Data Expert Finds Large Anomalies in Vote Tabulations in PA and GA

[colfax_m]

So PA stopping certifications is done why then?

like I said, you never offer up facts or support evidence. you just shout the other side sucks.

Troll.

PA isn't stopping certifications. There was a momentary hold on certifications but you don't seem to know much of the story.

Here's what happened. A bunch of Republicans including a Pennsylvania Congressman brought a lawsuit claiming that the law Pennsylvania passed on a bipartisan basis was unconstitutional. That law opened absentee ballots to anyone (previously you needed an excuse such as illness or being outside your district). Guess what? Tons of people voted by mail as a result, millions in fact.

But the PA constitution has some stipulations for absentee ballots so the law very well could be seen by a reasonable person to be unconstitutional. That's not the problem.

The problem is that these guys waited until two days before elections were certified to file a lawsuit even though the law was passed over a year ago. It's a bullshit move to wait for millions of people to vote by mail and then ask the courts to throw all those out because you didn't get off your ass to file a lawsuit before that happened. The PA Supreme Court acknowledged that this was a bullshit move.

A little more to your point, this was not a real issue of fraud, however. The PA Supreme Court's decision (in a concurring statement by Justice Wecht) said this:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/68%20MAP%202020%20Concurring%20Statement%20(J.%20Wecht)final.pdf?cb=2

In many exchanges with you, I have provided extensive citations, facts and evidence. You should know better than to poke me because I'm more than capable of embarrassing you.

 

[iceberg]

So PA stopping certifications is done why then?

like I said, you never offer up facts or support evidence. you just shout the other side sucks.

Troll.

PA isn't stopping certifications. There was a momentary hold on certifications but you don't seem to know much of the story.

Here's what happened. A bunch of Republicans including a Pennsylvania Congressman brought a lawsuit claiming that the law Pennsylvania passed on a bipartisan basis was unconstitutional. That law opened absentee ballots to anyone (previously you needed an excuse such as illness or being outside your district). Guess what? Tons of people voted by mail as a result, millions in fact.

But the PA constitution has some stipulations for absentee ballots so the law very well could be seen by a reasonable person to be unconstitutional. That's not the problem.

The problem is that these guys waited until two days before elections were certified to file a lawsuit even though the law was passed over a year ago. It's a bullshit move to wait for millions of people to vote by mail and then ask the courts to throw all those out because you didn't get off your ass to file a lawsuit before that happened. The PA Supreme Court acknowledged that this was a bullshit move.

A little more to your point, this was not a real issue of fraud, however. The PA Supreme Court's decision (in a concurring statement by Justice Wecht) said this:
View attachment 423108

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/68%20MAP%202020%20Concurring%20Statement%20(J.%20Wecht)final.pdf?cb=2

In many exchanges with you, I have provided extensive citations, facts and evidence. You should know better than to poke me because I'm more than capable of embarrassing you.

heh, sure John boy.

I'd rather talk issues, you'd rather attack.

speaks volumes of us both.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

heh, sure John boy.

I'd rather talk issues, you'd rather attack.

*said while attacking and sidestepping an entire post full of information related to the issues

You guys have really fallen apart. You're not even trying, anymore. I notice this across this board, since the election.

 

[colfax_m]

So PA stopping certifications is done why then?

like I said, you never offer up facts or support evidence. you just shout the other side sucks.

Troll.

PA isn't stopping certifications. There was a momentary hold on certifications but you don't seem to know much of the story.

Here's what happened. A bunch of Republicans including a Pennsylvania Congressman brought a lawsuit claiming that the law Pennsylvania passed on a bipartisan basis was unconstitutional. That law opened absentee ballots to anyone (previously you needed an excuse such as illness or being outside your district). Guess what? Tons of people voted by mail as a result, millions in fact.

But the PA constitution has some stipulations for absentee ballots so the law very well could be seen by a reasonable person to be unconstitutional. That's not the problem.

The problem is that these guys waited until two days before elections were certified to file a lawsuit even though the law was passed over a year ago. It's a bullshit move to wait for millions of people to vote by mail and then ask the courts to throw all those out because you didn't get off your ass to file a lawsuit before that happened. The PA Supreme Court acknowledged that this was a bullshit move.

A little more to your point, this was not a real issue of fraud, however. The PA Supreme Court's decision (in a concurring statement by Justice Wecht) said this:
View attachment 423108

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/68%20MAP%202020%20Concurring%20Statement%20(J.%20Wecht)final.pdf?cb=2

In many exchanges with you, I have provided extensive citations, facts and evidence. You should know better than to poke me because I'm more than capable of embarrassing you.

heh, sure John boy.

I'd rather talk issues, you'd rather attack.

speaks volumes of us both.

I love talking about the issues. Problem is people like you have lost touch with reality.

And attempts to bring you to reality, which is what I was doing in my previous post, seem futile.

 

[JoeB131]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

We know a lot of them had sex with slaves we also know many slaves willingly consented to sex which is not an issue to begin with.

