Political Betting Thread

[longway]

Then that should be the only thing brought up though which it isn't lol. I keep seeing shit about Dominion machines or ballots being counted multiple times, and the hand recount debunks that by itself.

Fraudulent votes is just a stupid claim imo with no realistic basis. Sure, you might be able to find some individual instances of people trying to vote fraudulently (which could've happened on both sides btw), but a mass operation is hardly even feasible and there's no evidence for it. The evidence is "we didn't think we would lose, so the winner must've cheated", and they take that conclusion and go after whatever they can possibly find no matter how flimsy or legitimate.

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it. All that needs to be done to put this to bed for all reasonable people is do the audit and canvass. How can you find evidence if you don't allow anyone to look for it? Outside that, there is plenty of stuff, but the audit and canvass are where you find the smoking gun so to speak. Why is it not being done if there is nothing to hide? It's a perfectly valid request and nothing wrong with doing it. And btw an Arizona check in a 100 vote sample found 2 switched votes, 2% is a big deal. Now, trying to expand the sample.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...trump-votes-republican-party-says/3799242001/

The dominion stuff is largely not by trump.

 

[longway]

I initially was not sold on this recording, as the commentary could be misleading. But then I saw this, this is the same lady with the blonde dreadlocks in both afaiu anyway.



Maybe it's not an USB but something innocuous like crack.

There was a so-called 'fact check' of the first video, and its the sort of stuff that really frustrates me and makes me call fake news fake news, as it doesn't fact check anything of note.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...der-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html

There is plenty of stuff in this bullshit I can pull apart, but I will focus on the most egregious example of bs.

This one of the quotes from the link:

There wasn't a bin that had ballots in it under that table. It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table.

At 39 secs you can see a man pull one of these 'empty bins' out from under the table and he then goes to a table and puts the ballots from the 'empty bin' on the table. The video footage directly contradicts the 'fact check'. How is such an error possible unless its just bs to trick people? Its just propoganda.

The other equally frustrating thing is that the 'investigators' from the GA SoS only looked at 2 hours of the video. Obviously, the whole thing hinges on when these 'empty bins' found their way under the table. The whole thing can be laid to rest simply by finding out when those 'empty bins' were put under the table and releasing footage to demonstrate there is nothing untoward going on here beyond people being a bit slack.

But it's not done. Why? Just like the audit and canvass. Why is something so obvious not cleared up? The whole Gulliani assertion hinges on the origin these 'empty bins' that were under the table, but neither the 'fact-checker' nor the 'investigators' even bother to address what would be the weakest point of the Gulliani assertion if there was no fraud going on.

 

[TrueAscension]

It’s definitely a weird video and I can see why people would want answers as to what is going on but it seems there are a lot of conclusions being drawn. I’d like to see that woman testify under oath though as to what she was doing with those suitcases/boxes

 

[rev0lver]

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it. All that needs to be done to put this to bed for all reasonable people is do the audit and canvass. How can you find evidence if you don't allow anyone to look for it? Outside that, there is plenty of stuff, but the audit and canvass are where you find the smoking gun so to speak. Why is it not being done if there is nothing to hide? It's a perfectly valid request and nothing wrong with doing it. And btw an Arizona check in a 100 vote sample found 2 switched votes, 2% is a big deal. Now, trying to expand the sample.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...trump-votes-republican-party-says/3799242001/

The dominion stuff is largely not by trump.

Bold of you to assume it would put it to bed. It wouldn't, and you know that. They would accuse the auditors of being in on it, or something else happened, or they'd try to toss out legitimate ballots. A call for a signature audit already assumes that the people counting the ballots were somehow colluding in favor of Biden, since they checked signatures as they opened ballots. There's no basis on challenging that other than Trump not liking the result. Biden narrowly edging Georgia should come as no surprise to anyone but Trump, and that's what happened. If dems somehow rigged it, Ossoff would've won outright too and wouldn't have to deal with a runoff.

