people are plain nuts.

    Yikes!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Trumps crack team as responsible for the Dominion voting system, which is not a Venezualan product, and is a competitor to the comapny (Smartmatic) ”

      I have endured your bs on NOAA and GISS and your propaganda related to both. Now you are defending a company, Smartmatic which was developed in Venzuela by Venezuelans whose software has been used to rig elections.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartmatic

      “In 1997,[4] three engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo Jos Anzola and Roger Piate, began collaborating in a group while working at Panagroup Corp. in Caracas, Venezuela”.

      Guess where Chavez rigged his elections?

      “Following the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, Smartmatic acquired Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the leading US companies in automated voting products…”

      “The request was made after a March 2006 following issues in Chicago and Cook County, where a percentage of the machines involved were manufactured by Sequoia, and Sequoia provided technical assistance, some by a number of Venezuelan nationals flown in for the event.[102] According to Sequoia, the tabulation problems were due to human error, as a post-election check identified only three mechanical problems in 1,000 machines checked[102] while election officials blamed poor training.[103] Other issues were suspected to be related to software errors linked to the voting system’s central computer”.

      I’d say there is sufficient evidence and/or doubt about this company to require a judicial investigation. I say that because this company has been involved in shady election results throughout the world. Where there is doubt, with an election as close as the 2020 election, an extensive investigation is required. Either that or scrap the mail-in votes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”I hope they go further. I hope they keep drifting deeper into the extraordinary delusion ”

      Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You have completely ignored the past 4 years in which the Democrat Party has been involved in one sleazy scheme after another to get rid of an elected President. It began with a total fabrication, funded by the Clinton Foundation desperately trying to link Trump and Russia in a collusion to interfere with the 2016 vote.

      This party is so desperate to get rid of Trump they will stoop to anything, including working with corrupt companies who specialize in rigging elections. The 50% of voters who backed Trump deserve to be represented no matter what you sickos think.

    • barry says:

      Thank you for the wiki page on Smartmatic, which corroborates exactly what I said:

      “2020 elections

      Smartmatic was the subject of a hoax in the aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election, notably promoted by the personal attorney to President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, who falsely asserted the company was founded by the former socialist Venezuelan leader Hugo Chvez and that it owned and provided software to a company that is actually a competitor, Dominion Voting Systems. Giuliani baselessly asserted Dominion is a “radical-left” company with connections to antifa that sent American voting data to foreign Smartmatic locations.[124] Others falsely asserted that Smartmatic was owned by George Soros[125] and that the company owned Dominion, another company that was the subject of misinformation during the election period.[126] Smartmatic voting machines were not used in any of the battleground states that determined Joe Biden’s election victory.”

      Now, I know you, Gordon, if it doesn’t fit with your delusion, you will sully your own source, so here’s another.

      https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9740535009

      “Both Dominion and Smartmatic have released statements saying no ownership relationship exists between the two competing firms.”

      Giuliani is delusional. Dominion software is not created by Smartmatic.

      “Dominion was founded in 2002 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, by John Poulos and James Hoover.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Smartmatic was the subject of a hoax in the aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election, notably promoted by the personal attorney to President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani…”

        I did not see them provide any proof of a hoax. There is proof that Smartmatic machines failed badly.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Smartmatic voting machines were not used in any of the battleground states that determined Joe Bidens election victory”.

        The article was obviously submitted by someone sympathetic to Smartmatic. That is a blatant lie. the Dominion company was involved in those states and they use Smartmatic machines.

      • barry says:

        You have no evidence for what you’re saying, Gordon. Whereas I’ve provided substantiation.

        Quoting Trump’s lawyers isn’t the evidence you need to show, because they got it wrong, as multiple sources have pointed out.

        They’ve just had their case thrown out for lack of evidence. It’s been dismissed with prejudice in court.

        So you need to do better than they did. Please provide substantioation for what you’re claiming.

        You’re claiming that Dominion owns Smartmatic machines. Prove that.

        You’re claiming Smartmatic machines were used in battleground states. Prove it.

      • barry says:

        Here you go, Gordon. From the horses mouth.

        “In the aftermath of the 2020 general election, there has been a great deal of misinformation being circulated about Smartmatic and other companies that provide election technology to voting jurisdictions in the US. We would like to dispel these incorrect statements with facts.

        Smartmatic has never owned any shares or had any financial stake in Dominion Voting Systems. Smartmatic has never provided Dominion Voting Systems with any software, hardware or other technology. The two companies are competitors in the marketplace.

        https://www.smartmatic.com/media/article/smartmatic-s-response-to-misinformation/

        “DOMINION IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, OWNED BY SMARTMATIC.

        Dominion is an entirely separate company and a fierce competitor to Smartmatic.

        Dominion and Smartmatic do not collaborate in any way and have no affiliate relationships or financial ties.

        Dominion does not use Smartmatic software.

        https://www.dominionvoting.com/

        Now just so we have it straight, Smartmatic machines were not used in battleground states.

        Dominion machines were used in some battleground states,

        The 2 companies are not affiliated.

        Dominion was not established in Venezuala, nor did Hugo Chavez instigate it.

        Now let’s see what hard evidence you have to the contrary. Claiming that everyone in the world is in on some conspiracy against Giuliani’s wild claims is not HARD EVIDENCE.

        So let’s see it.

    • barry says:

      I don’t know what cesspit you get your information from, but you are the one dumping BS on these boards, Gordon.

      Come on, you get your newss from facebook, don’t you?

    • ClintR says:

      barry, I’m glad to see you’re so involved in politics.

      Maybe it will keep you from perverting science.

      (Although, we did enjoy seeing you fall flat on your face, numerous times.)

