patrick.net

EBGuy says

Why did they use a map of Moscow in 2000 Mules?

Because Ruscia has ridiculously rigged elections, with "dropboxes" on park benches and in trunks of LADAs, inmates "voting" in prisons and ... wait for it... "electronic voting" on a fucking website, I kid you not. So using Moscow map in a movie about rigged elections is absolutely justified. =))

Hi Patrick. I'm a long time lurker. Moderate democrat. I'll take you up. What do you want to talk about?

@DeficitHawk

Thanks! Do you think it's possible that the 2020 presidential election had cheating?

I haven't seen much evidence for that. The people directly responsible for managing the elections testify that there wasn't. Claims seem to originate from the guy who would benefit the most. So I don't think smoke necessarily means fire in this case.

Don't you think it's super-sketchy how Trump was way ahead all night, and then there were sudden ballot drops almost all for Biden in key states? I'm talking about the famous graph with the jumps right at the end.

@Patrick, I'd lock this thread so only you and @DeficitHawk would be able to debate. Otherwise it will degenerate into fact-free name calling

clambo says

It all boils down to money; liberals think it's okay to take our money and spend it to "help others".

I think that once money is taxed to "help others" then it becomes a self-perpetuating machine where a lot of people employed by that money have an interest in keeping their employment going, and expanding it. Solving the problem that the money is for would cut off the money, so the problem is never solved.

So for example homelessness in San Francisco is now a billion dollar industry employing massive numbers of people. I read that each homeless person could simply be given something like $70K per year if they just gave each homeless person in SF a share of that money. If homelessness were actually ended in SF, all those jobs would go away. So there is less than zero incentive to actually solve the problem.

Patrick says

Don't you think it's super-sketchy how Trump was way ahead all night, and then there were sudden ballot drops almost all for Biden in key states? I'm talking about the famous graph with the jumps right at the end.

Yes, and in the documentary “2000 Mules” it is clear that thousands of people trafficked tens of thousands of ballots in swing state districts that all went for Biden. Find out who paid the mules and you will know who bought the Biden win. Biden barely campaigned with about as much energy and excitement as a zombie candidate. And the FBI and Facebook/Twitter et al even collaborated to squash the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell right before the election, depriving voters of the truth of just how criminal and perverted that Biden family is.

Bd6r says

Patrick, I'd lock this thread so only you and DeficitHawk would be able to debate. Otherwise it will degenerate into fact-free name calling

I'm a little worried about that, but I plan to quickly mark any personal comments as personal, and I also want others to be able to chime in because I certainly don't know everything.

But then also, maybe this thread will get too cluttered and it will be hard to follow the arguments between myself and DeficitHawk...

I've seen hand drawn sketches of the graph you mean, but I take it as a joke or talking point. In reality there is counting going on in every election in different districts with different dem vs gop percentages. So having the votes evolve with non constant percentage shouldn't surprise anyone. Important thing is to count all the votes. The secretaries of state in the disputed states say they did. (Even gop secretaries). So I tend to dismiss trump's claims as being a bad loser.

DeficitHawk says

I take it as a joke or talking point.

So this graph doesn't look sketchy to you?



Many more here, from various perspectives:

https://search.brave.com/images?q=graph+of+sudden+ballot+dumps+for+biden

I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.

To be honest, I take the statements from the secretaries of state who manage elections at higher value than my own speculations on how counting/batches is done.

I tend to interpret information by discounting people who highlight information that would benefit their position, and putting more weight on neutral parties. Even more weight on the statements by people who's interests are not served by information they highlight. Such as the secretary of state of Georgia etc. So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence... And gop secretaries of state affirming that the allegations are not true, I am not really investigating the matter any further.

BTW, I have been reading this forum for years. From when it was primarily focused on real estate value. Recently a real estate thread popped up again since this area is going through another real estate slump. I always liked the type of independent analysis on the site. But I definitely have observed an increase in political one sidedness on this site over the years. I do feel it is becoming an echo chamber with only similar political mindset people contributing, and becoming hostile to other views. That's why I offered to take you up. I liked the old days of what this forum stood for, and would like to see it return.

And I miss AF as one of the most hilarious people to read. Even if the yam jokes got old after a while.

DeficitHawk says

I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.

To be honest, I take the statements from the secretaries of state who manage elections at higher value than my own speculations on how counting/batches is done.

I tend to interpret information by discounting people who highlight information that would benefit their position, and putting more weight on neutral parties. Even more weight on the statements by people who's interests are not served by information they highlight. Such as the secretary of state of Georgia etc. So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence... And gop secretaries of state affirming that the allegations are not true, I am not really investigating the matter any further.

