The American “Coup d’etat”

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
It took me a second to realize how you manipulated me with the original message. So, to be clear, you knew about the av counting boards when you were making the original argument that precincts were reporting around 20% voter turnout even though news reports were reporting 49% turnout?

Therefore, you knew when you were saying this that the difference between these two percentages was when the absentee votes were counted. So were you intentionally excluding this information to make an argument that would appear to demonstrate something more fraudulent than you knew there would be in reality if you included the absentee votes? There is something very dishonest about the fact that you are saying you knew about the av counting boards, but you didn't include them when you were originally making an argument about this.

Then, you appear to be trying to link to a crowder video that I can't view, because it is not linked correctly, so I cannot verify what this says in relation to what I have been able to find about this. However, I'm guessing that Crowder didn't do his homework either because you respond to my question about voter population size with a comparison to New York. This means that Crowder has not informed you of something as basic as seperation of states regarding this subject. What happens in New York is completely irrelevant to what happens in Michigan in many ways concerning this subject. They are seperate states with their own policies and procedures.

You would need to compare with other cities within Michigan to find trends for how larger cities handled the increased number of absentee votes. This would only serve to show correlation or that Detroit was not the exception that it is being made out to be. This wouldn't give background on why this process of creating counting boards is allowed within the state of Michigan.

It looks like the use of absentee counting boards in Michigan was proposed in 2018 from what I can tell. It looks like this was proposed in 2018, but there is a lot of verbage to go through, so it could have been before this.

https://www.governing.com/next/Just-Seven-Weeks-Out-Michigan-Considers-Election-Law-Changes.html

Whenever, this may have officially been included, it wasn't orginally added for this year's election and it is thoroughly detailed in their election legal code.

The law continues to detail how the counting boards can be created. There are provisions for workers to be protected from intimidation. There are details about supplies that are to be used at these counting board locations. Most importantly regarding your argument that you appear to be deriving from Crowder, who unfortunately doesn't seem to have done his homework, an absent voter counting board is by law considered a seperate precinct. Therefore, they are not expected to redistribute votes by precinct within the official results when absent voter counting boards are used in a city with 250 or more precincts like Detroit.

"Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an absent voter counting board is a separate precinct for the purposes of this act. If a municipality has 250 or more precincts and absent voter counting boards are used, each ballot form which contains identical offices and names may be considered a separate precinct for the purposes of this section"

So Detroit didn't decide on a whim that there city would manage the absentee votes with counting boards. This was clearly defined within the legal code for the state of Michigan. Counting boards are mentioned 114 times within the election law for the state of Michigan. The use of counting boards within Detroit and the absence of seperating out votes by precinct within the results, would have a strong defense in a courtroom. Another reason Guilianni can't bring a case of fraud against the city of Detroit for any of the reasons that you have given so far. He has no case. They are acting completely within the boundaries of their own legal code regarding absentee voting.


In addition to this, The Guardian is nice enough to include the total number of votes that were collected in the city of Detroit for the years of 2008 and 2016 for comparison.

"Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Detroit voters who cast a ballot during presidential elections dropped from 335,000 to 247,000."
So in the year Obama was elected, there was almost 100,000 more votes collected in the city of detroit. The article references this as a way of highlighting the factors that led to Trump winning the Michigan eletoral votes in 2016. This win was a slim margin of around 10,000 votes at the time, and Detroit is a city used to highlight the reason for this win since their overall voter turnout dropped significantly in 2016.

There were 250,138 total votes in Detroit this year. What part of this is unreasonable? Biden didn't win Michigan with a margin of around 10,000 votes. He won with about 150,000 votes. The number of votes in Detroit did not change much between 2016 and 2020. This is why Guilianni can't argue overcounts in court or that fraud in Detroit is the reason that Trump lost in Michigan.

Furthermore, the Detroit Free Press explains that overcounts found in 2016 did not exceed 12 for a grand total of 782 overcounted voted.
"Most of those overages were by small amounts — on average about 3 votes — with the largest being 12 votes in a single precinct. Those small numbers added up to 782 total spread out across more than 200 precincts. "

The problem with arguing a problem with overcounts and using 2016 as your example is that there were also undercounts recorded in 2016, which means that this number is actually lower when you subtract this value. Which means that the potential for overcounts when it is based on the history of 2016 does not present an argument that overcounts could have changed the outcome of the election.

And again, this is why Guilianni cannot make a case of fraud against Detroit, but people like yourself can get up on a soapbox and continue to make suggestions like this. You are basically sensationalizing reality, but the true reality is that all of the information that you would need to know that what you are saying is actually crap, is freely available and uncensored so that I can for an opinion form myself on the subject.

It is just unfortunate that you didn't question Crowder more when you had first gained awareness of the information he presented. He clearly was doing a poor job of presenting you with all the facts.