  26. Tim S says:

    I see two possibilities. Either Rudy will come up with actual evidence for his amazing allegations, or Trump is paying a lot of money for lawyers to disrupt the transition. I think it is the latter. I see this as payback for what Obama did to him with Crossfire Hurricane which led to the very discredited witch hunt that was the Mueller investigation. The icing on the cake is the fact that the phones of the Mueller team were subpoenaed and every single one of them suffered the same accidental loss of data! No more proof of their evil intent is needed.

    The big difference here is that what Trump is doing is legal so far, and in the open. What the Comey FBI did under Obama’s instructions (use “the right people”), and Andrew McCabe’s very corrupt leadership, was done in secret, and most likely not legal. The IG Horowitz report is damning, and the Durham investigation with likely criminal indictments is continuing.

    • barry says:

      I wonder how much you actually know about Hurricane Crossfire.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)

      “Trump was not personally under investigation until May 2017, when his firing of FBI director James Comey raised suspicions of obstruction of justice.”

      The discredited “withchunt” found that there was indeed widesweeping Russian interference in the election, and indicted aides to the Trump administration, who pled guilty.

      “Witchhunt”

      That is what president Trump called it. He wasn’t exonerated from obstruction of justice, nor convicted of it, because the presidency rendered him immune, according to Mueller, which prevented making a finding.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

      Giuliani and the “elite” team of lawyers are running a sideshow. The claims are wild, factually incorrect and baseless. Giuliani is having trouble remembering legal terms and the name of the judge he is addressing.

      These lawsuits are theatre. It’s why the vast majority have been thrown out.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”The discredited withchunt found that there was indeed widesweeping Russian interference in the election, and indicted aides to the Trump administration, who pled guilty”.

        If you really want to know about Crossfire Hurricane read Andrew McCarthy’s book Ball of Collusion: The Plot To Rig an Election. I got it at my local library. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and he is well versed in the ins and outs of the pertinent laws.

        McCarthy is supportive of the FBI and CIA but he did not hesitate to demonstrate how they became involved with the Democrats in an inappropriate manner.

        Unlike what you claim, there was no evidence to support Russian interference. The US people who went to jail were not involved in collusion with the Russians they got nailed for financial messing around. I thought Mueller far exceeded his mandate in going that far.

        McCarthy thought the Russians were involved but he did not elaborate or provide proof. Neither did the FBI or CIA. What struck me was the way major players in the FBI and CIA, like Strok, had a hatred of Trump.

      • barry says:

        “During the presidency of Barack Obama, McCarthy characterized Obama as a radical and a socialist, and authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a “Sharia Agenda”. He authored another book calling for Obama’s impeachment. He defended false claims that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels”, and promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama’s autobiography Dreams from My Father….

        McCarthy defended Trump amid calls for his impeachment over the Trump-Ukraine scandal where Trump sought to get the Ukrainian president to start an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden. McCarthy wrote that Trump’s behavior did not reach the level of impeachable conduct.”

        You’ve found an author that hates Democrats and who peddles falsehoods. Sounds familiar.

      • Tim S says:

        No amount of Wikipedia spin or straw-man distraction can change the fact that Susan Rice is a liar and wrong again. They did not “go by the book”. The FBI teams that were hand picked by Andrew McCabe did not make 17 different accidental mistakes in the most important and highly consequential investigation of their or anyone’s career in the FBI. They knew exactly what they were doing because it was exactly what they were asked to do. An FBI lawyer, who is now a convicted felon, does not accidentally change the meaning of an email from the CIA. Carter Page was working for the CIA, and the dossier was a completely made up lie. Everyone from Obama on down the line knew this as an absolute fact, but they lied to the FISA court anyway. Those of you who think this is funny should do some research and find out what the court has to say in published comments about all of these events. There indeed was Russian collusion, and it was between the FBI, the Clinton Campaign, and Russian intelligence.

      • barry says:

        Of course there was Russian interference in the 2016 election. How do you not know this?

        https://tinyurl.com/gtmtr5n

        Many people in the Trump campaign who were indicted were charged with lying to the FBI and other investigations about Russian interference.

        “Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved and due to testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.”

        Nevertheless,

        Michael Flynn:

        “acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in “impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” which the statement of offense he agreed to said.

        He specifically admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference and further requested Russia help block a United Nations vote on Israeli settlements which the incoming administration didn’t agree with.”

        It wasn’t just dirty finances.

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

        • Tim S says:

          People making snide insults should do better research:

          https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fisa-court-slams-fbi-conduct/index.html

          “The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of the inspector general] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable,” federal Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order from the court published Tuesday.”

          • Nate says:

            Your repeated implication is that the investigation was ordered or directed for political reasons, and by Obama.

            The available facts from the actual IG report say otherwise.

            “Trump and his allies repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories asserting that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on false pretenses for political purposes.[3] A subsequent review done by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, released in redacted form in December 2019, did not find political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation.[4]”

          • Tim S says:

            Nate, who are you trying to fool? That is obviously a BS opinion quote, and not directly from the report. The IG was very clear that the only evidence against political influence was lack of evidence. He could not prove it, so he did not make that claim. He was also very explicit that none of the agents interviewed could offer ANY explanation for how ANY of the errors occurred. They just played dumb.

            The Durham investigation is ongoing and his report will be issued with a high likelihood of indictments.

          • Nate says:

            Ok lets see the quotes you are referring to.

            “The Durham investigation is ongoing and his report will be issued with a high likelihood of indictments.”

            If it is ongoing, how do you know whats in it?

            Since it didnt come out before the election, it is highly likely that it will be another nothingburger.

      • barry says:

        I don’t think this revisionism is going to change the fact that Trump is behaving like a petulant child.

