Trump has thousands of attorneys ready for post-election legal fight

[Invisible Man]

Correct, they're all estimates, that's far different than comparing it to REGISTERED VOTERS which rely on literally manual lists of specific people.

So, you can't compare apples to oranges, especially when they're not even time specific.

As the easiest example, yes, people die, and people move. Those don't automatically get reflected in the registrations, HOWEVER, you know what really matters?

VOTES, votes did not exceed either voters or registered voters or eligible voters.

Here's how we know : we know how many ballots were either sent out or requested. So if you moved out of state, the only way your ballot could have been returned is it you requested it to be mailed out of state (which wouldn't be fraud), or somebody at your old address found it for you. But guess what? Your old address's occupant probably got their own ballot too, so for that person to forge your ballot would be risky for no return.

COVID has especially made it harder to track people's moving, but even with outdated registration records, there's no evidence that any substantial number of people voted fraudulently (or that counters cheated).

You're moving the goalposts.

Nobody is claiming that votes exceeded registered voters.

The claim is that registered voters exceeds eligible voters in some states. You earlier denied that. You asserted in a black-and-white manner that that claim was flat out false. Now you seem to just be dancing around it. But it's really indisputable.

In the case of Alaska, given the evidence you've already been shown, there is no conceivable way that there are as many eligible voters in the state as there are registered voters. This is according to the state's own data for both numbers. It has been known and reported in the mainstream media for years, and I have not seen any representative of the state's government, or anyone else besides you, try to deny that it is the case.

 

[PRB]

You're moving the goalposts.

Nobody is claiming that votes exceeded registered voters.

Read my signature, ask PCosmar yourself if he said it.

Ask anybody who is bringing this up if they think that's sufficient evidence that there's enough votes in difference to change the outcome of the election.

Here's JMdrake saying it http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Voter-Fraud&p=6997631&viewfull=1#post6997631

 

[PRB]

The claim is that registered voters exceeds eligible voters in some states. You earlier denied that.

Still do. Because you can't compare an exact number to an estimated number.

You asserted in a black-and-white manner that that claim was flat out false. Now you seem to just be dancing around it. But it's really indisputable.

Oh, don't care if i'm black and white about a conspiracy theory

In the case of Alaska, given the evidence you've already been shown, there is no conceivable way that there are as many eligible voters in the state as there are registered voters.

I gave you a few ways.

This is according to the state's own data for both numbers. It has been known and reported in the mainstream media for years, and I have not seen any representative of the state's government, or anyone else besides you, try to deny that it is the case.

No, it's not. And I'm willing to say the state's website isn't entirely accurate, that's still different than saying the numbers are accurate therefore there's fraud.

 

[PRB]

Fraud is the wrong word to use. In Wisconsin 10000 ballots only had the name on it. In the past those were invalidated.

Citation please?

 

[PRB]

I don't have numbers but some people have come forward.

How many?

I also recall testimony from a poll worker who said it was very common for people to try to vote in person but told they had already voted by mail despite claiming never doing so.

so they were denied, good.

 

[Invisible Man]

Still do. Because you can't compare an exact number to an estimated number.

Of course you can. I just did, and there's no reason not to.

Consider a scenario with the following three givens:
1. A state is known to have an 18-and-over population of 1,000,000 +/- 1,000.
2. the number of eligible voters in that state must be fewer than the number of people in it who are 18 and over.
3. That same state has 1,206,312 registered voters.

The first given refers to an estimate with a certain margin of error. The third given refers to an actual count of registered voters with no margin of error.

You can compare those numbers and see that that state has more registered voters than eligible voters. The fact that one of the numbers is an estimate doesn't invalidate that.

Oh, don't care if i'm black and white about a conspiracy theory

The claim that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a documented fact that has been known and widely reported in mainstream media for years that nobody other than you disputes.

No, it's not. And I'm willing to say the state's website isn't entirely accurate, that's still different than saying the numbers are accurate therefore there's fraud.

Again, moving the goalposts. Claiming that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters is not the same as claiming there was fraud. Those are two separate questions that you keep trying to switch between.

Also, the claim that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters doesn't require that the state's own websites estimates of its own population have to be extremely accurate. It only requires that they be accurate to within 10%, which there's no conceivable way for them to be off by that much.

 

[TheTexan]

How many?

I haven't bothered to check. There was more than enough fraud from other categories that I don't particularly care.