Yes, I did deliberately bait you into the Michigan irregularities. It's clearly the only way to draw your attention to them since you've been ignoring evidence, pretending it to be nonexistent, throughout this entire thread. It's borderline suspicious. But I'm glad it caught your attention now. At least you're no longer ignoring it.

Apologies for the erroneous link. I have no idea how that happened.

Here's the video:


In it Crowder brings up this law (12:50) that allows for these AV counting boards when there's over 250 precincts, but none of that takes away from the legitimate arguments, which you do not address. You circle around them with insignificant voting numbers from 2016 (which I only used as an example that overcount is not something made up out of the blue in 2020). What you're doing is a clear case of strawmanning. You are not addressing the actual arguments or the statistical improbabilities, near impossibilities, and it's looking more and more like deliberate deflection. You're already even parrotting the inception created by the media that team Trump is planning the actual coup while ignoring the blatant electoral coup that already happened.

You are still ignoring those anomalous ballot drops after the closing of the voting boards at 6am in the morning with 95+% Biden votes as if they don't even exist, or as if they're not anomalous at all. You're ignoring that it would only have taken Trump to get 36% of the 16,41% election day voter turnout to require Biden to have gotten 100% of a 100% absentee ballot voter turnout to win Detroit with 94,04%. Meaning, if Trump had 37% or more of the election day voter turnout in Detroit, it is not just statistically impossible, but physically impossible for Biden to have won Detroit with 94,04%.

Biden? Really? He wouldn't even get 94,04% if you only had registered democrats vote between him and Trump.

Even if the setting up of independent counting boards for absentee ballots wasn't decided on a whim, why then did they not include the data of registered voters for those counting boards, for which they had plenty of time to organise?
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
That is not what the actual ruling says at all. Did you read it?

additionally that was a confirmation of an injunction pending the results of a seperate hearing which also occurred yesterday. The results of which are found here:


I already posted the entire actual decision of that hearing a page or two back. TLDR it was thrown out and the trump appointed judge basically ripped trumps lawyers a new asshole while throwing it out.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Nope. That lawyer seemed to think it did though
Read my edited post. Also read the actual order. Not just tweets about it. This whole thing is being way too overpoliticized to trust other people’s opinions - better to read the actual words. The last paragraph of the order you posted basically makes it clear that they will not be throwing out the results of the election but will allow the legal challenges to continue until December 8th when they will have to certify 100%.

I also get it that legalese is difficult to get through.. I worked in courts for a long time so not so much for me anymore. But I get it.

that order predates the Supreme Court of PA tossing the lawsuit all together. So that order is basically completely irrelevant today but it doesn’t say what you think it does and what youve been led to believe it does by some always trumpet on twitter.
 
Last edited:

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,076
Its disappointing to see people here still falling for the okiedoke. Sure... it was a legitimate tooth and nails contest, bitterly contested which has come down to the wire as both "sides" go all out to secure "victory"... or it this is a planned psy-op like the rest and yall are just the "smart marks" laughing at the rubes while yall fall for the Kayfabe veneer as well...
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
The only compromise they are alleging is that PA allowed its citizens to vote too easily. That’s insane.. it’s insane they would allege that and it’s insane people here are supporting them in their efforts.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
The only compromise they are alleging is that PA allowed its citizens to vote too easily. That’s insane.. it’s insane they would allege that and it’s insane people here are supporting them in their efforts.
This is a perfect example of how the left calls laws unfair just because they prevent them from doing what they want. The constitution in PA requires an amendment to change voting regulations, but people were allowed to vote by mail without one. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Trump who might lose PA after all, would you be as upset?
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
No they aren’t. Doing so would be against state law. The top republican has already stated this unequivocally
That’s what I heard. I was looking into the PA legislative laws. One rule states PA leaves the power to the state electors which is you guys who voted in PA. And say even if they have pushed this. By the time it reaches through Nov 30th a lot of terms expire.

Lol. I like watching the hardcore conspiracy talks. It opens my mind to what if’s.
Realistically it seems PA is staying blue
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
This is a perfect example of how the left calls laws unfair just because they prevent them from doing what they want. The constitution in PA requires an amendment to change voting regulations, but people were allowed to vote by mail without one. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Trump who might lose PA after all, would you be as upset?
We shall see how this shakes out. If it happens.
It’s an interesting scenario
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
This is a perfect example of how the left calls laws unfair just because they prevent them from doing what they want. The constitution in PA requires an amendment to change voting regulations, but people were allowed to vote by mail without one. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Trump who might lose PA after all, would you be as upset?
They didn’t change voting regulations. They qualified the pandemic as a valid excuse. You still needed to list an excuse. That is a procedural matter, not a legislative one. Sickness was always an excuse.

further, I’m not upset about who won or didn’t win. I said from the beginning I couldn’t care less because I don’t like either of them and I preferred on some level trump win so we didn’t have to go through months of this stuff plus whatever is still yet to come. I believe in antecedent measures generally.