        Does your patriotism extend far enough to care that Biden has not yet been allowed the usual security briefings that George W Bush got while waiting on the Florida results in 2000?

        What could possibly justify this dereliction?

      • barry says:

        Tim has referenced the Horowitz inquiry as evidence the FBI werre acting with poilitical bias in surveilling Carter Page.

        “December 9, 2019, US Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias at the initiation of the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia.[82][83][84] However, he also stated in a Senate hearing that he could not rule out political bias as a potential motivation.[85][86][87][88] Horowitz said he had no evidence the warrant problems were caused by intentional malfeasance or political bias rather than “gross incompetence and negligence”,[89] adding his report was not an exoneration: “It doesn’t vindicate anybody at the F.B.I. who touched this, including the leadership.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page#Horowitz_Report_findings

        You can find the sources for all that on the page linked.

        Furthermore:

        “The Republican-controlled Committee released its final report on 2016 Russian election interference in August 2020, finding that despite problems with the FISA warrant requests used to surveil him, the FBI was justified in its counterintelligence concerns about Page.[98]”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim s…”I see two possibilities. Either Rudy will come up with actual evidence for his amazing allegations, or Trump is paying a lot of money for lawyers to disrupt the transition”.

      If the election results were not so close I might agree. I have the feeling he thinks he won and got jobbed. I tend to agree with him.

      They may also be counting on getting this before the Supreme Court. With several more Republican judges on the bench they may be inclined to cut him some slack and make a decision that could send this to the House of Representatives. I don’t think they are going to so much trouble out of spite.

      I recall the decision between Bush and Gore related to the chads. At the time I was mistakenly supporting Gore and I thought the decision by Scalia regarding the chads was political. Don’t see why that can’t happen again.

      The Supreme Court has the power to rule the election null and void. I think, based on the peculiar introduction of so many mail-in ballots due to covid, the court may take that into account. This is not like like a normal election where one side is whining over a loss, there were significant irregularities.

      One major irregularity was the stopping of the vote counting by several of the last states which could sway the vote either way. It would be hard to prove this in a limited time period and that’s why I think the Supreme Court should make a ruling to give the necessary time to investigate.

      • Nate says:

        “The Supreme Court has the power to rule the election null and void. I think, based on the peculiar introduction of so many mail-in ballots due to covid, the court may take that into account. ”

        That’s the point. What a demonstrably ignorant Canadian troll thinks the SCOTUS has the power and willingness to do is absolutely worthless.

      • SHanslien says:

        Gordon Robertson
        “One major irregularity was the stopping of the vote counting by several of the last states…”

        May be they listened to Trump’s capital letter message: “STOP THE COUNT”

        https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1324353932022480896

    • Nate says:

      Yes, its ‘Whataboutism’ taken to its ultimate limits.

      It seems to be fine for Trump to do actual harm to democracy and the country by an unprecedented refusal to transition, in service of enacting revenge for a litany of perceived injustices that were mostly brought about by his own actions.

      • Tim S says:

        Well, at least you are correct about one thing. As the most hated politician in recent history (yes, probably worse than Nixon), Trump made a big mistake winning an election against Hillary Clinton. The criminal element in the FBI had no choice but to take action, and Obama is quoted directly in FBI hand written notes taken in the oval office telling Comey to use “the right people” for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. It was definitely Trump’s own fault that he ran for President and won.

        • Nate says:

          “Obama is quoted directly in FBI hand written notes taken in the oval office telling Comey to use the right people”

          Nope, you never showed a legitimate news source for these quotes. Fake news from Q.

          ” It was definitely Trumps own fault ” that he tried his best to obstruct justice in the investigation of Russian interference.

          It is definitely Trumps fault
          that he fired the FBI director who had the gall to investigate wrongdoing by members of his campaign.

          It is not the DEMs fault that his own Deputy Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor to investigate this apperent obstruction of justice

          It is definitely Trumps own fault that he chose to try to blackmail another country into opening an investigation into his political opponent.

          • Tim S says:

            Here you go. They have a picture of the raw notes and this translation:

            https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24/explosive-new-fbi-notes-confirm-obama-directed-anti-flynn-operation/

            NSA-D-DAG = [Flynn cuts?]. Other countries

            D-DAG: lean forward on [unclass?]

            VP: “Logan Act”

            P: These are unusual times

            VP: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never

            P: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it

            P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?

            D: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit

            [illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right

          • Nate says:

            If these notes are accurate, it means Obama and Biden were made aware of Mike Flynns contact with the Russian ambassador, in January, 2017.

            This makes perfect sense since it had foreign policy implications while Obama was still President.

            And, ‘use the right people’ means what to you???

            “Obama did to him with Crossfire Hurricane which led to the very discredited witch hunt that was the Mueller investigation.”

            That is hardly smoking gun evidence that Obama was directing Crossfire Hurricane, which was going on well before in 2016.

        • Nate says:

          “Trump made a big mistake winning an election against Hillary Clinton. The criminal element in the FBI had no choice but to take action”

          And this is completely illogical, since they took action to investigate well BEFEORE he won the election.

          Your whole premise seems to be that the FBI should not have ever investigated this possibly illegal foreign election interference activity? That such an action is only what a ‘criminal element’ would do?

          Sorry but IMO, thats exactly what the Federal Bureau of Investigation should do, investigate.

          • Tim S says:

            Don’t get too dizzy with all of that spin. You do a good job of playing dumb, just like the FBI agents who made all of those “unexplained” errors in an official court filing. The correct action is a defensive briefing. Tell Trump to fire the people they suspect of being foreign agents. That is the correct and legal thing to do. Instead, they launched a secret investigation of an opposition candidate with fake evidence — evidence they knew full well was fake.

