Perhaps you are wrong on both counts. Could you perhaps give a quote from Trump to clarify your point?
And when you say that I "choose not to admit it," you appear to be saying that you choose to BELIEVE that Trump lost. We can talk through the relevant evidence if you want.
My assessment, which I've stated before, is that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. Whether he stole the election from Trump is a different question, and I haven't said that he did.
Give it up John. Pravda does not pay well enough to post lies and disinformation here and your BS will not affect people's thinking here.
Perhaps you should be posting to the Wall Street Journal's opinion "discussion" page where the weak minded who have no critical thinking skills will drink up your Russian propaganda?
Weak. Poorly written. False.
But your stuff is all legal to post here. Unlike in Russia where your money is coming from.
Good morning, Mike S--I'm not sure he is paid (might be) as much as I think his rants are the posts of an adult who was bullied as a child and somehow lives in a mind that thinks he is superior. He occasionally posts something written somewhat rationally, then if he gets blowback, he resorts to calling everyone "thugs" or my favorite "thugly"!! (LOL)
I know that he gets reported to the administrators here ALL.THE.TIME, and yet they don't remove him. I know they DO look at the reports--other trolls HAVE been removed over the years, thanks due to forum here. I wonder WHY the admin is watching him and not removing him? That thought ought to electrify his tin hat--why I can almost smell the sizzle already.
I usually ignore him, but I don't read his posts, but IF I see people reply to him and he resorts to his juvenile name calling, I make SURE to report each and every one of his posts. He'll get barred eventually. (Or the FBI show up at his door?) :-D
Miselle, all good points about Platform hygiene. I was directed to "The Economist" 11/26/22 Edition for a summary of Foreign state Troll tactics:
"Russian Trolls and foreign-language [Russian] state media have pumped out a flood of outrageous & contradictory lies to Western audiences hoping to undermine public confidence that no one is telling the truth" not to mention specificly targeted audiences like the Catalan conflict in Spain. I am engaged with Substack Inc on posting of "ru" state propaganda and personal attacks on Substack that may be considered civil wrongs commonly called torts like defamation. More later.
Jen, the Publisher, Substack Inc has obligations to "Readers & Authors", ALL the Authors. I do appreciate the efforts of some "LFAA Admins". More later.
So being told by his advisors/lawyers in the White House that he lost, and losing court case after court case, doesn't count with you? On what basis do you believe he won and why do you continue to defend him?
Ann W, you falsely state that I "believe" that Trump won. And those court cases never proceeded to the "discovery" phase, which would have given Trump subpoena power to dig up evidence. There's more to it...
You also falsely state that I "defend" Trump. You act like an apprentice Spin Doctor.
John, the cases were thrown out because none of them met the prima facie threshhold of any facts. No facts. Nothing but allegations. The Rules of Evidence require authentication of claimed facts. The proponents had NONE. That's how bad their claims were.
A lot of them were thrown together haphazardly, with little time. For a few of them, it was a judgment call by the judge, perhaps affected by pressure or bias. Can a judge safely ignore hard-to-imagine statistical improbabilities?
I remember reading that one case actually did get to discovery but then I haven't heard anything, but haven't been paying attention.
Trump's "holy grail" was the internal records of the computerized voting machines, but there were also reported irregularities, together with statistical improbabilities, in the six swing states with mail-in balloting.
I suspect that there was also an intelligence-related source that Trump could not make public.
I live in one of those states, and I can assure you that they were rejected here by a Republican judge because they had zero legal basis for filing. They literally had zero evidence to back up their claim. There had been a ton of audits done and they still had no evidence. If you canтАЩt find a legal basis for your lawsuit, your lawsuit canтАЩt continue.
The big thing here was the supposed lie that trump voters were kept out from observing the votes. ThatтАЩs not what happened but itтАЩs what I hear from them. What happened is that the people denied entrance to the venue in Detroit werenтАЩt trained or acknowledged by the R party. Before you can even watch votes, you need to have training. To be in absentee which is what this was, you need to be trained by your county, period. To challenge votes, you should be trained by your party or else youтАЩll be ineffective.
