The American “Coup d’etat”

[Helioform]

Look who Klaus Schwab, the deranged Great Reset megalomaniac, follows on Twitter. All the usual suspects;, Biden, Harris, Gates, Trudeau.

Twitter

 

[justjess]

The constitution of PA allows limited mail in voting. The argument that Trump’s lawyers are making is that by allowing anyone to vote by mail the state constitution was violated. If you are concerned about something being unconstitutional, at least be consistent. It will be up to the court to decide if Trump’s lawyers are right. In the end, the law will prevail. Isn’t that what you want?

Anyone could mail in vote if they had a legitimate reason. A pandemic is a legitimate reason. Why do you want to see any situation where people who have a legal right to vote can’t?

 

[Thunderian]

Anyone could mail in vote if they had a legitimate reason. A pandemic is a legitimate reason. Why do you want to see any situation where people who have a legal right to vote can’t?

Like I said, it’s up for the court to decide.

 

[lightseeker]

While biased, msm still has to work within boundaries that the trump camp has basically thrown out altogether.

 

[Artful Revealer]

@rainerann @justjess @vancityeagle

Explain this in Detroit, Michigan, average voter turnout beteen 15-20% (88 precincts to illustrate, but they are all like this):

Source

View attachment 47167
View attachment 47168
View attachment 47169
View attachment 47170
View attachment 47171

Yet, voter turnout in Detroit was 49.56%.

How?

I calculated the average voter turnout of all 503 Detroit precincts (I'm in lockdown so I have too much time) and the average is 16.41%, not 49.56%.

How come?

@rainerann @justjess @vancityeagle

 

[rainerann]

You isolated a statement and took it out of a hyperbolic context and emphasized it in the exact same way corporate media did while ignoring every argument or indication that there was election fraud.

He's been consistent in stating that many precincts in Michigan have overvotes that go up to 300%, in some cases even 350+%. Overvote is more votes than registered voters. In some cases there were more votes than the entire population of the precinct, children included. That this overvote applies to several precincts in Detroit, but it doesn't apply for the entire city of Detroit, doesn't take away from the validity of the concerns. It shows the statement by Giuliani was maybe hyperbolic in nature (something he himself insinuated) and not something he stated in front of court, but on Lou Dobbs.

And, the overvote problem is not something that just sprung into existence this month. It already existed in 2016:

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

County records requested by The News show 37 percent of Detroit’s precincts tabulated more ballots than they should have

eu.detroitnews.com

going through both sources you are using in the two posts you have made, it is a wonder you even bothered to reply at all. For starters, I didn’t isolate anything. I quoted Giuliani in context claiming there was fraud. However, I am not obligated to defend the claim. That is your job.

instead you decided to defend the claim of more votes than voters, which appears to be an exaggerated way of saying that too many people appear to have voted for biden instead of trump, so there must be fraud.

from the article in your reply with the picture that I cannot see on my phone.

“The city of Detroit voted overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden -- 233,908 total votes for the Biden-Harris ticket compared to just 12,654 for the incumbent President Trump. Detroit’s election turnout was 49.56% -- 250,138 total votes out of 504,714 registered voters.”

this is supposed to be your way of basically saying that Giuliani is saying that is exaggerating because he really is trying to create a more reasonable range of 0 to 300% and realizes that 400% over votes is pushing it too far, which is why he backtracks and calls this an exaggeration? That appears to be what you are trying to say.

you literally posted an article showing the voter turnout to be under 50% of the registered voters in Detroit. There were literally 250,000 more voters than votes in this area.

then You post an article from 2016 that says.