          • Nate says:

            “The correct action is a defensive briefing. Tell Trump to fire the people they suspect of being foreign agents.”

            In your ‘expert’ opinion.

            The FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Do you even know what that means?

            Here some help

            https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence

            Making the targets of the investigation and their potential foreign contacts aware of the investigation sounds pretty dumb.

  27. Nate says:

    Republican Federal Judge dismissing Trump Pa case:

    “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened,” Brann added. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…the Trump team don’t care about low-level state judges, they are going through the required motions to get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already noted irregularities in the Pennsylvania vote processing and deemed it unconstitutional.

      Let’s face it, this election was rigged by the mail-in votes and the Supreme Court knows that. Don’t whine too much if Trump is successful at that level and the decision goes to Congress, where he will win easily.

      No one really wants to see Biden run the country, he’s a long time loser.

      • SHanslien says:

        “..this election was rigged by the mail-in votes and the Supreme Court knows that”.
        But Giuliani does not know? What an incompetent lawyer!

    • barry says:

      “The Supreme Court has already noted irregularities in the Pennsylvania vote processing and deemed it unconstitutional.”

      Nope, the conservatives on the Supreme Court said that there was a ‘strong likelihood’ it was federally unconstitutional that the PA Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving mail in ballots. This has not yet been adjudged by the federal SC.

      If this suit succeeds in the federal SC, it will throw out just under 10,000 votes (the ballots received after the original deadline have been kept aside).

      As Biden is currently ahead by 80,000 + votes, this would have zero impact on Biden’s win in PA.

      The decision is not going to congress. Trump needs to throw out another 70,000 votes in PA.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Let’s face it, this election was rigged by the mail-in votes and the Supreme Court knows that.”

      Gordon, it is interesting that you need no evidence to come to your conclusion. Luckily courts, even the SCOTUS do.

      “Don’t whine too much if Trump is successful at that level and the decision goes to Congress, where he will win easily.”

      Not sweating it, Gordon. You continue to have an incredible level of ignorance of how the US justice system actually works.

      “No one really wants to see Biden run the country, he’s a long time loser.”

      No one other than 51 % of the voters.

      You so effortlessly slide into reality denial.

      You don’t seem to require evidence to believe in conspiracies.

      You seem be hopeful that the US is already a banana republic, where if the president appoints judges to the court, then they must show loyalty to him, rather than the law and the Constitution.

      This election discussion is quite revealing about your anomalous thought process.

  28. barry says:

    The judge was appropriately scathing.

    This claim, like Frankensteins Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together.

    I’ve been going through the case, as well as others. They are some entertainment for their witlessness.

    The Arizona case presenting hundreds of affadavits best typifies what the entire legal effort to flip the election is all about.

    The plaintiffs had set up an online form for anyone to fill out.

    The plaintiffs admitted in court that they had tossed a bunch of affadavits that they knew were false, and submitted the rest on the basis that… they could not prove they were false.

    Naturally, the judge dismissed this evidence saying that the process by which they gathered it was, by their own admission, unreliable, because it had produced a lot of lies and “spam.”

    Plaintiffs tried to argue that CAPCHA had weeded out bots, and thus made the tranche more reliable.

    You can’t write this stuff. But you can write about it. This is worth a read: we get some insight to the people who filed the affadavits as they respond to the court.

    https://tinyurl.com/y256j7nq

    I say again, this scattershot litigation is a circus. Evidence is baseless. It’s a fishing expedition at best, and it is utterly corrosive to the democratic process and to civil discourse in the US. Trump is divisive and destructive.

    And he still hasn’t allowed Biden to get the usual security breifings. He has no regard for America, only for himself.

    I do not understand how this is not crystal clear to conservatives.

    • barry says:

      Quotes missing – this was the judges actual words:

      “This claim, like Frankensteins Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together.”

      And my post was in reply to Nate’s above, but having to re-post twice because of this site’s curliques sent it down the bottom.

      [Sidebar – I have fewer problems posting from my Macbook than my regular desktop PC. Both are new. No idea why]

  29. barry says:

    Senior Republicans are finally coming out to call the legal shennanigans for what they are.

    John Bolton – “Right now Trump is throwing rocks through windows, he is the political equivalent of a street rioter.”

    …Chris Christie agreed that it was time for the president to concede and said the legal team fighting to overturn the election was “a national embarrassment”.

    The Maryland governor, Larry Hogan, another Republican, said “I’m embarrassed” at the lack of party leadership speaking out to recognize the election result.

    Hogan added that he thought Trump’s pressuring last week of state legislators “to somehow try to change the outcome” was “completely outrageous.”

    The US used to supervise elections around the world but was now “beginning to look like we’re in a banana republic,” Hogan told CNN’s State of the Union politics show.”

    https://tinyurl.com/y4m2hbze

    We’ll see if more of the Republican leadership grows a spine now that it’s clear Trump can’t litigate himself a win.

    • ClintR says:

      barry, you and Nate (the Hate machine) make great vultures.

      Make sure the victim is dead before you start feasting.

      Your cult always brings out the best in your type.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Senior Republicans are finally coming out to call the legal shennanigans for what they are”.

      John Bolton??? Come on, Barry, this guy is a serious idiot. Why not Mitt Romney, another idiot. Poor old John McCain is no longer with us and he was a prominent Republican Trump hater. But Bolton???

    • Tim S says:

      I think I am being trolled at times trying to make rational and factual comments, but I will play on this one. The best legal analysis I have seen is that Trump’s team of exceptional lawyers is playing games. They make entirely different arguments in front of the cameras than they make in court, and they are consistently losing in court with increasingly harsh criticism from various federal judges. The game is over. The only question is how the game ends. The SCOTUS is not going to go near this thing. Biden will be elected president on December 14. I think Trump needs to make the case that his actions are justified because of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and Mueller investigation that severely hindered his presidency, or he needs to give up and play nice. I still think the Durham report is extremely important to shed light on all of the behind the scenes action that resulted in the most shameful abuse in FBI history.

