-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
I have stated before that there are two different aspects and cases involving Russia and the last election. They should not be treated as one.
Russia DID try and influence the election. There was clear evidence that pointed in that direction that was investigated to find out more before any available court remedies were pursued. Cyber security monitoring companies compiled a lot of evidence on traffic and handed it over. There was a smoking gun not just a suspicion.
Then there is the separate (but partly related) aspect of whether there was any collusion by republicans/Trump campaign officials and family with Russia that was illegal. This was not unfounded either as the investigations uncovered many lies about contacts with Russia that raised warranted suspicion. The evidence was clear that contact happened (and was lied about) but not conclusive enough to meet a high threshold of taking it to court.
So all of that worked exactly along the lines I was explaining about the 'observer' questions. First there should be evidential grounds to investigate, then a proof threshold before prosecutions/court.
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense (unless it relates to this election). Can we please focus on this election
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
I have stated before that there are two different aspects and cases involving Russia and the last election. They should not be treated as one.
Russia DID try and influence the election. There was clear evidence that pointed in that direction that was investigated to find out more before any available court remedies were pursued. Cyber security monitoring companies compiled a lot of evidence on traffic and handed it over. There was a smoking gun not just a suspicion.
Then there is the separate (but partly related) aspect of whether there was any collusion by republicans/Trump campaign officials and family with Russia that was illegal. This was not unfounded either as the investigations uncovered many lies about contacts with Russia that raised warranted suspicion. The evidence was clear that contact happened (and was lied about) but not conclusive enough to meet a high threshold of taking it to court.
So all of that worked exactly along the lines I was explaining about the 'observer' questions. First there should be evidential grounds to investigate, then a proof threshold before prosecutions/court.
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense.
Tends to happen when reality doesn't meet expectation.
As for the Georgia example, you do realise that the management of the election there is being run by Republicans? It isn't unusual for people, especially swing voters to spread their vote especially if they actually think their Senator is doing a good job. Many voters also believe in the concept of the three branches of government balancing out extremes so vote accordingly.
But still, everything you state is suspicions, not evidence.
By the way no one is stating that there won't be some irregularities somewhere. It even happens in NZ. Independent studies though have shown that if you take all possibilities together (and not just cherrypick the ones you don't like) there is no material effect.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial ummm, so would you mind if there was an investigation of electoral fraud through official processes?
No, not if there was some evidence that made an investigation rather than the investigation being solely a fishing expedition.
Has to be something other than suspicions to kick things off
-
Oh, one last thing.
When counts are very close it is standard to do a recount just to double check some of the possible irregularities that may have slipped through.Georgia is very likely to have a recount by standard process. No toy throwing or courts required.
-
@Crucial Wait a minute, everything is a suscpician in every court case for anything - until it is presented as evidence in a court of law.
Suscipion of theft, assault, rape, arson, etc
By your standard there needn't be anything taken to court ever
Why such reticence to follow through on a tenet of democracy - "entitled to your day in court"?
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense (unless it relates to this election). Can we please focus on this election
I'm trying to keep up weren't we talking about the primaries a second ago? Can we please focus on this election?
-
Favourite moment so far..
Judge to trumps lawyers when they made a claim about observers being present.
‘How many republican observers were present in the room?Trump lawyer
‘There is a non zero number of people in the room’
Non zero = new alternate facts
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Dead people
This is actually quite funny. Yes they should update the rolls, but the concept of everybody that receives a ballot that isn't theirs and then using it to vote...really?
Surely it's also really easy to check and correct. They know who the dead people are - see if they voted FFS, check the graves see if they escaped the reaper.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
Dead people
This is actually quite funny. Yes they should update the rolls, but the concept of everybody that receives a ballot that isn't theirs and then using it to vote...really?
Surely it's also really easy to check and correct. They know who the dead people are - see if they voted FFS, check the graves see if they escaped the reaper.
Lots of rechecking/recounting coming in a few states?
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
Lots of rechecking/recounting coming in a few states?
Probably, but I really doubt that the Zombie vote is going to change much overall.
A dead Republican won a state legislature seat in North Dakota so if anything I can only assume the zombie vote skews conservative.
-
@rotated said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
Lots of rechecking/recounting coming in a few states?
Probably, but I really doubt that the Zombie vote is going to change much overall.
A dead Republican won a state legislature seat in North Dakota so if anything I can only assume the zombie vote skews conservative.
It was corona virus too wasn't it?
Some sort of irony there, given Trumps corona actions and that he was GOP.Dead people voting is hilarious.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wait a minute, everything is a suscpician in every court case for anything - until it is presented as evidence in a court of law.
Suscipion of theft, assault, rape, arson, etc
By your standard there needn't be anything taken to court ever
Why such reticence to follow through on a tenet of democracy - "entitled to your day in court"?
Not much gets to court based on suspicion and not everything gets beyond a cursory investigation to find evidence.
“I suspect John has been murdered because I haven’t seen him lately” rarely warrants a full murder investigation whereas “There is blood all over the walls in John’s house” does.
All I am asking for is some stronger evidence of wrongdoing than a mere suspicion.
I think a non-zero amount of observers may agree with me. -
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial you're scared of an investigation aren't you?
Hardly. I have said all along that if there is evidence of wrongdoing that warrants an investigation then that should be done.
What I have commented on is that I have not seen or heard of one shred of evidence that warrants an investigation on the scale some are calling for.
In a tight result like Georgia the standard process is to do a recount and the examples that are being used of irregularities are ones that have been picked up as part of the standard process.
To try and draw a straight line from anecdotal evidence to a widespread systematic fraud is nutcase stuff.
The claims are being laughed out of court as shown above. “Non-zero”! Do these folk have no shame?
US Politics