“■236 precincts in balance — equal numbers of voters counted by workers and machines
■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).
■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)”

so this article is saying that around 200 precincts were over counted by 4 votes or under. 52 precincts were 5 votes or more over. You could try to say that one of these precincts were 100, 000, but then if the total count is still under 50% of the registered voters in the area, this would be something that would quickly be proven false because the total votes still creates a boundary from forming the assumption that the 52 precincts
over counted in a more significant way.

so if the over counts mirror the number of over counts found in 2016 and if the total number of votes cast is under 50% of the registered voters in the area, then the over counts cannot be considered significant enough to change the election results.

that is why Giuliani cant use this claim in court even if he can make it or discuss it, with Lou Dobbs on Fox News. That is why trump can tweet about this and his own lawyer can’t use this as a defense within a courtroom.

from the source for the images that is too small to see where you show 88 precincts. From the document link titled voter statistics, there appears to be a total of 503 precincts with the majority of these precincts reports 25 to as high as 50% voter turnout. Precinct 200 reports 50% voter turnout.

so a total of 49% turnout overall is reasonable when you consider that this number is derived from calculating a total number of votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area. An area with a turnout of 25% locally could technically still be a higher number of votes than an area reporting 30% for their individual precincts. Do you understand?

so everything you are saying is misleading and you would have done better to try to defend something that guilianni asserts in the interview with Lou dobbs that he doesn’t call an exaggeration.

 

[vancityeagle]

Anyone could mail in vote if they had a legitimate reason. A pandemic is a legitimate reason. Why do you want to see any situation where people who have a legal right to vote can’t?

Republicans can't win if everybody votes. That's the simple answer.

 

[rainerann]

I calculated the average voter turnout of all 503 Detroit precincts (I'm in lockdown so I have too much time) and the average is 16.41%, not 49.56%.

How come?

@rainerann @justjess @vancityeagle

that is easy, because that is not how you calculate a comparable percent. You would have to add up the total number of votes cast because the percent per precinct is relevant to the population size of the precinct. A smaller population could have a higher percent and a lower percent could have a higher number of votes cast that would be calculated into the total.

is it math that many of you seem to struggle with?

and the percent per precinct is actually higher than 25 percent more often than not.

so there is something very wrong with your math here.

 

[Artful Revealer]

going through both sources you are using in the two posts you have made, it is a wonder you even bothered to reply at all. For starters, I didn’t isolate anything. I quoted Giuliani in context claiming there was fraud. However, I am not obligated to defend the claim. That is your job.

instead you decided to defend the claim of more votes than voters, which appears to be an exaggerated way of saying that too many people appear to have voted for biden instead of trump, so there must be fraud.

from the article in your reply with the picture that I cannot see on my phone.

“The city of Detroit voted overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden -- 233,908 total votes for the Biden-Harris ticket compared to just 12,654 for the incumbent President Trump. Detroit’s election turnout was 49.56% -- 250,138 total votes out of 504,714 registered voters.”

this is supposed to be your way of basically saying that Giuliani is saying that is exaggerating because he really is trying to create a more reasonable range of 0 to 300% and realizes that 400% over votes is pushing it too far, which is why he backtracks and calls this an exaggeration? That appears to be what you are trying to say.

you literally posted an article showing the voter turnout to be under 50% of the registered voters in Detroit. There were literally 250,000 more voters than votes in this area.

then You post an article from 2016 that says.

“■236 precincts in balance — equal numbers of voters counted by workers and machines
■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).
■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)”

so this article is saying that around 200 precincts were over counted by 4 votes or under. 52 precincts were 5 votes or more over. You could try to say that one of these precincts were 100, 000, but then if the total count is still under 50% of the registered voters in the area, this would be something that would quickly be proven false because the total votes still creates a boundary from forming the assumption that the 52 precincts
over counted in a more significant way.

so if the over counts mirror the number of over counts found in 2016 and if the total number of votes cast is under 50% of the registered voters in the area, then the over counts cannot be considered significant enough to change the election results.

that is why Giuliani cant use this claim in court even if he can make it or discuss it, with Lou Dobbs on Fox News. That is why trump can tweet about this and his own lawyer can’t use this as a defense within a courtroom.

from the source for the images that is too small to see where you show 88 precincts. From the document link titled voter statistics, there appears to be a total of 503 precincts with the majority of these precincts reports 25 to as high as 50% voter turnout. Precinct 200 reports 50% voter turnout.

so a total of 49% turnout overall is reasonable when you consider that this number is derived from calculating a total number of votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area. An area with a turnout of 25% locally could technically still be a higher number of votes than an area reporting 30% for their individual precincts. Do you understand?

so everything you are saying is misleading and you would have done better to try to defend something that guilianni asserts in the interview with Lou dobbs that he doesn’t call an exaggeration.