A slave can indeed grant consent or even pursue a sexual relationship and therefore IT WAS NOT RAPE in such circumstances.

You are what you always have been proven to be on these threads which is a liar and coward when you smear with false accusations of rape

 

[Bobob]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

We know a lot of them had sex with slaves we also know many slaves willingly consented to sex which is not an issue to begin with.

A slave can indeed grant consent or even pursue a sexual relationship and therefore IT WAS NOT RAPE in such circumstances.

You are what you always have been proven to be on these threads which is a liar and coward when you smear with false accusations of rape

Maybe many slaves consented to sex with their masters out of fear. One could call that rape because it is not truly consensual except in the verbiage.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

We know a lot of them had sex with slaves we also know many slaves willingly consented to sex which is not an issue to begin with.

A slave can indeed grant consent or even pursue a sexual relationship and therefore IT WAS NOT RAPE in such circumstances.

You are what you always have been proven to be on these threads which is a liar and coward when you smear with false accusations of rape

Maybe many slaves consented to sex with their masters out of fear. One could call that rape because it is not truly consensual except in the verbiage.

Im sure some did out of fear, but we do not know which ones.

Im sure some of them did in order to gain some sort of advantage such as better food or a higher position in the slave hierarchy. But we do not know which ones did this.

I'm sure some had sex with their owners because they were horny. But we don't know which ones did this.

Since we have no idea which ones were raped and which ones had consensual sex it is a smear to generalize any specific one or all of them as rapists.

The liar and fool JoeB proclaims that they were ALL rapists but he is a proven ignorant fool

 

[Bobob]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

We know a lot of them had sex with slaves we also know many slaves willingly consented to sex which is not an issue to begin with.

A slave can indeed grant consent or even pursue a sexual relationship and therefore IT WAS NOT RAPE in such circumstances.

You are what you always have been proven to be on these threads which is a liar and coward when you smear with false accusations of rape

Maybe many slaves consented to sex with their masters out of fear. One could call that rape because it is not truly consensual except in the verbiage.

Im sure some did out of fear, but we do not know which ones.

Im sure some of them did in order to gain some sort of advantage such as better food or a higher position in the slave hierarchy. But we do not know which ones did this.

I'm sure some had sex with their owners because they were horny. But we don't know which ones did this.

Since we have no idea which ones were raped and which ones had consensual sex it is a smear to generalize any specific one or all of them as rapists.

The liar and fool JoeB proclaims that they were ALL rapists but he is a proven ignorant fool

I think that a lot of 'em were rapists. after all, they treated their "slaves" like dogs. Why not fuck some of 'em too?

 

[Soupnazi630]

The founders were certainly slave owners but to call them rapists is a smear.

Um, actually, no. We know a lot of them were having sex with their slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered a bunch of children on Sally Hemmings. Now- Here's the part where you have a hard time following. When you are property, when you can be whipped or sold for disobedience, the issue of consent is meaningless.

So, yes, they were slave rapists.

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

We know a lot of them had sex with slaves we also know many slaves willingly consented to sex which is not an issue to begin with.

A slave can indeed grant consent or even pursue a sexual relationship and therefore IT WAS NOT RAPE in such circumstances.

You are what you always have been proven to be on these threads which is a liar and coward when you smear with false accusations of rape

Maybe many slaves consented to sex with their masters out of fear. One could call that rape because it is not truly consensual except in the verbiage.

Im sure some did out of fear, but we do not know which ones.

Im sure some of them did in order to gain some sort of advantage such as better food or a higher position in the slave hierarchy. But we do not know which ones did this.

I'm sure some had sex with their owners because they were horny. But we don't know which ones did this.

Since we have no idea which ones were raped and which ones had consensual sex it is a smear to generalize any specific one or all of them as rapists.

The liar and fool JoeB proclaims that they were ALL rapists but he is a proven ignorant fool

I think that a lot of 'em were rapists. after all, they treated their "slaves" like dogs. Why not fuck some of 'em too?

I am sure many of them were.

I am also sure many were not and did not need to be.

The issue is not whether any of them were or not the issue is a contradictory and ignorant standard which insists all of them were

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

Okay, so we've established a MALE in the Jefferson family fucked Sally. So by process of elimination.
1) She was his property.
2) She looked like his dead wife (being she was the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife, because his father in law was a slave-rapist, too.)
3) People at the time talked about how he was banging her. It was in fact a public scandal.
4) The rape happened over a number of years, and he was the only one who had access to her all that time.

I'm sure some had sex with their owners because they were horny. But we don't know which ones did this.

Since we have no idea which ones were raped and which ones had consensual sex it is a smear to generalize any specific one or all of them as rapists.

The liar and fool JoeB proclaims that they were ALL rapists but he is a proven ignorant fool

Again, the issue is CONSENT. When you are property, you can't CONSENT. Just like you can't give two weeks notice because the plantation down the road is offering more money.

Thomas Jefferson was a rapist. Deal with it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

This is simply more proof that you are ignorant, uneducated and know nothing about history.