There are rules for absentee that are universal. If you go in, you donтАЩt leave until the vote is counted. Workers, challengers, poll watchers - youтАЩre locked in.
And once the counting starts, no one is let in.
They demanded to be let in, after the counting had started. ThatтАЩs illegal. They had zero training. There were already legitimate republicans in there as poll watchers, challengers, and counters. Those republicans were more MAGA than RINO.
DoesnтАЩt matter though because one group of very loud, very disruptive idiots captured the R news cycle. It made perfect material, and absolutely none of what I said was mentioned. We both know why.
In MI, Those irregularities existed because it took DAYS to go through the ballots.
ThereтАЩs a ballpark idea for every election, but absentee in big cities always takes days.
If someone wants to claim fraud, it goes to the countyтАЩs board of canvassers. Those people are elected by their party for the terms. Like with absentee, thereтАЩs an equal number of Dems and Republicans.
They focused on тАЬdominionтАЭ voting machines here. IтАЩve used them for many years and I started working elections in 2008. ItтАЩs pretty damn hard to rig those. IтАЩll go into it -
Michigan legally canтАЩt count ballots until the day of the election. Which is why it takes so long to count. Each ballot when it is mailed to the clerk gets counted. ItтАЩs marked on the outside envelope.
So first two people count the ballots together. One dem and one republican. You count them in batches, and you count until you get the right number per precinct. ThatтАЩs done by the clerk when they are mailed in, so thereтАЩs already a known number of how many came in.
So then once the number is reached, and correct, the ballots are fed into the machine. The machine then counts them, and the votes are tallied on a piece of paper that the machine spits out. Sometimes the ballot wonтАЩt be read, so we send it through multiple times. Sometimes ballots are spoiled because people donтАЩt know how to actually vote. This happens way more often than people think. ItтАЩs important to know the laws. If itтАЩs a primary, you canтАЩt cross parties, and people often do that.
Sometimes more people come out to vote, so that can make it look irregular. In MI, that particular election also had abortion access on the ballot. It drove many who donтАЩt usually vote to come out.
So the votes are then counted to make sure they match. If a ballot is particularly clear as far as the vote box, two people will check it and decide. Overseas ballots are checked as well, from our military.
Those are all kept in a book. Every thing we do is written down.
The voting machines are pretty hard to hack, theyтАЩre literally the most basic scantron machines. ThereтАЩs no fancy computer tech.
In MI, also, that year was the first year that we did anytime absentee access. So the amount of absentee ballots went up because anyone could get access to a ballot, as opposed to before where it was just people who could qualify.
My point is that this stuff is a distraction with no legal basis. ItтАЩs pretty rare that people in the US actually volunteer to work the polls. Which means the vast majority of people will believe absolutely absurd claims because they donтАЩt know otherwise, and nothing I have said here is ever explained on the news or in those articles.
I originally did absentee because I wanted to know if it was easy to rig the vote. I can assure you, itтАЩs not.
I have have often thought of becoming a poll worker, because I want to learn what goes on behind the scenes, as well as giving something to the community. If I could only keep a fixed address long enough to have a current voter registration...
From your experience, you might have a perspective on the book "Votescam," which I mentioned in a reply on another thread:
I just bookmarked this so I can read it. IтАЩll get back to you after!
For what itтАЩs worth, in most states you can register to vote up until the Election Day. As long as you are registered somewhere, you should be able to work the polls.
Many towns desperately need people, especially with the influx of people threatening workers. You donтАЩt have to live in the town you work the polls. You do have to live in the state that the polls are in.
Your county clerk keeps a list of people who would like to work, as well as the township.
I donтАЩt know if any of this applies to you currently, but perhaps some day it will!
Trump has admitted publicly he lost, but you still choose not to admit it.
Dula Neyer Baker,
Perhaps you are wrong on both counts. Could you perhaps give a quote from Trump to clarify your point?
And when you say that I "choose not to admit it," you appear to be saying that you choose to BELIEVE that Trump lost. We can talk through the relevant evidence if you want.
My assessment, which I've stated before, is that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. Whether he stole the election from Trump is a different question, and I haven't said that he did.
Give it up John. Pravda does not pay well enough to post lies and disinformation here and your BS will not affect people's thinking here.