But given the below facts which are well documented:
1) Ballots were mailed out to entire voter roll (no need to request)
2) Voter roll has many known issues
3) Signature matching for mailed in ballots was effectively non-existent
4) Even simple things such as address checking for mailed in ballots was effectively non-existent

Given the above, it would be extremely difficult to make the argument there wasn't a significant amount of mail-in fraud.

Of course, without an audit, we would never know.

so they were denied, good.

It's "good" that someone mailed in a ballot with their name on it, without their knowledge? I guess it's "good", in a "burn down the system" kind of way, but normally most people would not think that's "good".

 

[tebowlives]

Citation please?

(6d) If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d

 

[PRB]

(6d) If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d

not what you said. try again, read what you said this time.

 

[PRB]

It's "good" that someone mailed in a ballot with their name on it, without their knowledge?

No. But you have to prove that to be the case.

 

[PRB]

Claiming that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters is not the same as claiming there was fraud.

Cool. that's the only thing I care about . thanks.

 

[TheTexan]

No. But you have to prove that to be the case.

I don't have to prove anything. There's plenty of witnesses who have testified to that effect.

Do your own research, or not, it matters to me none at all.

 

[PRB]

I don't have to prove anything. There's plenty of witnesses who have testified to that effect.

Do your own research, or not, it matters to me none at all.

There's plenty of people who swore under oath their ballots were signed and turned in but it wasn't themselves?

 

[TheTexan]

There's plenty of people who swore under oath their ballots were signed and turned in but it wasn't themselves?

They never had a chance to swear under oath, though I'm sure if they were provided the opportunity they would have done so.

 

[PRB]

They never had a chance to swear under oath, though I'm sure if they were provided the opportunity they would have done so.

Yeah they did. Every person had a chance to sue or be included in a suit, not a single filing claimed what they claimed, they didn't file because they're not willing to say it under oath.

 

[TheTexan]

Yeah they did. Every person had a chance to sue or be included in a suit, not a single filing claimed what they claimed, they didn't file because they're not willing to say it under oath.

Yes, these pro-Trump zealots were willing to face felony charges by breaking into the Capitol building, but swearing something under oath, is just too much to ask of them.

Makes perfect sense

You are really smart

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

[MENTION=55014]PRB[/MENTION] Should the 2020 Election be the goal or standard that all elections should be judged by?

If you were Trump, would you be convinced that the election was fair?

Did you see Trumps list of what he thinks should take place for future elections?

[h=3]President Trump listed the activities needed to address the election fraud of 2020.[/h]President Trump listed the activities needed in elections going forward in his speech today at CPAC:

1. We should have one election day
2. The only people that should be allowed to vote absentee are those with a good reason
3. Eliminate mail-in voting
4. Must have voter ID
5. We need universal signature matching
6. There should be 100% requirement to be American to vote
7. Must have chain of custody for every ballot.

 

[Invisible Man]

President Trump listed the activities needed in elections going forward in his speech today at CPAC:

1. We should have one election day
2. The only people that should be allowed to vote absentee are those with a good reason
3. Eliminate mail-in voting
4. Must have voter ID
5. We need universal signature matching
6. There should be 100% requirement to be American to vote
7. Must have chain of custody for every ballot.

What is "universal signature matching"?

Most of the items on that list look like things that I would expect to be matters of state law. But then that one, because it uses the word "universal" looks like something he's trying to make federal. Is that not what "universal" means there?

I guess the same thing could be said about the way he includes "100%" in point #6.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What is "universal signature matching"?

Most of the items on that list look like things that I would expect to be matters of state law. But then that one, because it uses the word "universal" looks like something he's trying to make federal. Is that not what "universal" means there?

I guess the same thing could be said about the way he includes "100%" in point #6.

I can't speak for Trump but when I read it I thought it meant that all states should follow the same protocol. That would mean something like show state approved legal form of identification or drivers license..

 

[PRB]

Yes, these pro-Trump zealots were willing to face felony charges by breaking into the Capitol building, but swearing something under oath, is just too much to ask of them.

Makes perfect sense

You are really smart

Yes, it makes perfect sense, because one is easier to catch and prove, and Trump zealots have people of varying risk tolerances, obviously 99% of them stayed home and did nothing but vote.

Also, they probably tried to go through lawyers and any competent lawyer would advise them not to commit perjury.