    • barry says:

      State Republican lawmakers, governors and secretaries of state across the US are all saying that the elections were not fraudulent.

      I guess they’re all idiots and Trump is a man of integrity.

      In the fact-free world of Trump supporters.

      What do Trump supporters here think of the fact that Biden is still not getting intelligence briefings? How is that justifiable in any way?

      • Nate says:

        ” The game is over. The only question is how the game ends. The SCOTUS is not going to go near this thing.”

        Yes, Thanks for facing reality Tim, which some of the posters here are simply unable to do.

        “I think Trump needs to make the case that his actions are justified because of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and Mueller investigation that severely hindered his presidency”

        I don’t see how either of these justifies for anyone, his unprecedented personal revenge scenario, that does harm to both democracy and the country.

        Most other Presidents had to endure Investigations. Clinton Whitewater and Monica. Obama and Hillary: Benghazi, seven times! Hillary emails.

        “I still think the Durham report is extremely important to shed light on all of the behind the scenes action that resulted in the most shameful abuse in FBI history.”

        Hyperbole.

        You need perspective. I think if you look at the J Edgar Hoover era you will see much much worse. Hoover had a file on all major political figures.

  30. JM says:

    “ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL”

    Well that settles it then. They are for sure the one group that would come out and say that there was fraud, so if they are saying coordinated correctly, there was none. Them stopping counting when Biden was behind and then him ahead when I woke up – and in the only four places where Biden outperformed Hilary – was a total coincidence.

    • barry says:

      Do you get your news from youtube? Because what you typed about the counts stopping is pure, unadulterated BS. That’s why you will be unable to supply a credible source for it.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        Barry, have you read the Pennsylvania election law? Read article 13D about absentee ballots. There are a lot more than 10,000 mail-in ballots in question. Almost all of the mail-in ballots violated Pennsylvania election law. Not only the courts but the Pennsylvania executive branch violated the law by mailing out all those ballots. This occurred in other states too, where ballots were mass-mailed.

      • barry says:

        Stephen, have you read what JM wrote here?

        It’s BS. Are you changing the subject to deflect attention away from what he said, or do you agree it’s BS?

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          I don’t know JM or much about his argument. I know Trump has a strong legal point regarding the Constitution.

        • barry says:

          Can you establish

          1) That there was a mass mailout of unrequested ballots
          2) That this is against Pennsylvania law

          I was unable to determine either

      • Nate says:

        “violated the law by mailing out all those ballots.”

        Nope. In Pa you had to request a ballot to get one mailed to you.

        https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx

        • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

          If you read the law, it states you have to apply in person or on an official form mailed-in with your signature. It doesn’t state anything about applying on-line. Also, the Pennsylvania poll workers in Philadelphia did not allow observation of any of these ballots’ opening to see if they were valid ballots. They prevented transparency.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Also, Article I describes absentee electors. Can you show me where Pennsylvania’s recent changes with mail-in ballots met these provisions of Article I? It describes the different electors who can request absentee ballots. Nowhere does it state you can request a ballot because you are afraid to go to the poll.

          • Nate says:

            “Also, the Pennsylvania poll workers in Philadelphia did not allow observation of any of these ballots opening to see if they were valid ballots. They prevented transparency.”

            where from?

            As far as all else in Pa, our opinions don’t matter since nothing of consequence the Trump team has brought up has made it thru the courts, except bringing observers closer.

          • Nate says:

            All just grasping at straws…

            Your guy lost. Oh well. Happens to all of us.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            You’re right. I believe Biden will ultimately be elected. They say lawyers make the best criminals. Leftist lawyers make even better criminals. The Democrats knew if they cheated, they could not be caught in time to turn the election. By any means necessary is an apt motto. It will be a short-lived victory for the leftists and Biden. By the time Biden finishes, he will go down as the worst President in our history, even worse than Obama and Carter.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Also, Nate, Obama appointed judges are that. Obama appointed judges.

          • Nate says:

            “The Democrats knew if they cheated, they could not be caught in time to turn the election. By any means necessary is an apt motto.”

            Sure if that narrative makes you feel better about the loss..

            Some of us prefer to live in evidence-based reality.

          • barry says:

            “They prevented transparency.”

            No, they didn’t.

            https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/12/donald-trump/trumps-wrong-claim-election-observers-were-barred-/

            Not only have the suits alleging this failed, the plaintiffs have admitted that Repiblican observers were present.

            This is one in a host of false claims.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Barry,
            Politifact is wrong. It was reported for a couple of days that Trump observers were kept away from the ballot counters. They had to stand far enough away so they could not physically see the ballots. I saw the reports.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Please don’t quote leftists propagandists organizations like Politifact or Wikipedia. How do you explain the night of the election the sudden stoppage of votes, Republican observers were kicked out, and then suddenly, there was an abrupt jump in Biden’s count? This is seen when you look at the hour by hour vote counts in several battleground states. Do you understand Occam’s Razor about the simplest explanation?

          • barry says:

            Stephen, it seems you are simply parroting the claims made by the Trump campaing lawyers as if they are fact.

            I think your ‘reports’ come from facebook or youtube. Perhaps you can show us that you yourself are using credible sources.

            You have asserted there was a sudden stoppage of vote counting on election night for no good reason.

            Prove it.

            You have implied that no Republican observers were present during a ballot count.

            Prove it.

