• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. attorney in Georgia: ‘There’s just nothing to’ claims of election fraud

SimpleTom said:
They did an investigation. That is the truth that you need to ignore on your quest to get what you want. You are not asking for an investigation, you are asking for an investigation that you like. Every credible accusation of fraud was investigated and a report was issued. If you read the court filings what you find is plenty of tertiary investigations on top of primary and secondary assurance methods.

In reality, vote counting is over-assured.

I suspect this will be controversial to people who don't understand election security and fraud prevention, but it really isn't that controversial. We prevent fraud by increasing the number of people who are required to commit and hide fraud. We have found that multiple people, even if all the required people would commit fraud individually, are very unlikely to collude to commit fraud. Corporations generally consider collusion risk properly controlled when it requires three people to commit and hide fraud. People have access to tens of millions of dollars in cash with three levels of fraud protection. Vote counting protections take that exponentially farther. The collusion ring would have to be large enough that it is well beyond unlikely.

So your solution to protect elections that currently require dozens of people colluding in a coordinated effort in order to defeat is to trust one guy who your propaganda source of choice managed to find. If Democrats were asking for that same thing how would you respond?
Click to expand...
Goodness me, a simple investigation that wasn't a stitch up was all that was required..... and it's now too late, you need third world tactics, tanks and soldiers on the street, while malitias match fully armed, waiting for a spark in the powder keg!
 
Crakhobarbie said:
Donald's pathetic excuse for "evidence" was seen in MULTIPLE Federal courts. Every single court found it lacking in merit. Not only was it lacking in merit, the judges called it " gossip" and "innuendo"... What's it going to take for you to understand that the evidence presented by Donald and his minions was so lacking in merit that it was laughed out of court?
Click to expand...
Christ..... forget Donald, the millions of American voters, how about their right..... a full unfettered investigation, not just because you said so!
 
Highlanders said:
Goodness me, a simple investigation that wasn't a stitch up was all that was required..... and it's now too late, you need third world tactics, tanks and soldiers on the street, while malitias match fully armed, waiting for a spark in the powder keg!
Click to expand...
They did an investigation in fact, multiple investigations. If a simple investigation is all that was required then why are you conveniently ignoring multiple investigations?
 
Highlanders said:
Wrong, each vote is changed to a fraction, as for Russian hackers..... you should start your post, once upon a time, a fairy......
Click to expand...
What in the actual fu** are you talking about? You are actually attempting to describe the plot of Office Space as a way to steal elections...
This is sad.
 
This is actually funny.

Here is a test for you... which is the most likely.

A devisive candidate whose support numbers were never really strong lost a relatively close election.

A massive conspiracy involving hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people was implemented to defeat a devisive candidate whose support numbers were never really strong.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe the Democrats were organized and financed well enough to pull off the conspiracy but too stupid to realize they could have gotten more votes by dumping those resources into campaigning.
 
Highlanders said:
www.shutterstock.com

Beautiful Fairy Silhouette Stock Vector (Royalty Free) 1312279727 | Shutterstock

Find Beautiful Fairy Silhouette stock images in HD and millions of other royalty-free stock photos, illustrations and vectors in the Shutterstock collection. Thousands of new, high-quality pictures added every day.
www.shutterstock.com www.shutterstock.com

www.sott.net

Second video revealed of Dominion Voting System's Eric Coomer explaining to elections officials how to switch votes -- Sott.net

Dr. Eric Coomer who is responsible for the strategy and Security of Dominion Voting Systems at Dominion Voting Systems. But if you search the company's profile Eric Coomer has since been removed from their page of directors.
www.sott.net www.sott.net
Click to expand...

Nothing in there about fractions. go back to your talking points email and get the other link they sent you.
 
Highlanders said:
www.sott.net

Second video revealed of Dominion Voting System's Eric Coomer explaining to elections officials how to switch votes -- Sott.net

Dr. Eric Coomer who is responsible for the strategy and Security of Dominion Voting Systems at Dominion Voting Systems. But if you search the company's profile Eric Coomer has since been removed from their page of directors.
www.sott.net www.sott.net
Click to expand...

you might wish to read this...

 
pamak said:
And?

We know what the Supreme Court of PA said,

WE are talking about the Supreme Court of the US!

