patrick.net

I know it was delivered because the envelopes have individual bar codes and I get email when it is received by election officials. But I did place trust that my mailman would not alter my votes covertly and it have no way to verify that.

I would love to see a proposed election system that allows me to verify my vote was counted as cast, and that no one was stuffing ballot boxes with ballots not tied to any registered voter... But I don't know how to do that without sacrificing voter anonymity.

If anyone has proposals, I'm game for that. People should have trust in elections. If there is no trust in elections, there is no democracy.

personal

I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.

If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.

But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.

Patrick. Not impossible for 4 people to be corrupt, but unlikely in my mind. Also no motive or evidence.

I don't know why a republican secretary of state would engage in systematic fraud against his own vote preference. I just doesn't make sense to me.

So again, people with microscopes who lost but wish they won can spend time until the cows come home looking for anomalies. But that doesn't mean there was fraud, and it doesn't mean the election outcome isn't legit.

I am not going to spend the same amount of energy chasing and investigating anomalies people highlight because I simply don't think there is enough credible motive or evidence to support the allegations. Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.

@DeficitHawk Do you have any concern at all about the 200,000 votes that appeared late at night, almost entirely for Biden, and changed the result?

https://patrick.net/post/1377632/2022-11-10-can-anyone-find-some-democrats-willing?start=35#comment-1896497



Would you have any concern about that anomaly if it were almost entirely for Trump?

DeficitHawk says

Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.

I'd say the math is hard proof. This statistical anomaly is as close to impossible as it gets. The math alone should have triggered a run-off or recount in battelground/close states, in person only, possibly the entire election. It's ok to redo elections if the math doesn't support the outcome.

In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.

In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.

Also, do you have any concern about Trump getting yet more votes than his first election, and then Biden, who essentially campaigned from his basement, getting the most votes of any presidential candidate in history?

It doesn't seem odd to you?

Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.

DeficitHawk says

In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.

As much as I loathe gore, and equally boosh, boosh stole the election by removing any doubt and recount by force, regardless of whether the final count would have favored gore or not.

DeficitHawk says

In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.

2020 wasn't close because Trump would have won in a landslide, had they not stopped the counting at 10 pm and crafted the fix. What country does stop counting because it's bed time, only to return at 3 am with mysterious data dumps with 100% of votes for the same candidate?! Simple math, which doesn't lie, pretty much proves the cheating.

DeficitHawk says

Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.

It's an as close to impossible statistical anomaly as it can get. At the minimum it should trigger fierce investigations (instead of shutting down any dissent and zero investiagtions). We have to agree to disagree here. Moving forward, let's work on the system which prevents cheating and allows, free, transparent, observable and verifiable, in-person, election-day only (with few exceptions for absentees) elections ;)

Patrick it does not seem odd to me at all. It was a very polarizing election and lots of people had strong opinions. No surprise turnout was high.

Again, I'm not going to deep dive into every anomaly someone highlights and create a detailed explanation. I don't really have responses to every claim. But what I am trying to say is that I am not persuaded by weak circumstantial evidence plus interpretations/allegations because there is a long history of 'smoke but no fire' on this topic.

lets be fair democrats don’t debate, just look at arizona chick. they can’t handle debates.

DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.

But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.

mell says

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.

Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.

About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.

Bd6r says

mell says

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.

Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.

About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.

Agreed

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.

But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.

I think it's a step in the right direction to have both sides debate. If one side does not want to dig into investigating something (maybe because it may unearth inconvenient truths), one can still move forward by making sure this situation does not repeat and agree on needed reforms, in this case, election reforms.

OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?

Patrick says

OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?

That is a loaded question.

My question would be: why do Democratic localities insisted on masking and business-killing and child development-retarding lockdowns when there was plenty scientific evidence that none of those help and are in fact harmful?

Bd6r says

That is a loaded question.

I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.

Patrick says

I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.

Problem is that your question contains a (negative) answer within itself so there is no room for discussion.

I do not think that anyone should be able to mandate injection of any drugs, even with extensive safety information, into adults.

I agree that there should be no mandated injections of anything, ever.

@DeficitHawk Do you have any opinion about mandates?

