Official 2020 November Election Thread.

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.

Did I give the current president what consideration? That he is my president?

Of course I did. Because he technically is, even if I dislike him. My disliking him doesn’t change that obvious fact.

I didn’t think this would be so difficult to understand.

 

[Blues Lifer]

If you're an American, then he will be your president.

There is nothing American left of this potential president. He is in their pocket, and thereby a bitch-boy slave of China. You can pretend to not acknowledge this.. but we all know it be true.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If you're an American, then he will be your president.

There is nothing American left of this potential president. He is in their pocket, and thereby a bitch-boy slave of China. You can pretend to not acknowledge this.. but we all know it be true.

We disagree. To me these are just more baseless claims that you have been indoctrinated to believe. I think you’re just upset with the outcome of the election.

He will still be your president. Sucks for you huh?

 

[FA_Q2]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.

Did I give the current president what consideration? That he is my president?

Of course I did. Because he technically is, even if I dislike him. My disliking him doesn’t change that obvious fact.

I didn’t think this would be so difficult to understand.

'of course I did'

Is not really obvious. Did you miss the mass rallies and protests that started day one of Trump's tenure with the tagline "not my president?"

Did you miss the posters here that parroted that silly line over and over again?

While you are correct, it is rather silly to demand that the current president is not your or my president as it is a hard fact they are, there was a significant portion of the left that resoundingly demanded such. It is not surprising that the mirror image of that segment on the right paints the rest with that broad brush particularly considering how prevalent they are.

 

[Coyote]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.

Did I give the current president what consideration? That he is my president?

Of course I did. Because he technically is, even if I dislike him. My disliking him doesn’t change that obvious fact.

I didn’t think this would be so difficult to understand.

'of course I did'

Is not really obvious. Did you miss the mass rallies and protests that started day one of Trump's tenure with the tagline "not my president?"

Did you miss the posters here that parroted that silly line over and over again?

While you are correct, it is rather silly to demand that the current president is not your or my president as it is a hard fact they are, there was a significant portion of the left that resoundingly demanded such. It is not surprising that the mirror image of that segment on the right paints the rest with that broad brush particularly considering how prevalent they are.

Like the mass rallies now?

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.

Did I give the current president what consideration? That he is my president?

Of course I did. Because he technically is, even if I dislike him. My disliking him doesn’t change that obvious fact.

I didn’t think this would be so difficult to understand.

'of course I did'

Is not really obvious. Did you miss the mass rallies and protests that started day one of Trump's tenure with the tagline "not my president?"

Did you miss the posters here that parroted that silly line over and over again?

While you are correct, it is rather silly to demand that the current president is not your or my president as it is a hard fact they are, there was a significant portion of the left that resoundingly demanded such. It is not surprising that the mirror image of that segment on the right paints the rest with that broad brush particularly considering how prevalent they are.

Like the mass rallies now?

Did you really think liberal bad behavior over the past 4 years wasn’t going to come back at them? The difference is our protesters don’t attack people and destroy property, yours do.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.

Did I give the current president what consideration? That he is my president?

Of course I did. Because he technically is, even if I dislike him. My disliking him doesn’t change that obvious fact.

I didn’t think this would be so difficult to understand.

'of course I did'

Is not really obvious. Did you miss the mass rallies and protests that started day one of Trump's tenure with the tagline "not my president?"

Did you miss the posters here that parroted that silly line over and over again?

While you are correct, it is rather silly to demand that the current president is not your or my president as it is a hard fact they are, there was a significant portion of the left that resoundingly demanded such. It is not surprising that the mirror image of that segment on the right paints the rest with that broad brush particularly considering how prevalent they are.

Whining about the results of an election is nor exclusive to either side.

I think the protests after the 2016 election were stupid. I was especially irritated at the distinct possibility that many of the protesters stayed home instead of voting for Hillary. Don’t protest. Vote.

We all know the rules. We all know the choices. There’s absolutely nothing to protest about the outcome. You lost.

The left whines about the results for no reason. The right is doing the same. Except they’re making up some ridiculous conspiracy theory. Nothing will come of it. You lost.

Just as it was dumb for the left to claim “not my president”, it’s also dumb for the right to do the same.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Trump is STILL going on with his Twitter temper tantrum.

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump is STILL going on with his Twitter temper tantrum.

You sound like you expect it to stop...

Trump will cease the twitter tantrum when he dies, not a second before.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Trump is STILL going on with his Twitter temper tantrum.

You sound like you expect it to stop...

Trump will cease the twitter tantrum when he dies, not a second before.

I have very low expectations of Trump.

No, I don't expect him to stop throwing his Twitter temper tantrum.

 

[Synthaholic]

Lawyers lose their licenses for lying, and this guy ain't losing his license to promote Mango Mussolini's fever dream delusions.

 

[easyt65]

I just wanted to point out that I, in fact, on this board, brought up the idea / fact that hundreds of thousands of ballots that showed up in the wee hours of the morning at multiple locations in multiple states, arriving in coolers & tubs, missing postmarks, were ballots that ONLY contained a vote for PRESIDENT (for BIDEN) and completely ignored every other election...

The 'experts' and investigators have now reported this 'phenomenon', similar to thousands and thousands of votes showing up, 100% of them to be for BIDEN...and a 1st-in-US-history report of 89%, 92%, and even as high as 110% of registered voters voting in this last election.

'Nothing to see here', folks...'nothing to see here'....

 

[j-mac]

I just wanted to point out that I, in fact, on this board, brought up the idea / fact that hundreds of thousands of ballots that showed up in the wee hours of the morning at multiple locations in multiple states, arriving in coolers & tubs, missing postmarks, were ballots that ONLY contained a vote for PRESIDENT (for BIDEN) and completely ignored every other election...

The 'experts' and investigators have now reported this 'phenomenon', similar to thousands and thousands of votes showing up, 100% of them to be for BIDEN...and a 1st-in-US-history report of 89%, 92%, and even as high as 110% of registered voters voting in this last election.

'Nothing to see here', folks...'nothing to see here'....

Shhhh....you can’t post what is probably the truth....that won’t do...Don’t you know the almighty media already called it? /sarcasm

 

[XponentialChaos]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

 

[Synthaholic]

Coup coup ca-choo

 

[j-mac]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

We will show your illegitimate buffoon the same respect you showed President Trump....

 

[XponentialChaos]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

We will show your illegitimate buffoon the same respect you showed President Trump....

Sure, go for it.

He will still be your president.

 

[j-mac]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

We will show your illegitimate buffoon the same respect you showed President Trump....

Sure, go for it.

He will still be your president.

Get back to me after certification...

 

[Faun]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

We will show your illegitimate buffoon the same respect you showed President Trump....

Sure, go for it.

He will still be your president.

Get back to me after certification...

LOL

As if that's gonna change anything.

As if.

 

[j-mac]

Looks like Trump supporters STILL haven’t accepted reality yet.

Biden will be your president.

We will show your illegitimate buffoon the same respect you showed President Trump....

Sure, go for it.

He will still be your president.

Get back to me after certification...

LOL

As if that's gonna change anything.

As if.

It may not...But, right at this moment, Biden isn't anything but a candidate with a projected lead...