Election Thread

[Phantom Roxas]

I won't rule out that some Republicans in both the House and Senate will object anyway, but it still won't change the end result.

[vla1ne]

I say i will tear down your arguments. You are not your arguments. that is the difference. i do not pretend you are in any emotional state, and even if i see it as such, i wouldn't mention it. this is online, there is no emotional state in a discussion unless explicitly stated as far as i care. Of course, some comments may come off as such, but unless explicitly stated, trying to frame them as anything within an argument is not necessary.

 

Now, if I come at you directly, all you have to do is point it out and I'll happily apologize and retract that portion of the comment. I won't conflate you and your arguments. I will continue working towards addressing only the arguments you make, so while i'll gladly take back anything that is personal, I make no apologies for attacking the arguments presented.

Agreeable?

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

1 minute ago, vla1ne said:

I say i will tear down your arguments. You are not your arguments. that is the difference. i do not pretend you are in any emotional state, and even if i see it as such, i wouldn't mention it. this is online, there is no emotional state in a discussion unless explicitly stated as far as i care. Of course, some comments may come off as such, but unless explicitly stated, trying to frame them as anything within an argument is not necessary.

 

Now, if I come at you directly, all you have to do is point it out and I'll happily apologize and retract that portion of the comment. I won't conflate you and your arguments. I will continue working towards addressing only the arguments you make, so while i'll gladly take back anything that is personal, I make no apologies for attacking the arguments presented.

Agreeable?

Sounds agreeable. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

14 minutes ago, vla1ne said:

I say i will tear down your arguments. You are not your arguments. that is the difference. i do not pretend you are in any emotional state, and even if i see it as such, i wouldn't mention it. this is online, there is no emotional state in a discussion unless explicitly stated as far as i care. Of course, some comments may come off as such, but unless explicitly stated, trying to frame them as anything within an argument is not necessary.

 

Now, if I come at you directly, all you have to do is point it out and I'll happily apologize and retract that portion of the comment. I won't conflate you and your arguments. I will continue working towards addressing only the arguments you make, so while i'll gladly take back anything that is personal, I make no apologies for attacking the arguments presented.

Agreeable?

I'm still looking forward to all the proof and evidence tbh

[vla1ne]

6 hours ago, God Emperor Cow said:

I'm still looking forward to all the proof and evidence tbh

Do you have an argument to my last point then? if not, try reading that post and you'll have your proof. or would you like me to tailor make the point for you?

[Phantom Roxas]

On 12/15/2020 at 8:07 PM, vla1ne said:

I say i will tear down your arguments. You are not your arguments. that is the difference. i do not pretend you are in any emotional state, and even if i see it as such, i wouldn't mention it. this is online, there is no emotional state in a discussion unless explicitly stated as far as i care. Of course, some comments may come off as such, but unless explicitly stated, trying to frame them as anything within an argument is not necessary.

 

Now, if I come at you directly, all you have to do is point it out and I'll happily apologize and retract that portion of the comment. I won't conflate you and your arguments. I will continue working towards addressing only the arguments you make, so while i'll gladly take back anything that is personal, I make no apologies for attacking the arguments presented.

Agreeable?

"But relax, game's not over yet. i understand you won't sweat in your boots till things start flipping."

Yes, definitely not making up any emotional state. Of course, you agreed that the game was going to end on Monday, but you extended the deadline once it became clear that Biden was still going to win, and you latched onto the alternate electors so you can say that now the game will really end on January 6th. I assumed you would move the goalposts, and you did so without hesitation.

"i am telling you up front that your articles are corrupt, because they are circle sourced by one liar linking to another liar, who is then used as a primary source."

You're not attacking the argument. You are attacking the people writing the articles I cite on no basis other than calling them liars.

"or the article itself forms a strawman argument that wouldn't stand in the face of anybody who read through the initial document."

I walked through how it's not a strawman argument. Rather than explaining how it's a strawman argument, you just repeat that it is one.

"i'll keep tearing it so you see the point"

It's legitimately exhausting that, for well over a year, you describe the majority of your arguments as "tearing down". Yes, I get it, it sounds like a cool thing people like to say, but you can only say it so much before it reaches the point of parody. Especially when you don't really "tear it down", so much as cite other people who disagree with my citations, then raise questions about how things don't add up. Asking questions, answering them yourself, and pretending you've locked the door on other possible explanations isn't "tearing down" an argument, it's trying to resolve the argument yourself and refusing to listen to anything else.

Going further back:

"It is not a whataboutism to point out that you spent two years on a fake dossier that you believe pertained to swaying an election, when you are trying to be cute about spending a few weeks tops on a case of potential national election fraud."