            You have implied that Republicans were illegally kept further away from counting tables than they were allowed.

            Prove it.

            And while you are at it, show that Democrats were allowed closer. You are implying that Republicans were being treated less fairly than Democrats.

            You have asserted that unrequested mass mail-out of ballots occurred in Pennsylvania.

            Prove it.

            One does not go to court to seek discovery of evidence of allegations. One comes with credible evidence. Hearsay is not admissible in court.

            When will you show credible evidence instead of just parroting headlines?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”You have asserted there was a sudden stoppage of vote counting on election night for no good reason”.

            Barry…you’re being obtuse. Anyone watching the coverage over here in NA saw that the count was stopped for the night with no reason given. One counting place in Georgia had a flood, which is understandable. But did someone hold a lighter under a fire sprinkler when it became obvious Trump was winning?

            It was reported on the news that Republican observers had not only been blocked from viewing the counting, some were not even allowed into the building. When a court order was obtained they were then blocked from getting close enough to see.

          • barry says:

            Why won’t somebody show us these credible news reports?

            Some Republican observers were ejected for not following the rules. Plenty other conservative poll watchers remained inside, as the lawyers admitted in court. Trump and some of his legal team claimed outside of court that Republican observers had been “barred,” implying all of them. That is a lie. That is why the Trump campaign lawyers quickly dropped that line when they fronted the judge.

            Republicans and Democrats wer required to stay a certain distance away from counters equally. Republicans were not singled out. That is another lie.

            The Trump campaign has now had 2 partial successes out of 3 dozen lawsuits. 30 have been dismissed.

            One of those partial successes was to have the observers moved closer to the tables. But there is no requirement in Pennsylvania law that there has to be a certain distance. There is no law that requires observers can audit and challenge any of the mail ballots being counted, and there are rules about not speaking to counters, not standing too close, not taking photographs or video, and not intimidating counters, all of which some observers did and were ejected for not folllowing the rules. There were always plenty of conservative observers present.

            The ruling to have the obserevers moved closer was later overturned in a PA Supreme Court ruling.

            The count only stopped briefly in one county in Georgia, when a pipe burst in the facility. The rest of the state kept going, as did the other battleground states.

            For Christ’s sake, put up some links to sources that aren’t dodgy.

            Stop getting your ‘reports’ from facebook!

  31. Mike Mitchell says:

    This numerical tool cannot possibly account for fraud committed by a means that was designed to avoid statistical detection. The Dominion software allegedly used a ratio to pad the results so it just gave Trump fewer votes along the way right from the beginning. Then they panicked because the ratio they chose wasn’t enough to win the places they were counting on – THAT is when counting mysteriously stopped, “updates” were made and suddenly Biden was getting way more votes in the count in the wee hours of the morning.

    The day Biden is inaugurated is the day the USA becomes a banana republic. Most of the 80M (?) people who voted for Trump are private sector producers – not employed or benefiting from government. We are all going to stop or seriously slow down production to teach these thieves where the money ACTUALLY comes from – us.

    • SHanslien says:

      MM,
      Wasn’t it because of her support of the same conspiracy theory that Trump just told his lawyer Sidney Powell: “YOU ARE FIRED”!
      It was apparently too incredible, even for Trump (!).

      A group of former Republican national security officials penned a letter Monday….:

      “We believe that President Trump’s refusal to concede the election and allow for an orderly transition constitutes a serious threat to America’s democratic process and to our national security. We therefore call on Republican leaders — especially those in Congress — to publicly demand that President Trump cease his anti-democratic assault on the integrity of the presidential election,…”

      Apparently it is possible to combine common sense with being a republican.

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    The judge in Pennsylvania who threw out Trump’s case declared that he was not going to disenfranchise several million [Democrat] votes based on Trump’s argument. How about the several million Republican votes? Some judges in lower courts are seriously biased and this one was obviously grandstanding.

    A higher court has ordered a review. This will reach the Supreme Court eventually if the Supreme Court is at all just. The legal fight is being fought along partisan lines and no one is looking at the law. It comes down to whether it is expeditious to investigate or simply cover it up.

    As it stands, Trump has every right to complain. This election is extremely close and it was done under extreme consitions due to covid. IMHO, there are good grounds for a Supreme Court decision on constitutional issues.

    You are either going to have a Democracy or your not. The only just remedy here is a full investigation before handing over power to Biden. Done properly, it would only take a couple of months, and what’s that in the overall scheme of things?

    • Nate says:

      “IMHO, there are good grounds for a Supreme Court decision on constitutional issues.”

      And we have already established that your opinion on this is no better than my cat’s.

    • barry says:

      The Pennsylvania judge who dismissed the case is a Republican.

      The ruling lays out the problem with the ‘tortured’ case, noting that two sets of lawyers withdrew from pleading it (after which Giuliani stepped in).

      https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

      Several million Republican votes were counted. They weren’t disenfranchised, they just lost the lection.

      That’s how democracy works.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        But the judge was appointed by Obama. That tells you everything about what kind of “Republican” he is. The Trump strategy will be to prevent Biden from getting 270 electoral votes. It is possible. I think Trump has a small chance. He has to win more than Pennsylvania.

      • barry says:

        No, Stephen, that does not “tell you everything” about what kind of Republican the judge is. His history and what other Republicans say about him does that. Obama, like many presidents before him, had to make compromises on who to appoint, as he did not have a majority senate to give him a free hand.

        You remarks tell me a hell of a lot about how partisan you are on this.

        Judge Brann is described as fair and impartial (by Republican senator Pat Toomey).

        He has also held multiple leadership positions for the Republican party.

        https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MatthewBrann-PublicQuestionnaire.pdf

        Your implication that he is a RINO is unfounded speculation convenient to your view, contradicted by facts.