For Arizona, they actually did expand that sample. 2% shrunk to <0.05%. Most likely human error. Some went against Biden too. And this was only regarding duplicated ballots, where election workers manually fixed damaged ballots that had votes the machines weren't reading. Extrapolating the error to the total number of duplicated ballots would give Trump ~100 extra votes at best. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...ave-been-found-arizona-all-7-them/3817779001/

Powell might be pushing the Dominion stuff the hardest but Trump and his allies have still brought it up countless times.

There was a so-called 'fact check' of the first video, and its the sort of stuff that really frustrates me and makes me call fake news fake news, as it doesn't fact check anything of note.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...der-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html

There is plenty of stuff in this bullshit I can pull apart, but I will focus on the most egregious example of bs.

This one of the quotes from the link:



At 39 secs you can see a man pull one of these 'empty bins' out from under the table and he then goes to a table and puts the ballots from the 'empty bin' on the table. The video footage directly contradicts the 'fact check'. How is such an error possible unless its just bs to trick people? Its just propoganda.

The other equally frustrating thing is that the 'investigators' from the GA SoS only looked at 2 hours of the video. Obviously, the whole thing hinges on when these 'empty bins' found their way under the table. The whole thing can be laid to rest simply by finding out when those 'empty bins' were put under the table and releasing footage to demonstrate there is nothing untoward going on here beyond people being a bit slack.

But it's not done. Why? Just like the audit and canvass. Why is something so obvious not cleared up? The whole Gulliani assertion hinges on the origin these 'empty bins' that were under the table, but neither the 'fact-checker' nor the 'investigators' even bother to address what would be the weakest point of the Gulliani assertion if there was no fraud going on.

The whole thing about this is stupid imo. It hinges on the idea that ballots under the table = some fraud happening. Why? Ballots in bags under the table isn't "hiding ballots". That sounds like a super normal way of clearing floor space. Why would there be reason to believe these ballots were fraudulently put there? That doesn't even make sense. I'm trying to imagine what showing the ballots being put there would even do. This looked like a normal situation that some MAGA guys decided is suspicious because they can't figure out any actual fraud evidence. Probably because there isn't any.

 

[longway]

Bold of you to assume it would put it to bed. It wouldn't, and you know that. They would accuse the auditors of being in on it, or something else happened, or they'd try to toss out legitimate ballots. A call for a signature audit already assumes that the people counting the ballots were somehow colluding in favor of Biden, since they checked signatures as they opened ballots. There's no basis on challenging that other than Trump not liking the result. Biden narrowly edging Georgia should come as no surprise to anyone but Trump, and that's what happened. If dems somehow rigged it, Ossoff would've won outright too and wouldn't have to deal with a runoff.

For Arizona, they actually did expand that sample. 2% shrunk to <0.05%. Most likely human error. Some went against Biden too. And this was only regarding duplicated ballots, where election workers manually fixed damaged ballots that had votes the machines weren't reading. Extrapolating the error to the total number of duplicated ballots would give Trump ~100 extra votes at best. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...ave-been-found-arizona-all-7-them/3817779001/

Powell might be pushing the Dominion stuff the hardest but Trump and his allies have still brought it up countless times.



The whole thing about this is stupid imo. It hinges on the idea that ballots under the table = some fraud happening. Why? Ballots in bags under the table isn't "hiding ballots". That sounds like a super normal way of clearing floor space. Why would there be reason to believe these ballots were fraudulently put there? That doesn't even make sense. I'm trying to imagine what showing the ballots being put there would even do. This looked like a normal situation that some MAGA guys decided is suspicious because they can't figure out any actual fraud evidence. Probably because there isn't any.

It will never be put to bed for some like Trump is colluding with Putin is never going to be put to bed, but the net effect is to restore confidence in the election process and those who never put it to bed become less influential and more isolated. No, you cant know who voted for who, but you can verify the signatures on the envelopes, and if they don't match, then the result of the election is in doubt.