Patrick says

I want to see the reply of True The Vote

Well, they just got out of jail so that is good news.
Here's a video where they claim that when they put up their data, it got hacked by the Chinese actors and the servers were wiped. Ryan Grimm at Intercept/Rising took that to mean the data has vanished. I'm not so sure. I believe their website is open.ink that is supposed to host election data. Haven't seen any independent corroboration about mules and cell phone data.
See 9:38:50

original link

Huh, that video won't play for me.

Patrick says

Huh, that video won't play for me.

enable javascript for imasdk.googleapis.com (That usually gets the Rumble vids going for me).

Patrick I think you are talking about vaccines.

If somebody wants to live in the boonies and not be vaccinated that's their business. But if they want to come to my house, they better not bring polio.

I think most people agree its ok for people not to be vaccinated if they are in a shack in the mountains, and aren't going to be mixing with people. And I think most people agree that a private house or club can set inclusion requirements like vaccine. Do we agree up to that point?

So really the controversy is things like schools and employers, where you don't technically have to be there if you don't want, but it is pretty impactful if you are excluded.

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit, maturity and impact of both the disease and the vaccine. For example if we had a lot of smallpox, high death rate, high impact disease and a mature vaccine, I support applying such mandates as a requirement for attending schools and places that are controversial. Mist people will want that and the few who don't can be excluded from that setting.
On the other hand, if the disease impact is lower, or the efficacy and maturity of the vaccine is lower (like flu which has lower severity and lower efficacy of the vaccine) I don't support such mandates.

Your question is really about COVID. I got the vaccine. And I also got COVID (and lived) So I'd bin that with the lower severity less effective category and would not want to mandate the vaccine for schools. But again this is a sliding scale, and these decisions are always controversial. I do know someone who died of COVID, a co worker, and I do not agree with the characterization that it is a low risk disease... Just lower than smallpox and polio etc.

Patrick I have also seen some of your comments on this topic which I regard as over the top... Hanging people etc.... So while I actually agree with you on the point of mandates, I think your position is missing the nuance of risk benefit analysis and is pretty stark rhetoric.

mell says

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.

This

People united, how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above? If you believe that is fraud, how do ids at the voting booth fix that?

I don't really have a problem with ids at voting booths, but I think there is a reason why this is the item that t GOP folks focus on it, and that's because it comes with the side benefit of disproportionately excluding low income folks who don't drive... It's all in the margins either way.

But it won't fix the concerns Patrick raised even if you do it.

In 2020, Biden was a bumbling, stumbling fool with Dr. Jill's finger in his mouth. He couldn't even fill a high school gym for a campaign 'rally.' Kommiela Harris was even worse.
Her poll numbers prior to dropping out of the primary ended up below 3%. No one liked her. The Biden/Harris ticket was probably the worst in modern history.

Yet, we're asked to believe that Biden actually received 81 MILLION votes, almost 16 MILLION more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016??

Sure he did.

How come I walked to the polling place my whole life?

No ID is okay with me if they use facial recognition like US Customs and Border Patrol use now.

Vote fraud by mail is absurd.
Ballots should be paper and scanned.

Patrick says

I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.

If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.

But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.

It is impossible not to offend a leftist when speaking the truth.

RayAmerica, if your assertion is that it can not be true that people voted for biden because you don't like him, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You are extrapolating from a sample size of one. You may not be talking to the cross section of people who voted for him very often. But I voted for him.

If you cocoon yourself in an echo chamber, things outside of the echo chamber will seem absurd. But they aren't.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.

How about just the four swing states that determined the outcome? Still impossible?

And even then, the government officials do not have to be corrupt except to the extent of allowing drop box voting and voting software from China, eg:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

The NYTimes? Paywall for garbage! Give us a break from obvious propaganda. No one said 50 Secstates were corrupt. If you are interested and are obviously not (bot programmer rules) here is some solid information. Also get a grip we are talking about election fraud not voter fraud.

https://electionfraud20.org/

DeficitHawk says

how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above?

