TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:38 am So what would be the results of a Law that prohibited giving money in a State you don't live in?

SCOTUS ruling that it is a First Amendment violation.

oohrah wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:07 pm No, I mean people of color. If you believe there was sufficient fraud to change the election, then you have been drinking the Republican kool-aid.

I am not sure whether there was enough fraud to swing the election or not. I am sure there has been fraud in every election since 1850 when Tammany Hall figured out how to rig NYC elections. I am also sure that without a thorough investigation we will not know how much. If there was so little fraud, why are people fighting an unbiased and fair investigation, including forensic audits of the voting and tabulating machines?

But on the side of if there was enough, we have an interesting contradiction going on. We are being told that there were isolated cases of fraud in insufficient amounts to make a difference. That sounds reasonable to me until I compare it to all the years I was told I should go vote because my one vote could make a difference. If my one vote properly cast can make a difference, then one fraudulent vote can make a difference. And almost everyone has agreed that there were some fraudulent votes.

Paladin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:28 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:43 pm https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-potentia ... 06511.html

Georgia election commission sends voter fraud case to AG.

This is a Dem positive story as best as can be written.

This would be the Rep version.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat ... ct-reports

Sending him to jail would be a start

I don't really care if he goes to jail, I just want to see him impeached and convicted for it. Wouldn't that make the Senate 50-49 for the Republicans? Think the Democrats would steal another special election? Would enough people vote for them that they could get away with it?

powerboatr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:50 pm

striker55 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:01 pm We shall see https://brassballs.blog/home/supreme-co ... nc-hillary

interesting, but if scotus rules the election was filled with fraud, what happens next

It depends on exactly what they rule and how. They can rule that Trump won the popular vote and that it makes no difference because Biden won the electoral college. They could rule that certain states electoral votes should not have counted and remove them, and leave the result depending on how the remaining votes went. They could rule Trump is actually the president now. They could rule that the whole election must be redone. Or they could rule that Trump is just a sore loser and he really lost. If I were betting on it, I would probably bet on the last choice with the first option as the closest possible second answer. I would also be willing to bet they come up with some other weirder ruling, probably based on some technicality like standing, to dismiss the hole case.

That ought to be an interesting lawsuit. Discovery would force a close examination of the machines and software used. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:28 pmA paper on the election by Edward Solomon. I have not been able to pin this guy down without a middle initial. This may be November old news. Not sure.

https://www.mediamatters.org/one-americ ... votes-2020

New story. I cannot verify who this guy is.

It appears to be Edward K. Solomon. I found a paper published by him on cumulative totatives published in 2018 on Scribd. I don't have access to the university library anymore to research him further.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:47 pm

So if you want to cheat with Dominion go to 5:30 on the video.

Southern accent so I suppose it’s Georgia

Video removed by "the uploader." Yeah, I believe that, Youtube.

As can be expected, someone is lying to us again. From the article:

“Analysis by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office IT Security indicates an unauthorized individual gathered publicly accessible voter information from our website,” a spokesperson said.

If it is a publicly accessible web site, how can a person be unauthorized? And how can it be a crime to get the data?

THE ENGINEER wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:21 pm Show me the court cases where evidence has been presented to a court and accepted by a judge as relevant and I’d certainly believe it warrants digging deeper. Up to this point there’s been nothing substantial.

From this statement, I believe you are answering the reverse question you asked in your earlier post. You asked what it would take to convince someone truly believes the election was stolen that it was actually an honest and fair election. The obvious reverse question is what would it take to convince someone who believes it was an honest and fair election (you, in my opinion) that there really was voter fraud and that it was enough to flip the results of the election.

I don't think you could convince me it was honest and fair, based on the history of elections in the US combined with the reported "glitches" that have been found and corrected. Your statement asks for evidence that was accepted by a judge as relevant and that misses two significant parts of the process. The first part that you seem to be missing is that the evidence is not always proof of the direct fraud, but the blocking of observation that allows for the fraud to occur. The second part of the process is called discovery and requires the lawsuit to be allowed to proceed. Then we could get into the actual software used that has already been acknowledged to move votes between parties. That is how you get the evidence to prove fraud in any civil trial.

If you truly believe that election fraud is not occurring in the US, I suggest you study US election history. The two most common historical frauds have been the dead people voting and the extra ballot box found at the last minute. Especially in Texas, these last two have been common, and I refer you to LBJ's first election as a US Senator as one example. Other common methods of fraud have been coercion in voting (either to force people to vote one way or to not vote) and bribery (paying people for their votes). For a non-Texas example of historical election fraud in the US, I refer you to the Tammany Hall scandals and Boss Tweed in the 1850's.

I think anyone who believes that US elections are fair and honest at anything above the local level in small towns has been keeping their head in the sand. And by that, I am only referring to the illegal frauds, not the legal stuff and dirty politics, which even permeate small town politics.

clarionite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:56 pm I'm at a loss to figure out how republican's picked up quite a few house seats, only lost one senate seat (with a very lopsided number of republican seats up for grabs) and the Democrats clinched the top spot with a very high number of ballots with no down ballot votes. My experience working in the polls was there was a very small number of voters who didn't vote for anything other than President. They usually voted at least for governor, and congressmen. Even if they didn't vote for all the local stuff.

I think the House difference in performance can be explained by the shape of many house districts. Last redistricting, many states like Texas broke up some districts to make them more favorable to one side or the other. If you look at the county maps, you will see how this meant that Trump could carry a lot more House districts that crossed county lines. If the part of the district in the big city county went heavily Biden, but the rest of the district went Trump, then Trump could win the district while Biden won the large population centers and carried the state.

I think (and it is just my opinion) that most of the Senate seats up for grabs were in relatively safe states for the parties involved. Some states had no open Senate seats being contested this time, most had one, and at least Georgia had two. I am convinced that honest analysts did not expect the Senate to change control, though the dishonest ones mixed their hoped for result with their analyst and forecast otherwise.

I did read one analysis that said the results of the election are a clear indication that Republican party ideals were preferred by voters in most places and Trump was rejected as an individual and not for real policy reasons. I tend to agree with this analysis, though some politicians like AOC certainly do not.