I don't know the exact legal process, but one of the remedies for legislatures to determine the result. Something like that.

Thanks for the link. Let the checking play out, that's all I want. If all is in order then that's fine. TBH having seen it, I feel better about accepting the results, but the reporter needs to get his tone in check. I confirmed it with the published judgement so I know it's reported accurately, which I can't trust on face-value given the way the article is written.

In terms of the dominion stuff, it's been brought up by many people over the years, not just Trump. IMO just get rid of voting machines.

I agree that he ballots from under the table are not necessarily fraud. When it was first presented, I was not sold on it. It's weird though and merits explanation. And even if you don't think its weird, it's been called out. Its simple to debunk, and that was not done, and the video footage contradicts the 'fact check'. I find it very frustrating, and this is what makes me suspicious.

 

[rev0lver]

It will never be put to bed for some like Trump is colluding with Putin is never going to be put to bed, but the net effect is to restore confidence in the election process and those who never put it to bed become less influential and more isolated. No, you cant know who voted for who, but you can verify the signatures on the envelopes, and if they don't match, then the result of the election is in doubt.

I don't know the exact legal process, but one of the remedies for legislatures to determine the result. Something like that.

Thanks for the link. Let the checking play out, that's all I want. If all is in order then that's fine. TBH having seen it, I feel better about accepting the results, but the reporter needs to get his tone in check. I confirmed it with the published judgement so I know it's reported accurately, which I can't trust on face-value given the way the article is written.

In terms of the dominion stuff, it's been brought up by many people over the years, not just Trump. IMO just get rid of voting machines.

I agree that he ballots from under the table are not necessarily fraud. When it was first presented, I was not sold on it. It's weird though and merits explanation. And even if you don't think its weird, it's been called out. Its simple to debunk, and that was not done, and the video footage contradicts the 'fact check'. I find it very frustrating, and this is what makes me suspicious.

The thing about signature verification is that it was already done, twice I believe, during the original vote-counting process. So them requesting it again (which is a more arduous process) posits that this was improperly done without any evidence it was improperly done. I don't see the point in it.

I feel you on your points and I know you're more open minded than others on your side. It's just frustrating when I don't feel like we'd have any doubts or lack of confidence in our electoral process if it weren't for Trump denying the results. Our voting system is among the best in the world, even by first-world standards, as far as fairness, security, and transparency goes. It's fine to question things but there's a point when we're undermining our own democracy without a rational basis. If you were collecting, verifying, and counting the ballots yourself (this is a poor analogy but you get my point) you know Trump would still be challenging the result if it wasn't in his favor.

 

[benebox]

Trump odds have shortened to +2500 here in the UK

 

[longway]

The thing about signature verification is that it was already done, twice I believe, during the original vote-counting process. So them requesting it again (which is a more arduous process) posits that this was improperly done without any evidence it was improperly done. I don't see the point in it.

I feel you on your points and I know you're more open minded than others on your side. It's just frustrating when I don't feel like we'd have any doubts or lack of confidence in our electoral process if it weren't for Trump denying the results. Our voting system is among the best in the world, even by first-world standards, as far as fairness, security, and transparency goes. It's fine to question things but there's a point when we're undermining our own democracy without a rational basis. If you were collecting, verifying, and counting the ballots yourself (this is a poor analogy but you get my point) you know Trump would still be challenging the result if it wasn't in his favor.

How can you find evidence if you dont check? There are no reasons not to check. As they did in AZ, you can check a sample, then go further as necessary.

Now that they found nothing too much in AZ, I doubt they will find much in GA, or other states, but there are no reasons not to check unless you are hiding something.

 

[rev0lver]

How can you find evidence if you dont check? There are no reasons not to check. As they did in AZ, you can check a sample, then go further as necessary.

Now that they found nothing too much in AZ, I doubt they will find much in GA, or other states, but there are no reasons not to check unless you are hiding something.