The concern that “election deniers” have is that the votes counted in several swing states might not be legit. For a vote to be legitimate it must be cast by the voter under their own will and volition, it must be securely handled in accordance with local election laws (most locales only allow family members to transport ballots and/or limit the number of ballots that can be transported by third parties ( other than postal carriers which are exempt from that particular rule). Also each voter only gets one vote, and dead people cannot vote.

Requiring in person voting with either ID or some other proof of residence which could be supported by a reliable witness who is also registered to vote would restore integrity to the system. Mailing ballots out to voters who DID NOT request the ballots (which happened in 2020 for the first time in American history to my knowledge) destroys any integrity or credibility to the votes counted in those jurisdictions. Furthermore and votes carried by vote mules who visited multiple drop sites in swing states also undermines any legitimacy of the vote totals in those jurisdictions. Ultimately it is the voters whose votes were nullified by malfeasance that were injured by the vote crimes. The voters would maybe have had standing with the Supreme Court. But to my knowledge no voters spent the time and money to investigate the fraud and hire lawyers to argue that they were disenfranchised.

But if there was transparency in the process, and adherence to one vote per voter verified by proof of identity at the polling site (could even be a neighbor vouching for a neighbor, in the past voting locations were more prevalent and staffed by people who knew you which is the way it should be) then I don’t think the fraud that we think happened would be possible.

But peopleunited, no matter if you show ID and mail or in person or whatever, you still have to count the votes, either by humans with a ledger, or with counting machines. And then those counts have to get added and aggregated.

In the process of adding and aggregating, that's where the chart Patrick showed gets made. ID or no ID, mailed or in person, that lack of trust in the election officials to count and add remains.

All I'm saying is that the focus on voter id is sort of a red herring because it doesn't address the core mistrust, but I also think people hype it because of politically motivated fringe benefit.

I vote by mail every time. It's easier for me. I it's a paper ballot, but I can mail it or drop it off at my convenience. I know they received it. (I can't know with current system if they counted it right)

Like I said, I don't have a problem with voter id, I can go either way on that. BUT I am sensitive to the tactics used here by hyping that particular item even when it doesn't solve the underlying concerns, and the reason for it is politically motivated.

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.

DeficitHawk says

But I voted for him.

Why? Was it his promised policies like ending the fossil fuel industry? Or did you vote for Biden because you believed the propaganda that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation?

Did you vote against Trump and not for Biden at all?

DeficitHawk says

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.

It seems that everything you just said were your words not mine.

There were many millions more votes counted in 2020. I believe that a lot of them were legitimate, but enough of them may have been fraudulent to make a difference in the outcome.

Additionally I believe that voting is a right, but ballots should not be spoon fed and mailed to your home (unless you go through the process of requesting and following the rules of absentee voting )

The underlying concern is that the votes that were counted are not an accurate accounting of legitimate legal votes.

But for me the concern is larger than that. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook and big media to bury the Hunter laptop evidence that revealed the depravity and criminal actions of the Biden family right before the election. This alone could have changed the outcome by keeping voters ignorant of their crimes.

I have a strong dislike of Trump due to the divisive and inflammatory nature of his rhetoric. I think it is counterproductive to the unity of our country, and not how a leader should behave. I don't try to call people names and humiliate them, and I want my leaders to be a better example than I am for discourse and consensus finding in the modern world.

Biden isn't the most inspiring candidate, I'll be honest.

Policy wise, I'm probably 60% agree with Biden and the left and 40% agree with Trump and the right... Or maybe I can say I most often wish there was an in-between policy. Funny I never thought trump's policies were that much more extreme than other republicans... But the divisiveness of rhetoric is a whole different level.

The election denier stuff sort of adds on top of my previous distaste for trump, because I think it is unamerican to promote the narrative he is promoting. I think he does not respect democracy unless he can be the winner. I don't think his narrative is true, and I don't think he thinks its true either. I have no proof of what he thinks honestly, but that is my summary judgement of his character based on his rhetoric.

I think it needs to be said that our government structure is not a Democracy, and the continued bleating of “our Democracy” is something that we need to educate on. We have a Constitutional Republic, with representatives. The representatives being a democratic component, of the overall republic structure.