I've brought up how my issue was that Devin Nunes kept bringing up the dossier because he thought it was relevant to the election, and I wanted little more than for him to shut up about it because he kept using it to derail conversations. I had to look even further back in threads to be sure I was consistent about that, and most of my mentions of the dossier were in regards to Nunes. When I tried to address your arguments about this election elsewhere, you still brought up the dossier, and misrepresented my position. You have done this more than enough times that I can safely say it's deliberate.

"if you're fine with this much suspect stuff going on in democrat counties, then win or lose, I want zero complaints from you no matter how this plays out. of course i'm going to do the same. what happens happens, they can fight it out in court till it ends."

This is, again, not even addressing my argument. To repeat what I said then, "I have expressed support for certain actions, and you respond by posting videos about entirely separate actions. Because of my support for the first group of actions, you assume that I'm somehow supporting the second group of actions you're trying to cite."

Naturally, when I pointed that out, you ignored it.

"I'm no longer calling anything fraud remember? time to use the more politically correct term of clerical errors"

"of course, we can't call it fraud, but I am finding "clerical error" to be a wonderful alternative explanation. as are all the other people finding these clerical errors."

You're not even addressing an argument, just being sarcastic and condescending. That's barely even scratching the surface of how you decided that, when people wanted to clarify this to you, you dismissed it as nothing more than a dishonest label.

For as much as you claim that you'll happily apologize and retract improper comments, you don't actually do that when they're pointed out.

On 11/6/2020 at 4:58 PM, Phantom Roxas said:

https://www.facebook.com/AntrimCountyMI/posts/186156666296253

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-vote-glitch-software-update/6194745002/

I never said the claim that it was a clerical error came from you? You're arguing against a point nobody was making.

This is an issue that was already resolved, and they caught it quickly. They did recount it. The fact that they corrected it as soon as they caught it does seem like they took this issue seriously, and didn't sit on it. This is, at best, an isolated incident.

I forgot that the audit was about this specific issue, so we've been beating a dead horse. I already said it was an isolated incident, because it sounds like this was a situation entirely unique to the county, and I see no reason to change from that position. The argument you've been using since the audit seems to come down to nothing more than, because they used Dominion, and other counties used Dominion, then any county that used Dominion should not have certified their results at all.

Did I get that right? Given how often you deliberately misrepresent my arguments, I hope to not do the same to you. Of course, I'm not coming after you when I say that. I'm merely asking a clarifying question in service of the conversation.

In any case, this seems to be cherrypicking problems with one county's setup, and bundling it with accusing other counties of being just as guilty. After all, if someone taking an online test made a mistake that the proctoring system interpreted as cheating, then every school that uses that system must be enabling cheating, right?

To be clear, it seems that there are two different issues here which are being conflated together. The first is whether Antrim County in particular used Dominion to commit fraud and influence the election. The second is "Dominion bad, toss out all votes from counties that used Dominion."

Using a single county as the justification for rejecting all votes on the basis of the software is flimsy at best. Again, it seems that the goal is to throw out the votes, not because of actual fraud or cheating, but because of what the results are. I understand that you've already said before that you could be calling for this regardless of which side benefitted from this. However, whoever started this conspiracy theory has done it as a reaction specifically to Trump losing. You have a bias that clearly favors the right, so I think it's fair to say that you're more willing to believe these theories because they suit that bias. You certainly don't seem to be approaching this from the "objective" perspective that you, and people who argue in much the same manner as you, often love to use as a smokescreen.

https://www.wlns.com/news/michigan/report-in-antrim-county-election-lawsuit-shows-lack-of-evidence-in-fraud/

I'm sure you'll argue that you can "tear this down" or some other macho phrase you like to use to pat yourself on the back for being able to participate in a debate. It does repeat some of the same points that came up in my previous article. I can imagine what you would say about how "the media" is treating this story, but frankly it sounds like they aren't going far back enough to explain how this is a repackaged conspiracy theory cosplaying as an official report.

We are getting an audit tomorrow. If it corroborates the conclusions of the report, then sure, maybe Ramsland has a point. But if the audit confirms that they were tabulated correctly, I believe that should do more than take some heat off of Dominion. Well, from reasonable people, anyway.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/16/donald-trump/trump-tweet-wrongly-suggests-there-were-defects-mi/

Yes, yes, I know, you hate Politifact, even though your stated reasons have not held up to scrutiny. But I do think this is something you can at least consider as an argument with merit?