Because as of yet, there's no basis for needing to look for evidence, because this check was already done in the initial procedure. It assumes some sort of systematic conspiracy by election workers and, I guess, some organized group of people submitting thousands of fake votes? You need to ground that in something before wasting people's time with it. The reason not to check is that it A. gives credibility to forcing courts/state officials/etc to pursue whatever theory people come up with for whatever reason, and B. probably accomplishes nothing in the end as they'll either accuse that check of being improperly/fraudulently done or just find something else. Like you said, they did this in Arizona, but they're still not accepting the results there.

It's like saying we must check Hillary Clinton's basement for the bodies of trafficked children, and if we refuse we're hiding something. There needs to be a basis for doing that in the first place (and I'd be more willing to believe in that than the 2020 election being stolen). And there's no universe where they do another round of signature matching and Trump goes "ah ok my bad I'll concede"

 

[Roads55]

this guy is fucking deluded, didn't get close to 97%, what a shit thing to do to mislead ppl like this >>

 

[rev0lver]

this guy is fucking deluded, didn't get close to 97%, what a shit thing to do to mislead ppl like this >>

Yeah and Volkov was probably like -10000 on live betting against the black beast

 

[Roads55]

Yeah and Volkov was probably like -10000 on live betting against the black beast

i believe he went to 1.03/1.04 on the exchange iirc haha

 

[longway]

Because as of yet, there's no basis for needing to look for evidence, because this check was already done in the initial procedure. It assumes some sort of systematic conspiracy by election workers and, I guess, some organized group of people submitting thousands of fake votes? You need to ground that in something before wasting people's time with it. The reason not to check is that it A. gives credibility to forcing courts/state officials/etc to pursue whatever theory people come up with for whatever reason, and B. probably accomplishes nothing in the end as they'll either accuse that check of being improperly/fraudulently done or just find something else. Like you said, they did this in Arizona, but they're still not accepting the results there.

It's like saying we must check Hillary Clinton's basement for the bodies of trafficked children, and if we refuse we're hiding something. There needs to be a basis for doing that in the first place (and I'd be more willing to believe in that than the 2020 election being stolen). And there's no universe where they do another round of signature matching and Trump goes "ah ok my bad I'll concede"

There is ample reason to check. Electoral rolls are a mess in many places, and sig verification was either not done or rules changed shortly b4 election. Also drop boxes used, ballot harvesting moratorium in startes like nevada. Sworn affadavits alkeging irregularities, unprecedented deviation from belweather counties, and the dnc are crooked scum.

To deny even checking is crazy and will destroy all trust.

Its not as if sig audits are not a common challenge.

At this atage i dont know what you can have against checking.

In your analogy, which is not a good one, people went to the police bc they heard screams from her basement, children have gone missing from her neighbourhood and podesta seen emerging from the basement with a smile on his face when killary invited people to a spirit cooking party.

Yeah, they need to check the basement.

A better analogy is a public institution denying people access to their accounts. Anyone can challenge an election, its their right.

 

[rev0lver]

In your analogy, which is not a good one, people went to the police bc they heard screams from her basement, children have gone missing from her neighbourhood and podesta seen emerging from the basement with a smile on his face when killary invited people to a spirit cooking party.

LOL

There is ample reason to check. Electoral rolls are a mess in many places, and sig verification was either not done or rules changed shortly b4 election. Also drop boxes used, ballot harvesting moratorium in startes like nevada. Sworn affadavits alkeging irregularities, unprecedented deviation from belweather counties, and the dnc are crooked scum.

To deny even checking is crazy and will destroy all trust.

Its not as if sig audits are not a common challenge.

At this atage i dont know what you can have against checking.