And I also reminded you that the ballots in question were around 10,000 while Biden won in the state by more than 40,000 votes.
Click to expand...
The USSC was deadlocked at 4 each on a stay in the PA case.
I don't care how manty votes the difference was.
 
bubbabgone said:
The USSC was deadlocked at 4 each on a stay in the PA case.
I don't care how manty votes the difference was.
Click to expand...

Did you actualy READ what you said about Alito's opinion annd what the link said?

READ THE LINK!

Allitos' opinion was shared by only two other judges.


Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join.

What you read (but FAILED tgo understand) was that the " 4 each deadlock" that he mentions THIS statement does not lead to the assumption that what he says is shared by four other judges.

A month ago, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Senate leaders asked this Court to stay the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari...

Respondent, Democratic Party of Pennsylvania (DPP), agreed that the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision was a matter of national importance and urged us to grant review and to decide the issue before the election

Instead of doing what either party sought, the Court simply denied the stay. Although there were four votes to enter a stay, the application failed by an equally divided vote.

So, when you quote Alito saying IN THIS STATEMENT " That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. ", this does NOT mean that it is is the opinion of 4 judges tha there is anything unconstitutional with the PA Supreme court decision!
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
Did you actualy READ what you said about Alito's opinion annd what the link said?

READ THE LINK!

Allitos' opinion was shared by only two other judges.


Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join.

What you read (but FAILED tgo understand) was that the " 4 each deadlock" that he mentions THIS statement does not lead to the assumption that what he says is shared by four other judges.

A month ago, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Senate leaders asked this Court to stay the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari...

Respondent, Democratic Party of Pennsylvania (DPP), agreed that the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision was a matter of national importance and urged us to grant review and to decide the issue before the election

Instead of doing what either party sought, the Court simply denied the stay. Although there were four votes to enter a stay, the application failed by an equally divided vote.

So, when you quote Alito saying IN THIS STATEMENT " That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. ", this does NOT mean that it is is the opinion of 4 judges tha there is anything unconstitutional with the PA Supreme court decision!
Click to expand...
Your bold and colorful choices of type notwithstanding, are you suggesting by your disjointed commentary that those 4 SC Justices are not on record for granting the stay?
4 Justices would have granted the stay. 4 wouldn't. The stay wasn't granted. Maybe you don't believe there were 4.
It's difficult to imagine you think 4 Justices would have granted a stay for something they saw as likely Constitutional if implemented but I guess that's the corner you've put yourself in.
 
Highlanders said:
www.shutterstock.com

Beautiful Fairy Silhouette Stock Vector (Royalty Free) 1312279727 | Shutterstock

Find Beautiful Fairy Silhouette stock images in HD and millions of other royalty-free stock photos, illustrations and vectors in the Shutterstock collection. Thousands of new, high-quality pictures added every day.
www.shutterstock.com www.shutterstock.com

www.sott.net

Second video revealed of Dominion Voting System's Eric Coomer explaining to elections officials how to switch votes -- Sott.net

Dr. Eric Coomer who is responsible for the strategy and Security of Dominion Voting Systems at Dominion Voting Systems. But if you search the company's profile Eric Coomer has since been removed from their page of directors.
www.sott.net www.sott.net
Click to expand...
You have no idea how funny that is!
 
Ontologuy said:
There's actually a wolf in 2020 -- it was witnessed by many, many, many people, and documented in the media.

Denial of the reality of the massive 2020 election fraud is made possible because of a hole in the Constitution that prevents all but state legislatures and a "request" by Congress for investigation/audit from uncovering the fraud.

When BLM no longer rules America, then there's a chance retroactively to reexamine all the ballots and policy in the relevant swing states.

Until then, the Democrats got away with cheating.

That will stick in the craw of a lot of right wingers, some of whom will not rest until justice is done.
Click to expand...
No there wasn't a wolf at all, just night terrors of an immature megalomaniac who doesn't like to lose and is more than willing to lie about it and has others around him more than willing to lie as well so that he believes he won.

lawandcrime.com

Bill Barr Apparently Told Trump the Stolen Election Lie Was a 'Bullsh*t' Theory That He Could Not 'F***ing Figure Out'

Former Attorney General Bill Barr announced his resignation roughly two weeks after he revealed that he had 1) appointed John Durham as special counsel and 2) told the Associated Press that that the Department of Justice had found no evidence to support the "Kraken" conspiracy theory that the...
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com
 
GolfingChef said:
Yes, Alito said that, the rest of the court did not agree. That is how it works. Also, it is interesting that after the election Alito did not choose to reexamine this, wonder why that is.