First of all, you are mixing things here. The article from 2016 is just to show that overvote in Michigan is not a new thing. You're also mixing the link I shared of the Detroit turnout with any claims made by Giuliani.

I'm asking you to explain the Detroit precinct voting turnouts independently from anything else.

Your claim:
"From the document link titled voter statistics, there appears to be a total of 503 precincts with the majority of these precincts reports 25 to as high as 50% voter turnout."

These are the 6 precincts with the highest turnout:

20: 25.13%
340: 25.8%
450: 25.81%
458: 26.32%
468: 29.32%
487: 25%

None of them are above 30%. All other 497 precincts are below 25%.


Another claim:
"Precinct 200 reports 50% voter turnout."

Precinct 200 has 18.77% turnout.


This is 149 votes cast out of 794 registered voters.
Everything here is a votes-to-registered voter ratio.

Another claim:
"so a total of 49% turnout overall is reasonable when you consider that this number is derived from calculating a total number of votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area."

All numbers in the data are votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area. 49% for Detroit is not possible when not a single precinct has more than 30%.

Claim:
"An area with a turnout of 25% locally could technically still be a higher number of votes than an area reporting 30% for their individual precincts."

Again, this doesn't apply to this data. The average turnout (vote-to-registered voter ratio) cannot be 49.56% for the totality of precincts when there's not a single precinct in that totality that has over 30% turnout.

Claim:
"so everything you are saying is misleading
Do you understand?"

lol

 

[Artful Revealer]

and the percent per precinct is actually higher than 25 percent more often than not.

I think you're looking at precincts that are not Detroit.

 

[Artful Revealer]

There's rumors floating around that US military has confiscated servers in Frankfurt, Germany, from a Spanish company called Scytl, in co-operation with German authorities. All of the following voting softwares used in the elections (Dominion, ES&S, Hart, Premier, SGO Smartmatic & Tenex) were connected with Scytl databases (such as Clarity Elections, Florida) and servers that enable manipulated data to be backloaded into the tabulators with a malware called Qsnatch.

Trump just gave his Operation Warpspeed press conference. Not a word on the elections. Seems confident.

The Scytl / Dominion manipulation in detail by Ramsland:

The same Ramsland who over the past 2 years investigated the voting software used in 2018 elections also filed an affidavit. He observed, among others, a precinct or township with 781.91% voter turnout.

Exhibit Exhibit 104 – #1, Att. #14 in King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich., 2:20-cv-13134) – CourtListener.com

COMPLAINT filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-8187034 - Fee: $ 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Washtenaw - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible...

www.courtlistener.com

 

[Artful Revealer]

More from Ramsland:

 

[Artful Revealer]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331608540126076930

 

[rainerann]

First of all, you are mixing things here. The article from 2016 is just to show that overvote in Michigan is not a new thing. You're also mixing the link I shared of the Detroit turnout with any claims made by Giuliani.

I'm asking you to explain the Detroit precinct voting turnouts independently from anything else.

Your claim:
"From the document link titled voter statistics, there appears to be a total of 503 precincts with the majority of these precincts reports 25 to as high as 50% voter turnout."

These are the 6 precincts with the highest turnout:

20: 25.13%
340: 25.8%
450: 25.81%
458: 26.32%
468: 29.32%
487: 25%

None of them are above 30%. All other 497 precincts are below 25%.


Another claim:
"Precinct 200 reports 50% voter turnout."

Precinct 200 has 18.77% turnout.
View attachment 47187

This is 149 votes cast out of 794 registered voters.
Everything here is a votes-to-registered voter ratio.

Another claim:
"so a total of 49% turnout overall is reasonable when you consider that this number is derived from calculating a total number of votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area."

All numbers in the data are votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area. 49% for Detroit is not possible when not a single precinct has more than 30%.