        • barry says:

          “as he did not have a majority senate to give him a free hand.”

          I must correct myself – Democrats were in the majority in the Senate when Brann was appointed.

  33. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    Conservatives are gullible. Normal people are gullible. They do not understand or relate to psychopaths. They don’t understand or relate to the criminal mind. They don’t understand or relate to people with no integrity. The utopianists believe their goal is so moral, so just, that it is OK to use immoral means to achieve it. Look at the Marxists. Look at the Nazis. Look at the Nazi Party platform. Who wouldn’t want to live in that Shangrila? Have you ever watched some of Goebbel’s films? They are the elites, the masterminds. It has always been that way. Our founders tried to devise a system to prevent it. They couldn’t. Republics always fail. The masterminds devour them.

    • Nate says:

      An insight into how Stephen arrives at his conspiracy laced conclusions.

    • Nate says:

      Stephen,

      “Do you understand Occams Razor about the simplest explanation?”

      True.

      Trump had a rough year with his Covid response, the economy, and protests.

      In the election: which is simpler?

      a. Trump got fewer (6 million) votes than Biden. He got fewer electoral votes than Biden.

      or

      b. There was a massive conspiracy by DEMS to steal the election, in multiple states, and somehow they did so without leaving evidence. Our election system failed in an unprecedented way.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        Nate,
        Democrats conspire all the time. They conspire much better than Republicans. The left is lock-step on the Supreme Court. They are lock-step in Congress. Their judges are lock-step with leftist ideology and thinking. To think that it is unreasonable to believe that Democrats in essentially five locations (Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Las Vegas, and Fulton County GA) could conspire is, well, unreasonable.

      • Nate says:

        “Democrats conspire all the time. They conspire much better than Republicans.”

        Uhhh…sure according to QANON.

        Anyway if theyre so good, howd they bugger up the Senate and House?

        Howd they do better than 2016 in so many suburbs in Michigan and Pa, but did worse in Detroit and Philly?

        That the ‘fraud’ took places they did worse in kindof boggles the mind.

        Again its the whole implausility of the many moving parts getting aligned, and the le lack of evidence thing.

        That should put a damper on your theories….

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          There isn’t “no evidence.” That’s the talking point the left keeps repeating. Many people have come forward and signed affidavits of fraud. There is a lack of evidence. The way the courts work, the Trump team will have to present enough evidence to show the evidence changed the election. That would take a very long time. As I said, Democrats are outstanding criminals. Republicans are gullible to assume the Democrats would play fair.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Please describe for us how it would be impossible for Democrats to conspire and commit election fraud? Not widespread fraud, but enough to win the election?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            How’d they bugger-up the Senate and the House? Are you a Brit? Figures. Why are you even here? A Brit would only be (here) arguing US politics and supporting Democrats because he is a Marxist. They buggered it up because, as I said, it wasn’t widespread. They found the most corrupt areas and operated in those locations. The Democrats are good criminals.

          • Nate says:

            Your theory is not falsifiable with ordinary facts and evidence.

            “use the same conspiracy theorist argument tactic, which is an example of conspiracy”

            This is similar to how Flat Earthers talk, Stephen.

          • Nate says:

            “They found the most corrupt areas and operated in those locations. The Democrats are good criminals.”

            The vote pattern fails to fit your theory in of fraud in those cities.

            The failure in Senate/House makes them bad criminals.

            But every contradictory fact somehow adds credence to the conspiracy.

            Again a Flat Earther standard.

          • Nate says:

            Not a Brit, but like Brit-coms, where things are often buggered up.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Again, your leftist talking points are unimaginative. Flat Earther, Conspiracy Theorist, these are common leftist talking points. Can’t you be a little more imaginative? If you’re so confident the election was not fraudulent, you should explain why it could not be fraudulent. Also, I think the left was caught off guard with the House and Senate. You know, they were all expecting a blue wave. I believe there were roughly 8 Democrat Senate seats but 25 Republican seats up for grabs. I know they assumed, and the media reported they’d pick up ten or twelve Senate seats, same with the House. I think that’s why they were caught off guard with the Presidential election too. It explains why they bungled and stopped the vote counting late at night (several states) and submitted many ballots with only the Biden Harris box checked.

          • Nate says:

            When you have a theory (check), and it involves an improbable conspiracy (check), and it fits your prior beliefs about nefarious forces at work (check), and it needs no real evidence for you to be absolutely sure its true (check), and countradictory facts/logic are considered part of the conspiracy (check), then Yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

            And yes, it is quite similar to Flat Earthers behaviors.

          • Nate says:

            “If youre so confident the election was not fraudulent, you should explain why it could not be fraudulent.”

            There can be election fraud, and there has been on small scales.

            Elections involve thousands of volunteers in thousands of counties, and state gov officials overseeing it, and checks by party observers.

            It is simply difficult and unlikely to organize many moving parts, many independent humans, to organize widespread fraud, while not being observed, and in this case several diverse states, some with Rep govts.

            THE US has lots of experience running secure elections. It is not, on the whole, a corrupt country like some others,

            And in this case, lacking evidence, there is no reason to believe it.

      • Nate says:

        “Democrats conspire all the time. They conspire much better than Republicans. The left is lock-step on the Supreme Court. They are lock-step in Congress. Their judges are lock-step with leftist ideology and thinking”

        Quite honestly, I think you are mixing up the parties.

        Trump/Mcconnel appointed 3 SCOTUS and 222 Federal judges in 4 y, 55.5/y.

        Obama 2 SCOTUS and 324 Federal in 8 years, 40.5/y.

