News

Whom will win the US election?

Discussion in 'Australia' started by carl888, Nov 2, 2020.

?

Whom will win the US election?

  1. Biden

    15 vote(s)
    32.6%
  2. Trump

    25 vote(s)
    54.3%
  3. Moretti

    6 vote(s)
    13.0%
  1. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    GA Recount Voter Fraud

    https://nationalfile.com/sworn-affidavits-georgia-recount-plagued-by-potential-voter-fraud-ballot-tampering/

    Another observer, this time at the Cobb County Poll Precinct and who identified herself as a Democrat, noted how she saw poll workers counting the ballots in silence and not verifying the names aloud. This constituted improper ballot handling.

    She also described unusual sets of ballots as the poll manager in Fulton County had described.

    In sworn testimony, the observer said, “hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable, with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made (all within the circle), only observed sections in black ink, and all happened to be selections for Biden.”

    The observer continued to testify that “signatures were not being verified” and there “were no corresponding envelopes seen in site.” She concluded her sworn statement, “I believe there was fraud committed in the presidential election and question the validity of the Georgia recount process.”
     

    Attached Files:

    greg328 likes this.
  4. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
     
  5. Ferraridoc

    Ferraridoc F1 Veteran

    Jun 20, 2012
    8,445
    Gold Coast, Aust.
    Full Name:
    Patrick
    I'm afraid that fraud will be proven, but the results will not be reversed, and Biden will win anyway. They're running out of time...
     
  6. Arvin Grajau

    Arvin Grajau Five Time F1 World Champ

    Jun 7, 2006
    55,491
    Full Name:
    Arvin Grajau
    Biden is in front by 4 million votes? They would have won anyway ,but its a tainted win and will be shadow over him and the evil Harris.
     
    greg328 likes this.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
  9. IanB

    IanB F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jun 15, 2006
    12,887
    Sydney
    Like many people, you confuse the popular vote with the electoral college.

    Dems win the popular vote because a handful of the most populist states are their strongjolds.
     
    MrGrigio likes this.
  10. Arvin Grajau

    Arvin Grajau Five Time F1 World Champ

    Jun 7, 2006
    55,491
    Full Name:
    Arvin Grajau
    I'm well aware of that Ian ,as its often what pro Democrats were saying when Trumpy beat the Clinton woman . My reply was often take NYC and S.F and L.A out of the popular vote and Trump would have won popular vote as well as college vote.
     
    MrGrigio likes this.
  11. kerrari

    kerrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 22, 2004
    15,296
    Coolum Beach, AUSTRALIA
    Full Name:
    Karen H.
    Please explain how if fraud was proved the results wouldn’t be reversed? And please not ‘the establishment is all against Trump’ - some actual facts.

    The current ‘facts’ are that not one case of alleged fraud has even been LODGED by Trumps team! Lots of noise, but not a single case whee his lawyers have stood in court and used the ‘f’ word.
     
    Its328 likes this.
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. kerrari

    kerrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 22, 2004
    15,296
    Coolum Beach, AUSTRALIA
    Full Name:
    Karen H.
    And Donald won (and most likely will lose) in exactly the same manner - FL and PA are the key.

    The actual ‘division’ between red and blue in the US is pure demographics - city (dem) vs rural (rep). Drill down into each Sate stats - even the Alabama cities vote blue!
     
  14. Ferraridoc

    Ferraridoc F1 Veteran

    Jun 20, 2012
    8,445
    Gold Coast, Aust.
    Full Name:
    Patrick
    I said "will be" - future tense - I don't have to prove anything. Be patient, it ain't over 'til it's over.
     
  15. kerrari

    kerrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 22, 2004
    15,296
    Coolum Beach, AUSTRALIA
    Full Name:
    Karen H.
    Didn’t learn the difference between ‘will’ ‘may’ and ‘could be’ in medical school? Fraud ‘may’ be proved but if you claim it ‘will’ be proved, you need to stumpup some evidence... It the fraud was so overwhelming, why wasn’t it all on the table within hours of the counting stations closing?
     
  16. It’s not looking good for him though. He seems to prefer golfing these days anyways ;)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. Ferraridoc

    Ferraridoc F1 Veteran

    Jun 20, 2012
    8,445
    Gold Coast, Aust.
    Full Name:
    Patrick
    I also said "I'm afraid that...". "May be", "could be" - these are meaningless, fluffy terms, usually used by purveyors of naturopathic products for arse-covering. I'm not concerned about remote possibilities, I'm concerned that fraud WILL BE proven, but it won't make any difference to the outcome. Don't play semantics with me - you're way out of your depth.
     
    Arvin Grajau likes this.
  18. DMWC

    DMWC Formula 3

    Jan 23, 2013
    1,161
    Sydney Australia
    Full Name:
    David C
  19. kerrari

    kerrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 22, 2004
    15,296
    Coolum Beach, AUSTRALIA
    Full Name:
    Karen H.
    So you were covering your arse with the "afraid that"! Good to know! :D
    And I'm very patient - you may have noticed that *I* have not agreed either side as winner at this point... Still struggling with why proven fraud would have no effect?
     