I find you very naive. Consider that Hob's is Secstate of AZ and she hand selected the elections board supervisor Gates. There was much "clear evidence" found but the leftists ALL prefer to keep their heads firmly up their azzes so they cannot see it. The reality is there was never an actual investigation into the 2020 election.

Debate a Democrat? Why would I voluntarily put myself in the path of KommieKunt struggle session?

I think Ceffer is pretty much illustrating the concern I have about this forum being an echo chamber, hostile to different views.

Does anyone have a "polite conversation" with the guy trying to mug him or pick his pocket?
I'm honesltly incredulous at the mere concept; I am beating a dead horse here of course.
The socialist democrats are envious, crazy, losers, nuts, who hate our race and our accomplishments.
They think it's fine to steal your life savings to pay for the bastard children and health care of illegal aliens, and rich pensions for government goldbricks.

I have liberal friends of course; I strictly limit what I talk about with them.
Some are wives or GFs of guys I was friends with; they're doomed to listen to the harpy fat bitch and I am not.

FredH,

I think Patrick is asking for the perspective of some who is a bit of an outsider, in hopes of building some understanding of people's thinking. I appreciate this and I will volunteer despite being called a KommieKunt.

You have clearly researched the particulars of Arizona which I have not. Does that make me naive? Let me explain my perspective.

I think there was a close election that one side won and one side lost. And the losing side got out microscopes and went looking for any anomaly or circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted to mean they actually won. Despite the people who tan the elections and counted the votes saying the allegations are untrue.

In any process as complex as an election, if you get out microscopes and look for anomalies you will find them. That is not a surprise to me. And it's not proof of fraud. In my mind, the bar for me to reconsider accepting the result is much higher than the circumstantial interpretation of anomalies being presented here. It would take hard evidence. I just haven't seen anything that comes close to that. So I accept the outcome.

@Patrick see few previous comments and my above predictions

DeficitHawk says

I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.

There is no point defending this. The math says it's statistically impossible, so cheating is pretty much a fact. Math doesn't lie and isn't biased. Since they purposefully didn't make this process transparent of course you cannot prove the cheating with court admissible evidence besides arguing the math, the only way forward is to adopt stringent voter id laws with in person id-verified voting with paper ballots only to prevent cheating in the future and restore trust in fair elections. The fact that democrats oppose this underscores they have been and are actively cheating. Nobody who wanted to prove a fair election would be opposed to those common sense measures adopted by pretty much all western countries. There are better topics to debate with valid arguments on both sides, this one cannot be logically defended by the left, and that should be obvious imo.

While I volunteer myself as a moderate democrat for this debate, I do not claim to have researched every anomaly highlighted in the election and prepared a response. I haven't. I'm busy, and I trust the people accountable enough that I don't personally feel the need to investigate unless I see hard evidence, which I haven't.

I don't know who piles up the blue votes here and th red votes there and feeds them into a machine at different times, or this strongly blue district vs that strongly red district get tallied and added in at different times. No don't have an explanation to every glitch in those charts. But there are sensible explanations that don't involve fraud, and the people who oversee the process attest that there wasn't fraud. So that's basically where I stop my questioning absent hard evidence.

Do you debate a group who already have determined that you and at least 25 percent of the audience need to be murdered in order for them to ascend to absolute power?
The presumptions and rules of debate don't apply to treason, subversion and mass murder.

How many movies can you watch in which the politicians/ gangsters assemble, only for the dominant gangster to use the assembly to murder his opponents? Remember Saddam having his enemies escorted out of the assembly hall to have their bodies delivered in pieces in plastic bags to their families, or the recent Chinese assembly in which Xi had his flanking leader physically removed?

I don't want to murder any of the audience. Part of being American is that we don't all have to agree but we can still say what we think.

Ok, let's pick another topic then?

DeficitHawk says

I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.

So just confirming @DeficitHawk that you would not think such a large jump near the end in the swing states is suspicious even if it favored Trump?

DeficitHawk says

So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence...

What would count as clear evidence for you?

I think there's many ways to cheat an election that may be very difficult to detect via audit. And I think the methods they can use to cheat come from a variety of sources, so they use certain sources first, and then if they need more votes, they resort to the next best source, and so on... And some methods are just opportunistic. But I don't think the cheaters are stupid and will do things that will get them easily caught.

For example - the mailman throwing away the ballots from an area polling a certain way. It's probably easy to have a mailman park the full mail truck unattended somewhere weird, then a masked man sneak steals a bag of mail, and the mailman doesnt realize it but maybe a security camera catches footage of it, thus giving them an excuse that "we were robbed and didnt even realize it" if the audit spotlight ever ends up on them in the future for the missing ballots. The stolen bag doesnt even need to contain the ballots that will be discarded - they just need an excuse for some being missing. You don't even need to throw them all away - maybe just half of them or whatever they feel makes it stand out less.