Claim:
"An area with a turnout of 25% locally could technically still be a higher number of votes than an area reporting 30% for their individual precincts."

Again, this doesn't apply to this data. The average turnout (vote-to-registered voter ratio) cannot be 49.56% for the totality of precincts when there's not a single precinct in that totality that has over 30% turnout.

Claim:
"so everything you are saying is misleading
Do you understand?"

lol

no I looked at Detroit. I just looked at the primary election voting statistics from august of this year.

there are a couple of things that stand out to me about this that will lead to my point. As a American, I know that it is very unusual to have a higher voter turnout for a primary election than the November election where we vote for the president. This primary turnout is always lower, so the primary election turnout should be lower than 10% for what you are saying to be correct.

I decided to add up the total votes for the November 3rd turnout and while I was doing this, I kept wondering what does av counting board mean? Why is this always zero while there a numeric value under the column Election Day?

about half way through my counting, I realized that I was totaling votes that were brought in on Election Day. There were around 83,000 votes that were not mail in ballots, which is a reasonable number in relation to the article citing 49% turnout equating to around 250,000 votes. This would mean about 170,000 votes were mailed in.

it turns out that av counting board stands for absentee voter counting board and this value is not included in your source. If you had totaled up this number, this row should have stood out to you as odd because it is always zero.

in fact, there were 134 absentee counting boards for the total number of 503 precincts. This is more than likely why the number is always zero under the av counting board row in your source. Absentee votes were counted collectively and not according to precinct.

so it should have caught your attention to look up what av counting board means, and why it would always be zero in your source. What you are claiming when you are presenting percentages according to images you are taking of this source, is that there were zero absentee votes collected in the city of Detroit, which is obviously a false claim.

when you use results posted at https://detroitmi.gov/webapp/election-results which includes the absentee counting board values and you combine this with the value of total votes counted by precinct on Election Day, this value becomes more consistent with every other election for who know how long showing a higher voter turnout on Election Day than on the day of the primary election prior to this.

so there was no over counting to the extent that you are suggesting by posting this as though the news were reporting somewhere around a 30% increase in the number of votes counted in relation to the actual number of votes collected.

I did most of this on my phone in between doing other things today. Something like this would be easier to prove with more time and resources devoted to proving the sort of fraud you’re suggesting.

so like I said, the reason that Giuliani doesn’t argue this in court is because he can’t. There is no evidence that he could bring. If what you were saying were true, it could and should easily be argued in court, but what you are saying is entirely misleading and more than likely you were so excited by its potential, that you forgot to look for holes that were incredibly easy to exploit.

 

[rainerann]

Sure enough, adding up the 134 absentee voting counting boards values equals about 170,000. This combined with the negligible presence of over counting from 2016 suggests that any presence of over counting found in 2020 would not be enough to change the outcome of the election.

in fact the voter turnout for the state of Michigan because I can’t find a source specific to Detroit, is always over 50% since 1948. Detroit is a major city and it would be very unusual if they did not make a primary contribution to that statistic with their reported turnout every four years. It would be very unusual for Detroit to report a voter turnout around 20%.

anyone who is familiar with Detroit as a major us city should know this. However, I would imagine this would be hard for a foreigner to catch.

404

www.michigan.gov

 

[Thunderian]

Twitter has blocked anyone from linking the lawsuit Sidney Powell filed yesterday. Why is Twitter blocking legal documents? Even if you think Powell and Trump are out to lunch, this should be shocking to you.

 

[Artful Revealer]

no I looked at Detroit. I just looked at the primary election voting statistics from august of this year.

there are a couple of things that stand out to me about this that will lead to my point. As a American, I know that it is very unusual to have a higher voter turnout for a primary election than the November election where we vote for the president. This primary turnout is always lower, so the primary election turnout should be lower than 10% for what you are saying to be correct.