        A well known saying is: “Im not a member of any organized party, Im a Democrat’

        • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

          Oh, come on, you are a Brit. You’re definitely not from here. Maybe La La Land. The Senate Democrats are always lock-step. The House too. Supreme Court too. Yes, they will fight amongst each other but never break rank.

        • Nate says:

          Where do you get your mis information?

          Right wing media? Which ones?

          They are all about feeding you red meat that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about your beliefs, and demonize everyone else. No journalistic ethics required.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Do you find it at all suspicious that Joe Biden won 78% of Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballots?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Is that suspicion just due to my Flat Earth brain?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Yup, the total vote was 50 percent, Biden, to 49 percent Trump, but Joe Biden won 78 percent of the mail-in votes. Not suspicious at all, according to Nate, and only suspicious due to my Flat Earth brain.

          • Nate says:

            No, not at all. There are clear facts and logic to explain it. Do you really not have a clue what those are?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Of course, logic, due to your non Flat Earth brain.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            It would have been awful if Biden had won only 75% of the mail-in vote. God must have been watching.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            I’m waiting for your logical explanation.

  34. barry says:

    Hey Gordon,

    Smartmatic devices were used only in Los Angeles. Here is the system (VSAP).

    https://www.smartmatic.com/case-studies/article/los-angeles-county-voting-solutions-for-all-people/

    If you search for the use of Smartmatic devices in the US, only Los Angeles gets the hit, with the VSAP.

    https://tinyurl.com/y2h57mbo

    The Trump campaign legal team never named the locations where they contended Smartmatic machines were used, never brought the matter into the courtroom, and the woman standing with Giuliani making the claims has now been disowned by Trump’s legal team. Trump had named her as part of his wonderful team of legal representatives, Giuliani introduced her as part of the team on stage less than a week ago, and stood by her side as she detailed the allegations you have swallowed, like a muppet. But now the Trump campaign is saying she is not part of the team, and is acting on her own.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55040756

    When her theories lack any evidence, when she gets the facts wrong, when the BBC, Fox and CNN all reject her claims, and the Trump campaign disowns her, what or who who is left to give her theories credibility?

    Answer: those for whom facts are not important.

  35. SnapeR says:

    A jackass says he will only accept the results of an election if he wins; then, after losing, cries fraud – and the minions lap it up.

    Unbelievable. Even someone as smart as Dr. Spencer.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJzt48wXbA

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape….”A jackass says he will only accept the results of an election if he wins; then, after losing, cries fraud and the minions lap it up”.

      This is typical of your inability to think clearly. I am sure Trump will accept the results once his legal options have been exhausted. The Democrats never did accept their loss, whining for 4 years about Russian collusion and trying everything to have Trump removed from office.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Judge Brann is described as fair and impartial (by Republican senator Pat Toomey)”.

    I don’t care what Toomey said, the judge revealed himself incapable of make an impartial decision when he claimed he would not hear an argument that would disenfranchise several million voters. Of course, he was referring to Democrat voters not the Republican voters who would have welcomed an impartial decision.

    What the heck difference does it make who is inconvenienced, the law is supposed to be about justice, not emotion?

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      Gordon,
      That’s a judge who doesn’t understand the Constitution. He believes voting is a right. He probably also believes health care is a right. Like Nate, our Brit friend who believes health care is a right. But, owning a firearm is not a right.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        Another climate skeptic who now also sees himself qualified to set aside court decisions with a stroke of a pen.

        So the American constitution has no provisions on the right to vote? The original constitution had no such provisions, but the constitutional amendments Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth presuppose the existence of such a right, and a number of court decisions from the 1960s clearly establish the principle of “one person, one vote.”

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          The 15th Amendment doesn’t grant anyone the right to vote. It only outlaws discrimination due to race with regards to voting rights. Again, the 19th Amendment doesn’t grant anyone the right to vote. It only prevents discrimination due to gender concerning voting rights. Same with the 26th amendment regarding age. There is no Constitutional right to vote. If there is, I missed it.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Rune,
            Also, you must be an outsider. There have been all kinds of unconstitutional court decisions.

          • Lewis Guignard says:

            Any number of court decisions which dismembered the limits on government the people agreed to as described by the Constitution.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Yes, the courts totally ignore the 10th Amendment unless they somehow see that it favors an activist cause.

  37. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    The only way to prove this election was fraudulent would be a forensic examination of the data. This will take months to years. However, the people know innately that there was something wrong with this election. The common anomalies in the battleground states were too implausible.

    • SHanslien says:

      Well, Trump told everyone months in advance that the election would be fraudulent unless he won. So when he lost the fraud is undeniable – according to his supporters. Unfortunately, his team of incompetent lawyers are unable to protect his obvious right to continue as president. Poor guy – it is really unfair!

    • Nate says:

      “fraudulent would be a forensic examination of the data. This will take months to years.”

      That will keep you guys angry for at least 4 years of fund raising!

    • Rune Valaker says:

      >>>However, the people know innately that there was something wrong with this election. The common anomalies in the battleground states were too implausible.

      So the people have a collective sense of complicated statistical models? It is conceivable that the people have this feeling because they have been carpet bombed with false allegations of election fraud.

      • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

        Rune,
        I suppose you are from somewhere besides the USA? Why are so many outsiders interested in the outcome of our election?

        • Nate says:

          “Usually the feeling is right, whether or not the person who knows it can describe why they know it.”

          Hmmm, what if other people have the opposite feelings? What to do?

          Maybe look at the evidence to decide.

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        Knowing anything about statistical analysis is not related to knowing something is wrong.

        Usually the feeling is right, whether or not the person who knows it can describe why they know it.

  38. SnapeR says:

    I have a feeling that privately, Trump knows he got his ass kicked in a fair election.

    Hurray for feelings!

Leave a Reply