I AM upset about people proposing disenfranchising millions of people to change the results of an election. And yeah, I’d be upset if the same thing was being proposed if Biden had lost and they were trying to change it for him. Principles don’t care about feelings. I have principles. What about you?

the law you are so concerned with also states that PA’s electors will conform to the results of the popular vote. Why are you okay with scrapping that law entirely but having an issue with a procedural edit in the case of another law which didn’t invalidate the law in any way?
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
They didn’t change voting regulations. They qualified the pandemic as a valid excuse. You still needed to list an excuse. That is a procedural matter, not a legislative one. Sickness was always an excuse.

further, I’m not upset about who won or didn’t win. I said from the beginning I couldn’t care less because I don’t like either of them and I preferred on some level trump win so we didn’t have to go through months of this stuff plus whatever is still yet to come. I believe in antecedent measures generally.

I AM upset about people proposing disenfranchising millions of people to change the results of an election. And yeah, I’d be upset if the same thing was being proposed if Biden had lost and they were trying to change it for him. Principles don’t care about feelings. I have principles. What about you?
Yeah I hear you on the millions of legal votes cast to get disenfranchised. Which is why I see nothing to become of this.

Scary thing if joe wins we may go to war in the name of Murica.

As much as the hardcore Maga hats had me jump off the Trump train this year. At least he attempted to reach out to North Korea, Russia etc.

I worry especially Biden is more like Bush than Obama.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
I AM upset about people proposing disenfranchising millions of people to change the results of an election. And yeah, I’d be upset if the same thing was being proposed if Biden had lost and they were trying to change it for him. Principles don’t care about feelings. I have principles. What about you?
There you go again. My principle is that the law should be upheld, and the chips fall where they may, even if that means disenfranchising millions of people. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it is in no way Trump’s fault or my fault. Blame those who permitted illegal voting, if you want to blame someone. And maybe explain why you think a vote is important, yet not enough to protect with strict adherence to the laws governing how it can be cast.

I had not heard that Pennsylvania had qualified the pandemic as an excuse. Do you have more on that? I believe that the conditions for being able to vote are specified in the state constitution, so allowing pandemic as a reason would have also had to be a constitutional amendment. Was the constitution amended? If it wasn’t, I honestly don’t see how those votes are legal. If there is an argument for why they should not be unconstitutional and therefore illegal, other than “it’s not fair”, I haven’t heard it.

The law is the law for a reason. It recognizes that people are fickle and prone to emotional decisions. It really does suck that 7 million people might not have their votes accepted, but if we have any faith in the law, we have to accept that it’s to be applied equally in all situations.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
the law you are so concerned with also states that PA’s electors will conform to the results of the popular vote. Why are you okay with scrapping that law entirely but having an issue with a procedural edit in the case of another law which didn’t invalidate the law in any way?
Where did I say I was OK with scrapping any law?
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
There you go again. My principle is that the law should be upheld, and the chips fall where they may, even if that means disenfranchising millions of people. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it is in no way Trump’s fault or my fault. Blame those who permitted illegal voting, if you want to blame someone. And maybe explain why you think a vote is important, yet not enough to protect with strict adherence to the laws governing how it can be cast.

I had not heard that Pennsylvania had qualified the pandemic as an excuse. Do you have more on that? I believe that the conditions for being able to vote are specified in the state constitution, so allowing pandemic as a reason would have also had to be a constitutional amendment. Was the constitution amended? If it wasn’t, I honestly don’t see how those votes are legal. If there is an argument for why they should not be unconstitutional and therefore illegal, other than “it’s not fair”, I haven’t heard it.

The law is the law for a reason. It recognizes that people are fickle and prone to emotional decisions. It really does suck that 7 million people might not have their votes accepted, but if we have any faith in the law, we have to accept that it’s to be applied equally in all situations.
I’m not a law expert. But mail in ballots do require some degree of actually validation. Well at least they do in NM. As much as I want to say the law is being practiced here. When it comes to speculation of fraud cause Trump is practicing his legal right to contest the results. It’s still not right to disenfranchise millions of votes. That’s basically relinquishing power to the government if that’s the case it’s no different than the governor shutting down your state during a pandemic. I mean they are looking out for your health right?


People are fickle and have double standards in their scenarios. This why I always come to these boards with a moderate approach. I try not to jump off a conclusion emotionally. Quick reactions/heat of the moment. Then you look back on it and say “oh I see why so and so isn’t fond of me” etc.

Like you idk anymore. I just want this chaos to end and to start the focus on the actual people
 
Top