What you can have is pretty much what I stated. It sets a bad precedent of doing all this shit just because you didn't like the result without an evidential basis for doing so. Signature verification was done in Georgia. Georgia is not Nevada. Drop boxes are drop boxes (I put my ballot in one too!). All these sworn affidavits have so far been contradicted by evidence or just showed misunderstandings. Unprecedented deviation happens with unprecedented political situations. Accusing the dnc of being crooked scum is not evidence. Especially by a side that expressly tried to sabotage our postal system to suppress democrat-heavy mail-in votes.

This push to do an audit of signatures is just a stupid talking point in the first place. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for Trump tweeting about it every day, somehow giving the idea credibility. Signature matching was already done. It's a stupid precedent to say we need to do it again because one side is mad. No one's presented evidence that it was done improperly the first time. Let's say there's some universe where they audit and find the unlikely result of a significant discrepancy. Then what? You throw out everyone's votes because there are somehow thousands of envelopes with signatures that look a little different than the record (which, again, for emphasis, is extremely unlikely)? That's a desperate and insane idea. There's no good reason for doing this. Trump just wants to find shit to cling to so he can act like he didn't lose.

I'll give another analogy. Should we re-vote the entire 2020 election with each voter individually filling out and casting their ballot with Donald Trump himself looking over their shoulder? Would you say we're trying to cover up voter fraud if we don't do that? No, that's stupid, he already lost and he has to deal with it.

 

[pyromania]

What you can have is pretty much what I stated. It sets a bad precedent of doing all this shit just because you didn't like the result without an evidential basis for doing so. Signature verification was done in Georgia. Georgia is not Nevada. Drop boxes are drop boxes (I put my ballot in one too!). All these sworn affidavits have so far been contradicted by evidence or just showed misunderstandings. Unprecedented deviation happens with unprecedented political situations. Accusing the dnc of being crooked scum is not evidence. Especially by a side that expressly tried to sabotage our postal system to suppress democrat-heavy mail-in votes.

This push to do an audit of signatures is just a stupid talking point in the first place. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for Trump tweeting about it every day, somehow giving the idea credibility. Signature matching was already done. It's a stupid precedent to say we need to do it again because one side is mad. No one's presented evidence that it was done improperly the first time. Let's say there's some universe where they audit and find the unlikely result of a significant discrepancy. Then what? You throw out everyone's votes because there are somehow thousands of envelopes with signatures that look a little different than the record (which, again, for emphasis, is extremely unlikely)? That's a desperate and insane idea. There's no good reason for doing this. Trump just wants to find shit to cling to so he can act like he didn't lose.

I'll give another analogy. Should we re-vote the entire 2020 election with each voter individually filling out and casting their ballot with Donald Trump himself looking over their shoulder? Would you say we're trying to cover up voter fraud if we don't do that? No, that's stupid, he already lost and he has to deal with it.

I was going to respond to that earlier post, but why bother, they're never going to be convinced. From 2016 "IT'S RIGGED!!" and yet they did nothing to fix it once they were in power? Unbelievable. Ludicrous. And utterly pointless to argue.

 

[longway]

^ ^Its not the first time its done. Challenging signatures is fairly common. Obackstabba got into the state senate by challenging signatures.

I dont mind if the precedent of stringent verification is set. I like it.

I think there are issues with using sig as verification, but in this election thats all there is.

I hope they figure out better ways in the future.

The analogy is that a public institution made huge changes to how it conducted its operations, unpresidented results followed and it refuses to let people audit its accounts bc of a lack of evidence of fraud.

These guys need to be open to prove they are on the up and up as they rely on publuc trust. Its important that the precedent of voting procedures be thoroughly checked is set imo.

Dnc forced big changes on everyone, and in PA may have been unconstitutional. Its important that they are made to bend over spread their arse cheeks and get a thorough and deep probe, even just to send the message.

I dont mind if they find nothing, in fact i would be happy to a point.

Disappointed my guy lost, but as long as the process was legit, gg, and hopefully better result in 2024.

 

[rev0lver]

^ ^Its not the first time its done. Challenging signatures is fairly common. Obackstabba got into the state senate by challenging signatures.

It's not exactly an accurate comparison though. Obama didn't challenge signatures on the basis of fraud or accuracy to the voter. He challenged them based on local-law technicalities like being printed vs signed. I think that's wack though regardless and I wouldn't defend him for it.

These guys need to be open to prove they are on the up and up as they rely on publuc trust. Its important that the precedent of voting procedures be thoroughly checked is set imo.

Dnc forced big changes on everyone, and in PA may have been unconstitutional. Its important that they are made to bend over spread their arse cheeks and get a thorough and deep probe, even just to send the message.

Trust me that I probably hate the DNC almost as much as you. I just don't see a reason to believe there was any widespread fraud, and we're among the top tier in the world in terms of election fairness and security. Any changes to the voting system were done carefully and in a pro-democracy way to allow better access to voting during a public health crisis. As much as I didn't like the result in 2016, it was what it was and even if you could challenge technicalities it would subvert the will of the people. That wouldn't sit right with me.

 

[longway]

It's not exactly an accurate comparison though. Obama didn't challenge signatures on the basis of fraud or accuracy to the voter. He challenged them based on local-law technicalities like being printed vs signed. I think that's wack though regardless and I wouldn't defend him for it.



Trust me that I probably hate the DNC almost as much as you. I just don't see a reason to believe there was any widespread fraud, and we're among the top tier in the world in terms of election fairness and security. Any changes to the voting system were done carefully and in a pro-democracy way to allow better access to voting during a public health crisis. As much as I didn't like the result in 2016, it was what it was and even if you could challenge technicalities it would subvert the will of the people. That wouldn't sit right with me.

As i said, why do i have to take your word for it? I just dont see the problem here.

You make assumptions based on assumptions to deny checks are not uncommon.

You know dnc are crooked scum, keep them on a short a leash as possible.

 

[rev0lver]

As i said, why do i have to take your word for it? I just dont see the problem here.

You make assumptions based on assumptions to deny checks are not uncommon.

You know dnc are crooked scum, keep them on a short a leash as possible.

Yeah they're crooked scum, but I'm not gonna accuse them of doing something unrealistic with no solid basis for it. I'm not gonna insinuate that Nancy Pelosi drinks the blood of sacrificed children when she wakes up every morning, and imply she's hiding something if we don't investigate it. Like yeah I hate her but that's probably just something I made up.

I was as big of a Bernie Sanders supporter as you could get during the primaries, and I was obviously very unhappy with the result. But it was what it was and that's just how our democracy works. There was no reason to think they cheated. Manipulated media, constant attacks on the "far left", even possible collusion right before Super Tuesday to consolidate support behind Biden? Sure. But actual fraud in the primary elections? We could develop conspiracy theories about that if we wanted to, but it's just not realistic and it's dangerously antidemocratic to push that idea purely on the basis of not liking the outcome.

 

[TrueAscension]

Yeah they're crooked scum, but I'm not gonna accuse them of doing something unrealistic with no solid basis for it. I'm not gonna insinuate that Nancy Pelosi drinks the blood of sacrificed children when she wakes up every morning, and imply she's hiding something if we don't investigate it. Like yeah I hate her but that's probably just something I made up.

I was as big of a Bernie Sanders supporter as you could get during the primaries, and I was obviously very unhappy with the result. But it was what it was and that's just how our democracy works. There was no reason to think they cheated. Manipulated media, constant attacks on the "far left", even possible collusion right before Super Tuesday to consolidate support behind Biden? Sure. But actual fraud in the primary elections? We could develop conspiracy theories about that if we wanted to, but it's just not realistic and it's dangerously antidemocratic to push that idea purely on the basis of not liking the outcome.

Love the Bern and yes I think the dems all dropped out at the same time to help Biden get the nod but I think Trump would have beaten Bernie via the electoral college (not with lawsuits and Supreme Court hail mary attempts)