"The FEC regulates campaign finance, not voting equipment, and has no such guideline. The federal agency that does deal with voting equipment is the Election Assistance Commission. Antrim County’s Dominion tabulators are certified by the EAC. In Michigan, 65 out of the state’s 83 counties use voting systems manufactured by Dominion.

Moreover, the error rate identified by Ramsland is not a measure of ballot counting errors. Ramsland did not have access to the paper ballots as part of his investigation, according to Jake Rollow, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office. Ramsland acknowledged that he was not referring to ballot tabulation errors, even though the purported benchmark he compared it to is "1 in 250,000 ballots."

Rather, Ramsland wrote, the error rate applies to the 15,676 "total lines or events" in Antrim’s tabulation logs. "Most of the errors were related to configuration errors that could result in overall tabulation error or adjudication," he wrote, without giving more detail or saying that they did result in such errors.

The EAC certification requirements that Antrim’s Dominion machines had to meet certain error thresholds for the computer code that runs the systems, but the tabulation logs track something else.

Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser to the elections program at Democracy Fund explained in an email to the Free Press that tabulation logs "aren’t the lines of code that run the system. They're logs of activities occurring in the process of tabulation. The lines of code that are reviewed in certification are the actual software codes." She said Ramsland’s report was "confusing many, many things."

To make a long story short, the "68% error rate" is based on shoddy math using the wrong variables. Even the clerk (Who is a Republican, since I guess that's supposed to make a difference in these discussions) suggests that Ramsland got the 68% from her original error, which happened because she needed to be trained on how to use the equipment, not because of a problem with the system itself.

Let me attempt to summarize your argument. You want Republican senators to contest the election results and nominate an alternate set of electors because an analyst who couldn't tell the difference between Minnesota and Michigan looked at software from a single county and read the wrong logs for his math, therefore any and all votes related to that software should be thrown out, because a clerk making a mistake using software she needed to be trained for is an invalid excuse because… reasons.

Listen, when you claim that you "tear down" my arguments, and I can find how your source reached the wrong conclusion, you're not shitting on my articles personally. You're showing that you measure the strength of your sources not on the merits of their arguments, but on whether or not they support your confirmation bias.

EDIT:

Oh hey, a good set of tweets that looks at the "Judges only dismissed the cases on procedural grounds, but not because of merits" talking point.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

9 hours ago, vla1ne said:

Do you have an argument to my last point then? if not, try reading that post and you'll have your proof. or would you like me to tailor make the point for you?

to make an argument i'd have to pretend to validate any of this as an actual debate

If there is proof that will do anything then something will be done. Trump and his host can claim whatever they want but that's the truth. If somehow there's so much corruption that there's actual proof that would hold up in court but it gets ignored then...there's jackshit anyone can do.

Not that I think there is but I do like to dabble in fiction from time to time.

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

Joe Biden strong arming chruch officials to be let back in, church offical does not want Joe Biden within their church.

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

Edited: accident post.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

1 hour ago, Godbrand said:

Joe Biden strong arming chruch officials to be let back in, church offical does not want Joe Biden within their church.

which church

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

1 minute ago, God Emperor Cow said:

which church

The one Joe Biden used to go to but the officials in charge told Joe Biden that he was no longer welcomed at the church.

 

Joe Biden is strong arming his way back in. Trying to look for the cameras and etc.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

10 minutes ago, Godbrand said:

The one Joe Biden used to go to but the officials in charge told Joe Biden that he was no longer welcomed at the church.

 

Joe Biden is strong arming his way back in. Trying to look for the cameras and etc.

Source?

[Horu]

Breaking News: Cow delivers a snazzy one-liner without responding to me for the first time.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Really said:

Breaking News: Cow delivers a snazzy one-liner without responding to me for the first time.

Do you have the source?

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

19 minutes ago, God Emperor Cow said:

Source?

It's all over the net. Just gotta do a quick search to find it.

https://theconversation.com/why-joe-biden-was-denied-communion-at-a-church-126171

Anywho Joe Biden wants to look good so he will strongarm church so his image remains in tact 

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

10 minutes ago, Nobody Really said:

Breaking News: Cow delivers a snazzy one-liner without responding to me for the first time.

Cow only looking for quick pews pews because he "doesn't have the time" to do things right way.

[Horu]

1 minute ago, Godbrand said:

Cow only looking for quick pews pews because he "doesn't have the time" to do things right way.