So, again why only the focus on Pennsylvania when NC did the exact same thing? If you truly cared about this from a legal stand point the the discussion would be about more than just Pennsylvania.

And they are not the only two states, Alabama, ND and Alaska at a minimum did so also...

yet all that anyone cares about are the "swing states".

Just admit you do not give a flying **** about the law and only care about the outcome of this one election.
Click to expand...
You can bet that NC would have been included had we had a few thousand more votes for Biden and less for Trump so that Biden won our state too.
 
Ontologuy said:
Evidence of election fraud was witnessed by many, many, many people, documented, and disseminated in the professional and social media.

But due to Constitutional restrictions, as I'm sure you know, the executive, Trump, could not bring these to trial .. nor was such hearsay evidence acceptable to judges who knew as well that the President couldn't bring action against a state about an election.

Any judge who said "insufficient evidence" was both technically correct and judicially inaccurate, as even if an authorized investigation/audit had taken place by court-credible entities then those judges would have said sorry, only Congress and state legislatures can address the matter.

Your error is not accepting that there were judicially inaccurate responses that might have been issued.

Saying that the evidence was insufficient doesn't mean election fraud didn't occur, it simply means the presentation of evidence was inadequate.

I know you want to imagine that the likely massive election fraud is a "conspiracy theory", but it simply isn't. I understand you likely watch mainstream media, which never presented the documented media information on eyewitness accounts of the election fraud. But, likewise, you probably think the BLM bullying, rioting, looting, assault, and murder throughout the summer never happened, because mainstream media didn't present it all.

Sadly, the media you watch may have largely contributed to your ignorance here.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. This is a fantasy that does not fit with the evidence that we actually have concerning allegations of election fraud.
 
Ontologuy said:
Agreed with respect to their conspiracy theories of QAnon, Deep State, the virus is a hoax, etc.

But those on the right who succumb to these conspiracy theories have a psycho-pathological predisposition to so suffering from them.

Likewise, those on the left who succumb to BLM's conspiracy theory of "structural"/"institutional"/"systemic" racism exists and is rampant throughout capitalist countries and their police force, and who buy everything BLM says, such as "there is no election fraud", they succumb to these conspiracy theories because they have a psycho-pathological predisposition to so suffering from them ..

And if only the left wing was actually motivated by reality (to distance itself from the BLM cult), the world would really be such a better place.
Click to expand...
I can find witnesses who will swear they have seen and interacted with ghosts or aliens. More so even than those who claim election fraud. Doesn't make them right or their "eyewitness" accounts as credible.
 
bubbabgone said:
Any state that violated their own election laws should be brought up short before the next election(s).
Kavanaugh mentioned NC and he was right.
I don't really care how suspicious anyone gets because I didn't cover every accusation of election fraud in every State.
They should worry about why they're defending it all.
This is serious stuff.
Click to expand...
Alito stated he would not have granted the requested relief in the Texas case eventhough he believed the SCOTUS should hear it. That tells us that he does not agree that Trump won nor would he have granted relief that overturned millions, tens of millions of votes for the benefit of Trump/his supporters.
 
bubbabgone said:
Your bold and colorful choices of type notwithstanding, are you suggesting by your disjointed commentary that those 4 SC Justices are not on record for granting the stay?
4 Justices would have granted the stay. 4 wouldn't. The stay wasn't granted. Maybe you don't believe there were 4.
It's difficult to imagine you think 4 Justices would have granted a stay for something they saw as likely Constitutional if implemented but I guess that's the corner you've put yourself in.
Click to expand...

I did not say that (red by me in your quote for emphasis).

I am suggesting (actually said it but you failed to get it) that you should not ASSUME that all those who would have granted the stay would have done so because they agreed with Alito's comment as you cited that " ... there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. "
As I showed to you, only two other judges joined Alito's comments, so you just make things up! There is NO record of 4 judges agreeing with Alito's comment about the likehood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom