Biden in Trouble

[Pabst]

Kari Lake was cheated out of her election, too, for the record.

HAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Holy fucking shit, dude.

She lost. Trump lost. Walker lost.

You're rallying behind joke candidates that no one like and claiming it's a conspiracy theory when they lose.

[zeke5123]

I don't know if there was cheating in the election. Anyone who says anything definitive in either direction is full of it. But here are some thoughts:

1. The dems seem very interested in weakening the ability for election integrity (e.g., more mail-in ballots, no voter ID, etc.). Some of it can be explained with trying to make voting easier (e.g., perhaps they believe if voting is hard, then their base will vote less compared to republican voters). But some of it is really hard to explain (e.g., ID). If a person doesn't have an ID, they basically cannot function in the modern world. I can't believe Dems really think there will be more than a handful of eligible voters disentranced by ID laws and ID laws poll well. If someone inexplicably wants a law whose only purpose is to enable cheating...maybe there is a reason.

2. The IC was and did cheat in 2016 and 2020 (this should be a way bigger story). If they were willing to fabricate evidence, debunk true stories to get social media to censor, release BS letters to give one candidate cover, etc. why wouldn't they be willing to literally ballot stuff?

3. I also wished Trump would go away. Maybe he was cheated, but that doesn't make him a good president.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"She lost. Trump lost. Walker lost."

You still don't get the difference between being smart and a smart ass. Once again, follow the simple logic...mail in ballots had never been done before ballot harvesting was rampant and there was absolute chaos on election night.

You don't KNOW the result because you CANT. But you go ahead and be a good flying monkey and parrot what your masters tell you on MSNBC.

I am saying I don't know. You are lying and say you do, but you don't because you can't.

Clearly your teachers never taught you epistemology or what truth even is. A falsehood is not an opinion in the face of uncertain evidence that you don't agree with.

But you and STD type HAHALOLZ so you got that middle school thing going for you.

[.Kodiak]

I am saying I don't know. You are lying and say you do, but you don't because you can't.

But there's been NO EVIDENCE of fraud. Trump had ample opportunity to present ANY evidence, in like 60+ court cases. He got creamed in every case.

Material voter fraud is just a rightwing talking point, just like "disenfranchisement" and "jim crow" restrictions are a leftwing talking point. There's no significant evidence for either.

There are still people that believe Al Gore won the 2000 election. There were multiple independent/academic studies of those "hanging chads" that all confirmed Bush received more votes in FLA. But facts, or lack thereof, don't sway partisans from what they choose to believe.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Stop saying there is NO evidence. I will try to show you an analysis of the Heartland Institute/Rasmussen that showed plenty but it won't matter because you are an obedient little parrot:


The results of the survey are nothing short of stunning, and upon their release, they sparked numerous conversations about the amount of fraud in the 2020 election and the potential impact of mail-in ballot fraud in future elections. For example, former President Trump referred to the poll as “the biggest story of the year” and “the most important poll released in the past 20 years.” According to the results of the survey, a massive number of voters who cast ballots by mail admitted to committing at least one form of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Some of the most important findings from the poll include:

21 percent of mail-in voters admitted that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are “no longer a permanent resident.”
21 percent of mail-in voters admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member.
17 percent of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission.”
19 percent of mail-in voters said that a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf.
After analyzing the raw survey data, we were also able to conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail admitted to committing at least one kind of voter fraud. This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted.

Because Joe Biden received significantly more mail in votes than Donald Trump, we conclude that the 2020 election outcome would have been different in the key swing states that Donald Trump lost by razor thin margins in 2020—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— under the 28.2 percent scenario. We also analyzed the electoral results for those six swing states under every integer from 27 percent fraud down to 1 percent fraud, allowing readers to see the impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots might have produced under each scenario.

We made a number of assumptions and gathered our data from a variety of sources in addition to our poll, which is detailed in the methodology and data sections.

The results of our analysis are outlined below.

28.2 percent fraud
Trump wins Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Trump wins the Electoral College 311-227.
27 percent fraud through 14 percent fraud
From 27 percent fraud down through 14 percent, the overall results are identical to the 28.2 percent fraud scenario (though Trump’s margin of victory in each state shrinks as the overall mail-in ballot fraud integer shrinks).
13 percent fraud through 6 percent fraud
Trump wins Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but loses to Biden in Michigan and Nevada.
Trump wins the Electoral College 289-249.
5 percent fraud and 4 percent fraud
Trump wins Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, but loses to Biden in Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.\
Trump and Biden tie the Electoral College 269-269. As described in more detail in the paper, Trump would likely have won the resulting vote in the House of Representatives, because Republicans controlled more state delegations in the wake of the 2020 election.
3 percent fraud
Trump wins Arizona and Georgia, but loses to Biden in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Biden wins the Electoral College 279-259.
2 percent fraud and 1 percent fraud
Trump does not win any states. Biden wins Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Biden wins the Electoral College 306-232.

We also include a scenario in which Trump and Biden voters committed fraud at different rates, stemming from the differences in self-admitted mail-in voter fraud among Trump and Biden voters from the Heartland/Rasmussen survey. However, due to its small sample size, the margin of error for these estimates is too high to produce statistically reliable results. Our analysis indicates that at the 28.2 percent fraud rate, Biden voters admitted to committing at least one form of fraud at a rate of 23.2 percent, and Trump voters self-admitted fraud rate was 35.7 percent. Even under this scenario, Trump would have defeated Biden in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and won the Electoral College 278-260.

Ultimately, our study shows that of the 29 different scenarios presented in the paper, Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three (when mail-in ballot fraud is limited to 1–3 percent of the ballots counted). Hence, even if the level of fraud detected in our survey (28.2 percent of all mail-in ballots) substantially overstates the actual level of fraud that occurred, Trump would likely have won the 2020 election anyway. We have no reason to believe that our survey overstated voter fraud by more than 25 percentage points, and thus, we must conclude that the best available evidence suggests that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the 2020 presidential election, in favor of Joe Biden. In other words, had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected.

So no there is plenty of evidence when 28.2 percent ADMIT to some form of voting fraud and in most of the Monte Carlo runs, Trump wins.

But you be you and say what you're told to.

[Pabst]

A pro Trump group took a survey and found that GOP voters were committing "fraud" at a much higher rate than Democrats. Nice evidence.

This study also rests on the assumption that these people wouldn't have voted exactly the same way if their spouse/parents/whatever hadn't put it in the mailbox for them.

This is giving me flashbacks to Seahawks fans whining about Super Bowl XL.


BTW, the "parrot what your MSNBC" masters line is cute, considering Fox along with multiple Trump lackeys have been sued into the ground over these claims. Oh, btw, I'm conservative and have said multiple times I have no intention of voting Biden.

[.Kodiak]

Stop saying there is NO evidence. I will try to show you an analysis of the Heartland Institute/Rasmussen that showed plenty but it won't matter because you are an obedient little parrot:

Parrot? Trump had 60 - SIXTY - court cases to present this evidence. The evidence in most cases was so lacking the cases were dismissed outright. And by plenty of Trump appointed judges. Couldn't find even ONE friendly judge to agree with their "evidence".

I don't care what a right wing think tank or Trump supporters claim as "evidence". None of It came close to passing judicial scrutiny, so maybe you're the one who should stop parroting rightwing bullshit.

[Pabst]

Stop saying there is NO evidence. I will try to show you an analysis of the Heartland Institute/Rasmussen that showed plenty but it won't matter because you are an obedient little parrot:

Parrot? Trump had 60 - SIXTY - court cases to present this evidence. The evidence in most cases was so lacking the cases were dismissed outright. And by plenty of Trump appointed judges. Couldn't find even ONE friendly judge to agree with their "evidence".

I don't care what a right wing think tank or Trump supporters claim as "evidence". None of It came close to passing judicial scrutiny, so maybe you're the one who should stop parroting rightwing bullshit.

Yeah yeah yeah, but did you see how hot his lawyer was?

[.Kodiak]

Yeah yeah yeah, but did you see how hot his lawyer was?

No worries. Mike Lindell is on the case and I'm sure we'll have that evidence any day now.

[CKSteeler]

Of course, in most of those court cases, the evidence was never even considered. The election had not be certified, so most of the cases were dismissed because they supposedly couldn't show damages. Pabst is pretty much verbatim quoting Liz fucking Cheney.

But it allowed people like Pabst to say look, nothing to see here. Which was the point.

Most of the cases where they supposedly weighed the merits of the evidence, they actually didn't. They still found weasel ways to avoid even addressing the evidence. I'd be happy to go through them on a case by case basis.

[.Kodiak]

Most of the cases where they supposedly weighed the merits of the evidence, they actually didn't. They still found weasel ways to avoid even addressing the evidence. I'd be happy to go through them on a case by case basis.

No, I'm good. 60 judges already went through it all.

More than a few of those Trump appointed judges, but not one found any merit?!? C'mon, this is as cut-and-dry as it ever gets.

[Pabst]

Most of the cases where they supposedly weighed the merits of the evidence, they actually didn't. They still found weasel ways to avoid even addressing the evidence. I'd be happy to go through them on a case by case basis.

No, I'm good. 60 judges already went through it all.

More than a few of those Trump appointed judges, but not one found any merit?!? C'mon, this is as cut-and-dry as it ever gets.

Appellate courts do not consider evidence, btw. An appeal needed to be made based on matters of process/judgements/law as ruled by lower courts. It's why you hire a good lawyer, not one out of an underwear catalog. Appeals aren't do-overs.

[CKSteeler]

Most of the cases where they supposedly weighed the merits of the evidence, they actually didn't. They still found weasel ways to avoid even addressing the evidence. I'd be happy to go through them on a case by case basis.

No, I'm good. 60 judges already went through it all.

More than a few of those Trump appointed judges, but not one found any merit?!? C'mon, this is as cut-and-dry as it ever gets.

Again, nearly all the cases were tossed on procedural grounds including many where critics claim the merits of the evidence were considered.

Courts punted on the issue before the election and then ruled the situation moot afterwards because they claimed hands were tied.

It's funny to me how those who are so certain nothing untoward happened in 2020 refuse to even consider looking at the evidence themselves. Even small investigations into mail in votes have found irregularities. Christ, Steven Crowder with like a dozen dudes found hundreds of voters with fictional addresses attached to them before the video was banned from Youtube.

Of course, that's the other leg of all this. It was near impossible to publicly discuss the evidence on the most popular forms of modern communication we have because the tech companies were in bed with the Dems.

[langer]

Do really smart educated and erudite people really think that voting in Detroit, Philly, Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Atlanta and other wonderful cities is completely without fraud? I know two people who saw what went down in Detroit. One was physically threatened...the GOP did nothing. There was thuggery, intimidation and sketchy happenings with votes.

And what was that shit with the kidnapping plot against Whitmer that was orchestrated entirely by psychos at the FBI? That was curiously timed.

Those are the Democrat power bases, a population run into the ground by Democrat schools, corrupt politicians, and unbridled greed. Look at the DAs that are attacking Trump, and interfering in an election.

Why are there no Republicans in California? Used to be there were quite a few, and they were conservative.

Where did they all go. Seems the entire government has been captured by the ruthless and psychotic ProgressiveCommunistFascists Democrats. They really don't like opposition, never have.

[.Kodiak]

It's funny to me how those who are so certain nothing untoward happened in 2020 refuse to even consider looking at the evidence themselves. Even small investigations into mail in votes have found irregularities.

And Fox news and Tucker Carlson? Did they not present evidence of their fraud claims in the Dominion case for "reasons", or did they not actually have any? Almost $1B says they had jack fucking squat in the way of facts on their side.

Voter fraud claims have been made by the right for decades, and their think tanks (and many other academics and organizations) have never presented credible proof supporting that.

Yes, fraud happens, but not on a scale to affect state & federal elections. Common sense would tell you it's really not worth the risk, especially when changing the result in your state/district might not even change the outcome.


It's "funny" to you how intelligent people want to see actual verified evidence?!? I'm shocked an intelligent person would come to any other conclusion. NO ONE, not Tucker Carlson, not Trump, not Mike Lindell has ever shown one bit of fucking proof. Not even enough evidence to fend off defamation suits (which is a really low hurdle to clear, by the way)

[CKSteeler]

It's funny to me how those who are so certain nothing untoward happened in 2020 refuse to even consider looking at the evidence themselves. Even small investigations into mail in votes have found irregularities.

And Fox news and Tucker Carlson? Did they not present evidence of their fraud claims in the Dominion case for "reasons", or did they not actually have any? Almost $1B says they had jack fucking squat in the way of facts on their side.

Voter fraud claims have been made by the right for decades, and their think tanks (and many other academics and organizations) have never presented credible proof supporting that.

Yes, fraud happens, but not on a scale to affect state & federal elections. Common sense would tell you it's really not worth the risk, especially when changing the result in your state/district might not even change the outcome.


It's "funny" to you how intelligent people want to see actual verified evidence?!? I'm shocked an intelligent person would come to any other conclusion. NO ONE, not Tucker Carlson, not Trump, not Mike Lindell has ever shown one bit of fucking proof. Not even enough evidence to fend off defamation suits (which is a really low hurdle to clear, by the way)

It's not worth the risk? Do you see how much money is involved in politics? That might be one of the dumbest things I've heard.

You do realize that even when the stakes were much lower and we weren't talking about the most powerful political position on the planet, there are documented cases of election fraud on a widescale?

Here's Newsweek documenting their top 5 stolen elections in the before times prior to the 2016 election, for the historically ignorant.

But sure, it suddenly become beyond the pale with the money and stakes being far higher than at any point in history to cheat in an election. It just couldn't happen today...and the proof is Fox settling a case against Dominion which they had a dozen other reasons to settle on.

When Steven fucking Crowder can find hundreds of instances where voters are tied to fictional addresses with a team of like a dozen dudes, I'm pretty sure a more widespread investigation would find much, much more. We'll never get that investigation.

And this is before we even touch on the subject of ballot harvesting and the lawfare the Dems engaged in.

[CKSteeler]

And for the record, it is now far, far easier to cheat in an election than it was in 1960. There were actual paper trails back then where as a lot of our current election system is un-auditable. Digital elections with millions of mail-in-ballots? That is the perfect recipe for cheating.

Again, anyone can go back in the way-before time machine and see that as far back as 2019, our own State Department listed mass mail-in-ballots as a sign of fraud.

[Pabst]

I can't actually produce evidence because it's un auditable.

Also, here's an article from the Daily Signal and an anecdote from Steven Crowder.

Thanks, but I'll take actual certified results and court cases. Have fun yelling into the void.

[CKSteeler]

I can't actually produce evidence because it's un auditable.

Also, here's an article from the Daily Signal and an anecdote from Steven Crowder.

Thanks, but I'll take actual certified results and court cases. Have fun yelling into the void.

Actually, an article from Newsweek on historically documented cases of US Presidential elections being stolen.

[CKSteeler]

That bastion of right wing wrong think...Newsweek. Damn them.

Of course, for an election to actually be auditable, we'd need a paper trail for every ballot which doesn't actually exist in US elections. But tell me more about how it's so much less likely that they'd cheat today than in the past when trillion dollar budgets and billions to trillions in graft are at stake.

[CKSteeler]

I'll scream into the void a little more.

Just to highlight the investigation into the Kennedy/Nixon election used the same tactics that Crowder was attempting to do with his small team before Youtube banned his videos:

He traveled to Chicago, obtained a list of voters in the suspicious precincts, and began matching names with addresses. Mazo told The Washington Post:

There was a cemetery where the names on the tombstones were registered and voted. I remember a house. It was completely gutted. There was nobody there. But there were 56 votes for [John F.] Kennedy in that house.

Crowder had video documenting fictional addresses. What he did would need to be done on a mass scale to show voter fraud since things like witness statements and 'unmatched signatures don't matter.

We'll never see it happen and no media outlet would even touch the story if it did.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Strange that we could have elections on paper ballots with no problem in 1884 but with all the technology in the world and mail in ballots, its just a big black hole.

Saying you accept the result is not the same as saying there is NO evidence of a cheat, because I have shown you polls where 28 percent have admitted to it and there is no ID check and mail in ballots, a recipe for fraud.

It will always be a black hole until we go back to same day voting with ID check and paper ballots.

[Stlcrtn1974]

Strange that we could have elections on paper ballots with no problem in 1884 but with all the technology in the world and mail in ballots, its just a big black hole.

Saying you accept the result is not the same as saying there is NO evidence of a cheat, because I have shown you polls where 28 percent have admitted to it and there is no ID check and mail in ballots, a recipe for fraud.

It will always be a black hole until we go back to same day voting with ID check and paper ballots.

Wasn't there an issue in 2000 with paper ballots, some fellow named Chad was involved. I remember the march on DC, the unrest, for 4 years that's all we heard about

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Those were computer cards but enjoy your middle school emojis.

Also no one in the GOP accused Gore of insurrection or charge him with a crime for challenging the election.

[langer]

When Democrats are the beneficiary of inner-city vote counting: Nothing to see here, conspiracy theories, disinformation and purges.

When Democrats aren't the beneficiary of inner-city vote counting: Its a corrupt system, we need to abolish the electoral college, Russia, Russia, Russia.

This works with the simpletons that are kept in emotional whirlwinds and it's a simple narrative even the bimbo Ted Baxters on the TV channels can get it straight.

Some things just work.

[CKSteeler]

Those were computer cards but enjoy your middle school emojis.

Also no one in the GOP accused Gore of insurrection or charge him with a crime for challenging the election.

Gore's team tried to get electors to change their votes.

That's memory holed today.

[langer]

I'm really liking seeing that the very smart, very intellectual crowd has to vote yet again for an old decrepit pants-shitting warmongering liar. Some good ol karma.

More insane lies from the best President we ever had, who got way more votes than the last best President we ever had, who was also half black.

Biden said he was so wracked with guilt that he concocted an excuse to avoid a celebratory lunch with one of the firm's named partners and walked into the public defender's office to ask for a job that very day. It's "the only time I ever lied," Biden told Hur on Oct. 8. Thus began, according to a New York Times report on the special counsel interview, "a career that would one day take him to the White House."
But this story is almost certainly a complete work of fiction.

Although Biden did work at a law firm tapped to defend a construction company in a negligence suit like the one he described to Hur, the case concluded in 1968, while Biden was still in law school. And the welder won, walking away with $315,000, more than $2.8 million in 2024 dollars.

Biden, whose 1988 presidential campaign collapsed amid allegations that he had plagiarized speeches and a law school paper, has a long record of embellishments and yarn spinning. Over the years, he has told several stories about himself that don't stand up to scrutiny. Those fibs range from the small and peculiar--he claimed in November 2023 that he was offered a spot on the Naval Academy's football team--to the mendacious, such as his insistence that he never spoke with his son, Hunter Biden, about the latter's foreign business dealings.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"That's memory holed today."

Thank you for reminding me of that. That will be the ploy in 2024 in the event of a close Trump win. But "convince" will include threats.

[.Kodiak]

Gore's team tried to get electors to change their votes.

That's memory holed today.

They also attempted to disqualify overseas military ballots that arrived late (not CAST late, simply DELIVERED late). You know, the party that's always railing about disenfranchisement...

But you left out the whole "faithless elector" thing after Trump won. Hillary and her media were hoping, if not emploring, electors to go against the vote in their state and pledge to Hillary. It's very similar to what Trump tried to do with his fake electors, except it was legal. But the premise is the same - they were trying to overturn the election, and constantly called Trump illegitimate and "conspired with Russia to STEAL the election".

What Trump did is deplorable, but the Dems are no better, certainly not above threatening SCOTUS judges by name. I think regardless who wins in November it's going to be an ugly few months leading up to Jan. 20.

[Deebo]

Data: New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,059 registered voters (April 7-11. Margin of error: ±3.3 points.) Chart: Axios Visuals
Views of Donald Trump's presidency have become far more positive since the fall of 2020, according to a poll by The New York Times and Siena College.
• Why it matters: Voters have taken up an especially sunny view of Trump's time in office on the economy — a pivotal issue for November's election.
Other issues where Trump's ratings improved include maintaining law & order, and his handling of the pandemic.
• The poll found a big increase (9 points) in registered voters who believe he left the country better off.
By the numbers: Trump holds a wide advantage over Biden when voters are asked how they remember their presidencies.
• 42% rate Trump's term as "mostly good for America," compared to 25% for Biden.
• More voters (+11 points) view Trump as a "safe choice" than they did in 2016.
Reality check: Many still remember him as a divisive and chaotic leader.
• Trump's polling on "unifying America" narrowly improved but remains low. Voters gave Biden better marks for his handling of race relations.
Keep reading (NYT gift link) ... Explore the data.