Additionally, more targeted tactics can be employed. We live in the data collection era, where incredible amounts of social data are available for purchase, and most people don't realize how such data can be used. They could easily make very educated guesses as to which peoples / neighborhoods' ballots they could throw away without generating alarm. Like, maybe people who are identified as "unlikely to vote" by the currently widely accepted algo, might make for a good target to throw away since an auditor would probably just accept the argument that no ballots are missing since its a group that historically doesnt vote much. So, throwing away ballots from that group are "safer". And they do have records of campaign donations and voter registration, current and history, for most residential addresses - and they can combine that data with social data. They already do this for advertising, and it just so happens that the same data analytics they spend billions developing for advertising, is also directly useful for politics too.

And, there's plenty of legal ways to impact the vote, especially if you got lots of money. I mean, advertising is totally legal right? Sending people to senior housing to "help" them vote also seems a way to easily bias towards the vote you desire. Some of them are drooling, and thats basically a free vote however you want. But there's only so many droolers, and so the low hanging fruit is limited. But, even votes from cogent seniors are easily used in their favor: the "helper" knows which ballots are for which candidate, making it easy to "accidentally lose" a certain stack. Or, if you want to stay legal, they can probably figure out which senior homes will yield the type of votes they want, and which to avoid, allowing them to stay legal by just only "helping" the seniors in certain facilities.

I suspect biasing is probably one of the most widely used tactics, where they treat different groups of people differently to effect the desired vote. Like throwing away a small fraction of ballots from a certain neighborhood, or making it easier/harder to vote for certain people via long lines to discourage voting (due to "broken machines", ahem), or by adding ballot drop boxes in desirable neighborhoods, but not in the undesirable ones. I don't work in elections, but I guarantee if I did, I bet I could come up with large numbers of biasing strategies.

I think many of these cheat methods are enabled/enhanced by time. With time, they can get more bang for their cheat buck, and they can also bias towards cheat methods which are harder to get caught with. Time allows them to analyze, strategize, and act. This is why I'm so damn suspicious of the slow election counting that suddenly appeared out of nowhere these past ~5 years, and seems to crop up in regions where a rabbit needs to be pulled out of a hat to produce an unexpected win.

Maybe people disagree whether election XYZ was significantly affected by cheating, but I hope maybe people can at least agree cheating is trivially easy, and thus we need election integrity improvements that align with the modern world. But the powers that be wont let that happen because racism or whatever the fuck.

Patrick says

What would count as clear evidence for you?

@Patrick,

as I predicted, discussion degenerated into name-calling.

An easier to comprehend and more factual discussion could be about vaxx, shutdowns, and D-pushed mandates for masks and so on. In this case, there is plenty scientific evidence, which existed before covid, that forced upon us measures would not work or even would be harmful.

But I do not feel like [participating in this discussion even though my opinion here is the same as for 98% of Patnetters (as in mandates were/are criminal and not based in facts/science) because the D-supporting opponent will simple be called names.

Edit: and IRL when I discuss this with left-leaning persons, they just run away and don't talk to me about this topic any more.

I would have questions about it either way. But I would expect that recounts and cross checks can tell the difference between fraud and no fraud. Since I didn't count these votes myself, I have to rely on the people who did, and I have to examine their motivations as I place my trust in them. And, I have decided I trust them because I don't see a large conflict of interest that should cause me not to. I felt the same way when I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (I'm dating myself)

But I work with complex systems and complex data and quirks in data don't really disturb me that much. You can always dig in and figure out what is going on if you spend the time. But I don't unless there is cause to spend the time.

Hard evidence would mean identifying the glitch in code that miscounted, affirmed by the secretary of state or video of people altering enough votes to alter outcomes. Glitchy data and interpretations of it is not evidence in my mind.

DeficitHawk says

But I definitely have observed an increase in political one sidedness on this site over the years. I do feel it is becoming an echo chamber with only similar political mindset people contributing, and becoming hostile to other views. That's why I offered to take you up. I liked the old days of what this forum stood for, and would like to see it return.

And thank you again @DeficitHawk for speaking politely and clearly.

Yes, the site has become very one-sided and I'd like to hear polite arguments for the other side.

What the site stood for when it was about housing was exposing the scams in the real estate industry, how it's rigged against buyers. From my point of view, it has not changed as much as expanded into exposing other scams, like the 2020 election. For me, the evidence is truly overwhelming that the election was rigged on multiple levels. I hope to be able to point out some more of those levels and get the counter arguments.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence...