Hehe pew pew

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

11 minutes ago, Godbrand said:

Cow only looking for quick pews pews because he "doesn't have the time" to do things right way.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 2:24 PM, God Emperor Cow said:

to make an argument i'd have to pretend to validate any of this as an actual debate

Anyway

14 minutes ago, Godbrand said:

It's all over the net. Just gotta do a quick search to find it.

https://theconversation.com/why-joe-biden-was-denied-communion-at-a-church-126171

Anywho Joe Biden wants to look good so he will strongarm church so his image remains in tact 

so your source says that this one church, didn't say it was "the one biden used to go to" as you claimed btw, said no

it also doesn't say where he strong-armed...oh but wait that's cause despite your claim earlier you now say "he will do it" despite that this was a year ago apparently

see why i don't bother? you're an absolute joke

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-hand-tally-certified-election-results/3937898001

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

"The 12-vote change amounts to about a .07% shift from certified results"

Guys, my math may not be as bad as Russell Ramsland's, but I still want to be sure, that's much less than a 68% error rate, right?

I am shocked - absolutely shocked - that vla1ne would jump on a misleading report trying to cry foul about the election, insisted that there could be no rebuttal, only for that report to be refuted by an audit that affirmed that the election results were correct, and had a right to be certified.

Hmm. It's almost like he was completely wrong and a rebuttal was entirely possible this whole time. Guess that silver bullet must be stuck in his foot now. Oh well, since the goalpost was now moved to January 6, I suppose we only need to wait until then. Well, before the goalpost is moved again, of course.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-rips-trumps-voter-fraud-claims-in-court/P6TI4J3CKVDQZMNVG66Q2GBQCE/

"In court documents, the president’s lawyers say out-of-state residents, underage voters, felons, dead people and others ineligible to vote cast ballots in Georgia. They back up those claims with what they say is expert analysis of state registration and voting records, and they named names – thousands of people Trump and his attorneys say voted illegally.

But Georgia officials and election experts say Trump’s list of illegal voters is riddled with errors, based on faulty analyses and demonstrates a lack of understanding of election laws. In court documents filed this week, they say Trump’s list and the analysis that produced it are “highly inaccurate,” “wildly unreliable,” and “worthless.”"

Once again, the usual talking points got tossed out. But please, I would love for the same handful of people to keep repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times we have run through this.

Looks like the "analysis" is being made from people who just didn't bother to actually confirm if the votes were illegal. Submitting affidavits doesn't change that they could still have reached the conclusions through terrible reasoning.

[justduelist]

6 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-rips-trumps-voter-fraud-claims-in-court/P6TI4J3CKVDQZMNVG66Q2GBQCE/

"In court documents, the president’s lawyers say out-of-state residents, underage voters, felons, dead people and others ineligible to vote cast ballots in Georgia. They back up those claims with what they say is expert analysis of state registration and voting records, and they named names – thousands of people Trump and his attorneys say voted illegally.

But Georgia officials and election experts say Trump’s list of illegal voters is riddled with errors, based on faulty analyses and demonstrates a lack of understanding of election laws. In court documents filed this week, they say Trump’s list and the analysis that produced it are “highly inaccurate,” “wildly unreliable,” and “worthless.”"

Once again, the usual talking points got tossed out. But please, I would love for the same handful of people to keep repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times we have run through this.

Looks like the "analysis" is being made from people who just didn't bother to actually confirm if the votes were illegal. Submitting affidavits doesn't change that they could still have reached the conclusions through terrible reasoning.

2020-12-19 13-18-08.mkv

(i apologize for the video download but it isnt the sorta thing thats worth actually uploading to a site)

dude i said before that you need to actually check the sources behind your "source" and to stop using articles that block info behind a pay wall. literally everything discussed in this article is available publicly so you could've at least posted route sources with it so everyone could actually fact check your and their statements. also, for the love of everything, never trust a site that only use its own articles as their source while also blocking them behind a pay wall! note: ajc give you 1 viewing of any article a day before blocking you for the rest of the day. you can get around this with a vpn but the fact an article does this is a massive red flag that harms its credibility tremendously. you have a bad tendency to provide these type of bunk sources.

 

i have't had the time to properly go through what i believe to be the root sources but i'll provide a few links related

 

these are just live streams of a couple of hearings with any outside commentary so you don't gotta worry about the channels credibility.

[Phantom Roxas]

Okay, thanks for the videos.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

so do we all now accept president joe

[AGATHODAIMON BANGTAIL COW]

48 minutes ago, Enguin said:

so do we all now accept president joe

more like president noe

[Phantom Roxas]

2 hours ago, Enguin said:

so do we all now accept president joe

Not yet. Trump needs to deliver the jade monkey of Kublai Khan to Congress before the sixth sunset of the new year. Only then will the destined electors restore his rightful claim to the throne, and deny the usurper Biden.

All this was foretold by the prophecy.