  20. Ferraridoc

    Ferraridoc F1 Veteran

    Jun 20, 2012
    8,445
    Gold Coast, Aust.
    Full Name:
    Patrick
    Of course I'm covering my arse - PP might come back, and I've got to be careful! Proven fraud should have an effect, but I'm afraid it won't - see?
     
    kerrari and Maranello550 like this.
  21. Steve355F1

    Steve355F1 F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Aug 26, 2011
    10,398
    Adelaide, South Aust
    Full Name:
    Steve
    I suspect fraud will be proven, but the effect won’t be large enough to change the result.
     
    kerrari likes this.
  22. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    There's no point in alleging fraud on a small scale. And that's what Trump's team has with all the affidavits.

    What the lawyers are pushing for is equal protection violations under the 14th Amendment. E.g. , Democrat counties in PA allowed voters to "cure" their erroneous ballots. This didn't happen in Republican counties. Democrat counties in multiple states also removed Republican poll watchers. The remedy being asked for is to throw out all the votes from the counties where this happened. Lower court decisions don't really matter, because it will likely be resolved at the Supreme Court, like Bush vs. Gore. Recall the Bush lost in the lower courts, and then won in the Supreme Court. If votes from these Democrat counties are thrown out, Trump would easily win.
     
    greg328 likes this.
  23. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    wax likes this.
  24. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    Pennsylvania legislature hearing laughter at vote counts:

     
    Steve355F1 likes this.
  25. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    47 USB cards missing



     
    greg328 and wax like this.
  26. spicedriver

    spicedriver Formula 3

    Feb 1, 2011
    2,305
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-thieves-who-stole-our-election-got-sloppy_3592153.html

    The Thieves Who Stole Our Election Got Sloppy



    Commentary


    Laziness leads to sloppiness, and sloppiness is how the most brazen heist in American history is being exposed.

    Stealing the 2020 election was a mammoth undertaking, involving widespread lawlessness and illicit partnerships between private actors and public officials. They’ve been working to cover their tracks since Election Day, but they didn’t work fast enough. Now, the courts need to stop them from destroying any more evidence so that the people of Pennsylvania—and the rest of the country—can accurately assess the ramifications of their wrongdoing.

    Explosive new litigation filed in federal district court on Nov. 21 details and documents a wide variety of illegal practices that were used to inflate the number of votes received by Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, including disparate treatment of voters based on where they live and outright manipulation of Pennsylvania’s voter registration system by partisan activists.

    An unprecedented number of mail-in and absentee ballots were cast this year, and practically everyone expected that this would result in a higher-than-usual rate of ballots being rejected for various flaws, such as lacking a secrecy envelope or missing information. In Pennsylvania, tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots were likely to be rejected, based on historical patterns. Instead, a mere 0.03 percent of mail-in ballots were ultimately rejected—somewhere in the neighborhood of about 1,000 votes.

    Considering that a significant majority of mail-in votes were cast for Biden, the Democrat candidate benefited handsomely from this discrepancy. But how did this anomaly happen?

    It turns out that election officials in Democrat strongholds such as Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Philadelphia County, and Philadelphia’s collar counties—particularly Delaware County—exceeded their authority in order to give voters preferential treatment that wasn’t afforded to voters in Republican-leaning areas of the state.

    Specifically, election workers illegally “pre-canvassed” mail-in ballots to determine whether they were missing a secrecy envelope or failed to include necessary information. When ballots were found to be flawed, voters were given an opportunity to correct, or “cure,” their ballots to make sure they counted. In at least some cases, Democrat Party officials were even given lists of voters to contact about curing their ballots.

    Election officials in Republican-leaning counties rightly interpreted this as a violation of Pennsylvania’s election code, but Democrat Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar issued guidance authorizing the illegal practices despite lacking the statutory authority to do so.

    That’s not the only way Democrats broke the law to give their candidate an unfair advantage, though. Extensive on-the-ground investigations conducted over the past year and a half by attorneys and investigators with the Amistad Project of the nonpartisan Thomas More Society have uncovered another element of the plot that involved even more egregious behavior.

    Boockvar also exceeded her authority by granting private, partisan organizations—including the notoriously pro-Democrat group “Rock the Vote”—access to the Commonwealth’s Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE).

    “Rock the Vote’s web tool was connected to our system, making the process of registering voters through their online programs, and those of their partners, seamless for voters across Pennsylvania,” the lawsuit quotes Boockvar as saying.

    That’s not supposed to happen. It’s one thing for outside groups to submit registration applications to the state on behalf of would-be voters, but election clerks are the only ones who are supposed to enter this sort of information directly into the records.

    It’s easy to see why by inspecting post-election voter lists, which contain names such as “Mary April Smith,” followed by “Mary May Smith,” “Mary June Smith,” “Mary July Smith,” and so forth through the rest of the calendar. When the same voter lists were purchased just a week later, however, those suspicious names had mysteriously disappeared from the rolls.

    Under the circumstances, that’s direct evidence of a systematic effort to conceal wrongdoing. All further alterations to the SURE system should be immediately halted to allow a thorough investigation of the records before any more evidence can be destroyed.

    The thieves who attempted to hijack the 2020 presidential election were bound to slip up somewhere, and now they’re trying to clean up the glaring evidence of their wrongdoing before the full extent of their crimes can be exposed to the American public. We can’t allow that to happen, or we may never be able to trust the integrity of our elections again.

    Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served as House speaker from 1995 to 1999 and ran as a presidential candidate in 2012.
     
    wax and greg328 like this.

Share This Page