What would count as clear evidence for you?

Trump and the Republicans take blame here as well for - as soon as the leftoid shenanigans started - not having the back-bone to hold in person, id-verified elections only via executive order, backed by the military if necessary, paper ballots only, and making the ballots observable for everyone. Going forward, anybody not supporting changing the elections to be verifiable and transparent like all other Western countries do, has a clear interest in continuing the Democrat fraud imo, and arguing about election results/fairness with people not supporting the constitution/law and its mandated election fairness and transparency is utterly moot. This needs to be the axiom to start from, accepted by both sides, no more banana republic style elections.

Bd6r says

IRL when I discuss this with left-leaning persons, they just run away and don't talk to me about this topic any more.

It's clearly an uncomfortable process to get red-pilled, and I think this is a major reason most Democrats have left this site and why left-leaning people run away when you talk to them.

The biggest lesson from running this site for many years is that all debate stops the instant personal insults are allowed. I try to do something about the personal insults, but it's still difficult.

Bd6r says

An easier to comprehend and more factual discussion could be about vaxx, shutdowns

Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.

mell says

Trump and the Republicans take blame here as well for - as soon as the leftoid shenanigans started - not having the back-bone to hold in person, id-verified elections only via executive order, backed by the military if necessary, paper ballots only, and making the ballots observable for everyone.

At the state level, yes, but Trump could not have personally enforced election integrity because the "time and manner" of elections is explicitly left to the states in the Consitution, iirc.

I think that is one of the many good things about our constitution. I don't think you want the president meddling with the election methods.

FredH says

The reality is there was never an actual investigation into the 2020 election.

I think this is true. From what I understand, all of the lawsuits calling out the fraud were dismissed for lack of standing, not lack of evidence.

Patrick says

mell says

Trump and the Republicans take blame here as well for - as soon as the leftoid shenanigans started - not having the back-bone to hold in person, id-verified elections only via executive order, backed by the military if necessary, paper ballots only, and making the ballots observable for everyone.

At the state level, yes, but Trump could not have personally enforced election integrity because the "time and manner" of elections is explicitly left to the states in the Consitution, iirc.

I'm not a constitutional expert, but from my understanding the way these states hold elections, violates the constitution, sure you'd probably have to go through SCOTUS, but there was plenty of time to do so. The fact that previous and moreso current presidents have violated states rights with pretty much every EO, I and many others would have supported the override via EO/martial law, or "emergency" (such as covid). Is that hypocritical? Maybe, but since the left has hollowed out the constitution and violated state and federal at will for so many years now, sometimes you have to use the same tactics to rectify a broken system.

Case in point, in CA I walked in the voting place to drop off my wife's and my ballot and wanted to announce it and possibly show id, nobody gave a fuck, I could have dropped in 100s of ballots all fake signed, and they would have counted them. Don't tell me they will verify against "voter records", they won't (plenty of anecdotal evidence). No verification whatsoever. The system is broken.

Patrick says

were dismissed for lack of standing, not lack of evidence.

What is lack of standing?

DeficitHawk says

I think that is one of the many good things about our constitution. I don't think you want the president meddling with the election methods.

Disagree, it's one of the biggest weaknesses. You don't need states to interpret fair elections, it's axiom based like math. Common sense dictates what free, transparent and fair elections look like, and the manner on how to hold them should be easily codifiable. The president is not "meddling" in any states elections by making sure they are fair, the only "meddling" is the cheating by the left which has been ongoing for too long. This is a classic example of twisting words by the left and projecting of what they have been doing onto others. Meddling with an election is generally understood as changing its outcome, arranging fair and free in person, verified, and transparent elections does not change the election outcome, it guarantees a real and fair outcome in the first place by manipulating voters and votes. The states should have no rights in deciding on how to do the actual election and verification process. That's why in this case all other Western countries function much better, as they don't have states whinging about Jim Crow 2.0 bullshit so they can cheat.

Hircus

I agree that there are lots of ways to cheat. And maybe there are better systems for conducting elections.

For example, maybe people who are familiar with encryption methods could find a way to do an election digitally that would enable every voter to verify that their vote was counted as cast, without violating anonymity. Maybe such a scheme could allow public audit, with strong enough digital tracking to publicly tie votes to individual registered voters without revealing identity. I would love it if someone could come up with such a scheme. I personally haven't figured out a way without violating anonymity.

Voter id laws are a common topic, maybe it solves a problem with unregistered or ineligible voters, but it has no bearing on the data glitches we've been discussing.

The topic of whether we can improve the election process to build transparency and trust without violating anonymity or systematically excluding groups of potential voters is important and constructive.

But throwing allegations that "I only lost because you cheated" is quite a different thing.