Perhaps you should be posting to the Wall Street Journal's opinion "discussion" page where the weak minded who have no critical thinking skills will drink up your Russian propaganda?
Weak. Poorly written. False.
But your stuff is all legal to post here. Unlike in Russia where your money is coming from.
Good morning, Mike S--I'm not sure he is paid (might be) as much as I think his rants are the posts of an adult who was bullied as a child and somehow lives in a mind that thinks he is superior. He occasionally posts something written somewhat rationally, then if he gets blowback, he resorts to calling everyone "thugs" or my favorite "thugly"!! (LOL)
I know that he gets reported to the administrators here ALL.THE.TIME, and yet they don't remove him. I know they DO look at the reports--other trolls HAVE been removed over the years, thanks due to forum here. I wonder WHY the admin is watching him and not removing him? That thought ought to electrify his tin hat--why I can almost smell the sizzle already.
I usually ignore him, but I don't read his posts, but IF I see people reply to him and he resorts to his juvenile name calling, I make SURE to report each and every one of his posts. He'll get barred eventually. (Or the FBI show up at his door?) :-D
Miselle, all good points about Platform hygiene. I was directed to "The Economist" 11/26/22 Edition for a summary of Foreign state Troll tactics:
"Russian Trolls and foreign-language [Russian] state media have pumped out a flood of outrageous & contradictory lies to Western audiences hoping to undermine public confidence that no one is telling the truth" not to mention specificly targeted audiences like the Catalan conflict in Spain. I am engaged with Substack Inc on posting of "ru" state propaganda and personal attacks on Substack that may be considered civil wrongs commonly called torts like defamation. More later.
Thank you, Bryan!
I don't mind differences of opinion, and I learn a lot from people who post on here. He is not one of them.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-9-2023/comment/22147974
ItтАЩs nice of Heather to let you continue to post absolute bullshit on her pages. I wouldnтАЩt be so nice.
Jen, the Publisher, Substack Inc has obligations to "Readers & Authors", ALL the Authors. I do appreciate the efforts of some "LFAA Admins". More later.
Jen Andrews,
lin gave a response to my developing presentation of my assessment that contains a lot of food for thought, here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-9-2023/comment/22147663
So being told by his advisors/lawyers in the White House that he lost, and losing court case after court case, doesn't count with you? On what basis do you believe he won and why do you continue to defend him?
Ann W, you falsely state that I "believe" that Trump won. And those court cases never proceeded to the "discovery" phase, which would have given Trump subpoena power to dig up evidence. There's more to it...
You also falsely state that I "defend" Trump. You act like an apprentice Spin Doctor.
John, the cases were thrown out because none of them met the prima facie threshhold of any facts. No facts. Nothing but allegations. The Rules of Evidence require authentication of claimed facts. The proponents had NONE. That's how bad their claims were.
Richard Sutherland, lin gave a response to my developing presentation of my assessment that contains a lot of food for thought, here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-9-2023/comment/22147663
And why did the court cases not proceed to the "discovery" phase? Reading your posts is like rereading Alice in Wonderland.
A lot of them were thrown together haphazardly, with little time. For a few of them, it was a judgment call by the judge, perhaps affected by pressure or bias. Can a judge safely ignore hard-to-imagine statistical improbabilities?
I remember reading that one case actually did get to discovery but then I haven't heard anything, but haven't been paying attention.
Trump's "holy grail" was the internal records of the computerized voting machines, but there were also reported irregularities, together with statistical improbabilities, in the six swing states with mail-in balloting.
I suspect that there was also an intelligence-related source that Trump could not make public.
PLEASE remove this troll!
What a thing to say.
I live in one of those states, and I can assure you that they were rejected here by a Republican judge because they had zero legal basis for filing. They literally had zero evidence to back up their claim. There had been a ton of audits done and they still had no evidence. If you canтАЩt find a legal basis for your lawsuit, your lawsuit canтАЩt continue.
The big thing here was the supposed lie that trump voters were kept out from observing the votes. ThatтАЩs not what happened but itтАЩs what I hear from them. What happened is that the people denied entrance to the venue in Detroit werenтАЩt trained or acknowledged by the R party. Before you can even watch votes, you need to have training. To be in absentee which is what this was, you need to be trained by your county, period. To challenge votes, you should be trained by your party or else youтАЩll be ineffective.
There are rules for absentee that are universal. If you go in, you donтАЩt leave until the vote is counted. Workers, challengers, poll watchers - youтАЩre locked in.
And once the counting starts, no one is let in.
They demanded to be let in, after the counting had started. ThatтАЩs illegal. They had zero training. There were already legitimate republicans in there as poll watchers, challengers, and counters. Those republicans were more MAGA than RINO.
DoesnтАЩt matter though because one group of very loud, very disruptive idiots captured the R news cycle. It made perfect material, and absolutely none of what I said was mentioned. We both know why.
If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the effort expended by the Trump team on lawsuits was, as you say, to keep the issue in the news cycle.
What impressed me at the time was the statistical irregularities in the voting patterns in big cities with mail-in balloting and those without.
In MI, Those irregularities existed because it took DAYS to go through the ballots.
ThereтАЩs a ballpark idea for every election, but absentee in big cities always takes days.
If someone wants to claim fraud, it goes to the countyтАЩs board of canvassers. Those people are elected by their party for the terms. Like with absentee, thereтАЩs an equal number of Dems and Republicans.
They focused on тАЬdominionтАЭ voting machines here. IтАЩve used them for many years and I started working elections in 2008. ItтАЩs pretty damn hard to rig those. IтАЩll go into it -
Michigan legally canтАЩt count ballots until the day of the election. Which is why it takes so long to count. Each ballot when it is mailed to the clerk gets counted. ItтАЩs marked on the outside envelope.
So first two people count the ballots together. One dem and one republican. You count them in batches, and you count until you get the right number per precinct. ThatтАЩs done by the clerk when they are mailed in, so thereтАЩs already a known number of how many came in.
So then once the number is reached, and correct, the ballots are fed into the machine. The machine then counts them, and the votes are tallied on a piece of paper that the machine spits out. Sometimes the ballot wonтАЩt be read, so we send it through multiple times. Sometimes ballots are spoiled because people donтАЩt know how to actually vote. This happens way more often than people think. ItтАЩs important to know the laws. If itтАЩs a primary, you canтАЩt cross parties, and people often do that.
Sometimes more people come out to vote, so that can make it look irregular. In MI, that particular election also had abortion access on the ballot. It drove many who donтАЩt usually vote to come out.
So the votes are then counted to make sure they match. If a ballot is particularly clear as far as the vote box, two people will check it and decide. Overseas ballots are checked as well, from our military.
Those are all kept in a book. Every thing we do is written down.
The voting machines are pretty hard to hack, theyтАЩre literally the most basic scantron machines. ThereтАЩs no fancy computer tech.
In MI, also, that year was the first year that we did anytime absentee access. So the amount of absentee ballots went up because anyone could get access to a ballot, as opposed to before where it was just people who could qualify.
My point is that this stuff is a distraction with no legal basis. ItтАЩs pretty rare that people in the US actually volunteer to work the polls. Which means the vast majority of people will believe absolutely absurd claims because they donтАЩt know otherwise, and nothing I have said here is ever explained on the news or in those articles.
I originally did absentee because I wanted to know if it was easy to rig the vote. I can assure you, itтАЩs not.
Cor,
I have have often thought of becoming a poll worker, because I want to learn what goes on behind the scenes, as well as giving something to the community. If I could only keep a fixed address long enough to have a current voter registration...
From your experience, you might have a perspective on the book "Votescam," which I mentioned in a reply on another thread:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-10-2023/comment/22237439
Hi John,
I just bookmarked this so I can read it. IтАЩll get back to you after!
For what itтАЩs worth, in most states you can register to vote up until the Election Day. As long as you are registered somewhere, you should be able to work the polls.
Many towns desperately need people, especially with the influx of people threatening workers. You donтАЩt have to live in the town you work the polls. You do have to live in the state that the polls are in.
Your county clerk keeps a list of people who would like to work, as well as the township.
I donтАЩt know if any of this applies to you currently, but perhaps some day it will!