We know a MALE genetic contributer in Jeffersons immediate family fathered children with Hemmings but in all likelyhood it was his brother. So we do not Know Thomas Jefferson did.

Okay, so we've established a MALE in the Jefferson family fucked Sally. So by process of elimination.
1) She was his property.
2) She looked like his dead wife (being she was the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife, because his father in law was a slave-rapist, too.)
3) People at the time talked about how he was banging her. It was in fact a public scandal.
4) The rape happened over a number of years, and he was the only one who had access to her all that time.

I'm sure some had sex with their owners because they were horny. But we don't know which ones did this.

Since we have no idea which ones were raped and which ones had consensual sex it is a smear to generalize any specific one or all of them as rapists.

The liar and fool JoeB proclaims that they were ALL rapists but he is a proven ignorant fool

Again, the issue is CONSENT. When you are property, you can't CONSENT. Just like you can't give two weeks notice because the plantation down the road is offering more money.

Thomas Jefferson was a rapist. Deal with it.

The issue is not consent

Just because someone CAN force another to do something does not mean they exercise that ability

Slaves can seduce and offer sex in exchange for advantage and sometimes they do.

By definition that is consent

When you are property yes you can consent

Your claim he was a rapist is an absolute lie and foolish smear

 

[JoeB131]

The issue is not consent

Just because someone CAN force another to do something does not mean they exercise that ability

Slaves can seduce and offer sex in exchange for advantage and sometimes they do.

By definition that is consent

When you are property yes you can consent

Your claim he was a rapist is an absolute lie and foolish smear

Okay, got to ask again, are you some kind of retard?

Even if you were to argue that she 'Seduced" him, (unlikely, given their age difference, she was 15 and he was 43 when they started their relationship), the fact is, he had all the power in that relationship, and she had none of it.

So by definition- rape.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The issue is not consent

Just because someone CAN force another to do something does not mean they exercise that ability

Slaves can seduce and offer sex in exchange for advantage and sometimes they do.

By definition that is consent

When you are property yes you can consent

Your claim he was a rapist is an absolute lie and foolish smear

Okay, got to ask again, are you some kind of retard?

Even if you were to argue that she 'Seduced" him, (unlikely, given their age difference, she was 15 and he was 43 when they started their relationship), the fact is, he had all the power in that relationship, and she had none of it.

So by definition- rape.

Not by definition rape.

I never said SHE did I said many of them did.

Just because one has no power does not mean one cannot consent.

That is fact deal with your claim is idiotic and an outright lie

 

[JoeB131]

Not by definition rape.

I never said SHE did I said many of them did.

Just because one has no power does not mean one cannot consent.

That is fact deal with your claim is idiotic and an outright lie

So if the boss says, "Suck my dick or I'll fire you", then you'll get on your knees, right? Of course you wouldn't. Hopefully, you'd be man enough to quit. Maybe even make a complaint to a government agency.

Sally Hemmings didn't have the option of quitting. There was no agency to complain to, Jefferson was the government. He could take her outside and have her whipped for disobedience, if she didn't give in to his demands.

Jefferson was a rapist. Deal with it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not by definition rape.

I never said SHE did I said many of them did.

Just because one has no power does not mean one cannot consent.

That is fact deal with your claim is idiotic and an outright lie

So if the boss says, "Suck my dick or I'll fire you", then you'll get on your knees, right? Of course you wouldn't. Hopefully, you'd be man enough to quit. Maybe even make a complaint to a government agency.

Sally Hemmings didn't have the option of quitting. There was no agency to complain to, Jefferson was the government. He could take her outside and have her whipped for disobedience, if she didn't give in to his demands.

Jefferson was a rapist. Deal with it.

Which does not mean she was not into him and consenting to it
You are repeating a lie and a false smear

 

[JoeB131]

Which does not mean she was not into him and consenting to it
You are repeating a lie and a false smear

yes, because apparently 15 year old girls are TOTALLY into 43 year old guys.... who can have members of their family whipped, or sold at a moments whim.

Come on, get real.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's see. . . I have 100 votes, twonty of them are fake, fraud or otherwise invalid. .

Wait. Let me count these again.

Yep.... still 100.

Must be a legitimate count after all.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's see. . . I have 100 votes, twonty of them are fake, fraud or otherwise invalid. .

Wait. Let me count these again.

Yep.... still 100.

Must be a legitimate count after all.

Except you guys haven't found any that were "invalid".

You are trying to declare valid votes invalid after the fact through various means, even though it's impossible to track who voted for who at this point.

Your guy lost by 7 million votes... that's why he lost.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's see. . . I have 100 votes, twonty of them are fake, fraud or otherwise invalid. .

Wait. Let me count these again.

Yep.... still 100.

Must be a legitimate count after all.

Except you guys haven't found any that were "invalid".

You are trying to declare valid votes invalid after the fact through various means, even though it's impossible to track who voted for who at this point.

Your guy lost by 7 million votes... that's why he lost.

If it is impossible to confirm "who voted for who" then it is just as impossible to rule out any possibility of fraud as it is ignorant to suggest that there wasn't any fraud.