I decided to add up the total votes for the November 3rd turnout and while I was doing this, I kept wondering what does av counting board mean? Why is this always zero while there a numeric value under the column Election Day?

about half way through my counting, I realized that I was totaling votes that were brought in on Election Day. There were around 83,000 votes that were not mail in ballots, which is a reasonable number in relation to the article citing 49% turnout equating to around 250,000 votes. This would mean about 170,000 votes were mailed in.

it turns out that av counting board stands for absentee voter counting board and this value is not included in your source. If you had totaled up this number, this row should have stood out to you as odd because it is always zero.

in fact, there were 134 absentee counting boards for the total number of 503 precincts. This is more than likely why the number is always zero under the av counting board row in your source. Absentee votes were counted collectively and not according to precinct.

so it should have caught your attention to look up what av counting board means, and why it would always be zero in your source. What you are claiming when you are presenting percentages according to images you are taking of this source, is that there were zero absentee votes collected in the city of Detroit, which is obviously a false claim.

when you use results posted at https://detroitmi.gov/webapp/election-results which includes the absentee counting board values and you combine this with the value of total votes counted by precinct on Election Day, this value becomes more consistent with every other election for who know how long showing a higher voter turnout on Election Day than on the day of the primary election prior to this.

so there was no over counting to the extent that you are suggesting by posting this as though the news were reporting somewhere around a 30% increase in the number of votes counted in relation to the actual number of votes collected.

I did most of this on my phone in between doing other things today. Something like this would be easier to prove with more time and resources devoted to proving the sort of fraud you’re suggesting.

so like I said, the reason that Giuliani doesn’t argue this in court is because he can’t. There is no evidence that he could bring. If what you were saying were true, it could and should easily be argued in court, but what you are saying is entirely misleading and more than likely you were so excited by its potential, that you forgot to look for holes that were incredibly easy to exploit.

At least it's positive you decided to carefully look at the data this time, now I don't have to lead you there. But you shouldn't assume things. I already shared Crowder's video here, in which the Wayne County AV counting boards are explained.

2020 General Election Thread

For your own sake... read an American law book. Seriously what are you going to do come January 20th when all your hopes and dreams go down the gutter? Tough one this ... Trust justjess on the US legal system, or Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis ...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

An obvious question would be why these AV ballots weren't added to the Detroit precincts as they did in all the other precincts, or even for Detroit precincts during the primaries. Are you going to pretend that there's nothing to see here?



Now there's no way to verify if the AV ballot count exceeds the registered voter total per Detroit precinct. That itself reeks of bad intent.

But here comes the stinger, something which Crowder already brought up in the video. Those 173k AV ballots counted without precinct verification, how much would the voter turnout for those AV ballots have had to have been?

Think about the vote results for Detroit:

94.04% for Biden
5.09% for Trump

Do you think this is normal?

Wouldn't this explain why they didn't add the AV ballots per Detroit precinct so we couldn't verify them against registered voters? Because let's imagine that 80% of the 16.41% election day turnout was in Biden's favour (which is very generous for election day voters!), that would mean that for the remaining 83.59% of votes, they would've needed 97.9% of absentee votes to go to Biden, with a 100% turnout!

You don't even see these ratios in elections where dictators are the only candidate.

Does this start to make sense now?



Or this?

 

[rainerann]

At least it's positive you decided to carefully look at the data this time, now I don't have to lead you there. But you shouldn't assume things. I already shared Crowder's video here, in which the Wayne County AV counting boards are explained.

2020 General Election Thread

For your own sake... read an American law book. Seriously what are you going to do come January 20th when all your hopes and dreams go down the gutter? Tough one this ... Trust justjess on the US legal system, or Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis ...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

An obvious question would be why these AV ballots weren't added to the Detroit precincts as they did in all the other precincts, or even for Detroit precincts during the primaries. Are you going to pretend that there's nothing to see here?

View attachment 47193View attachment 47194

Now there's no way to verify if the AV ballot count exceeds the registered voter total per Detroit precinct. That itself reeks of bad intent.

But here comes the stinger, something which Crowder already brought up in the video. Those 173k AV ballots counted without precinct verification, how much would the voter turnout for those AV ballots have had to have been?

Think about the vote results for Detroit:

94.04% for Biden
5.09% for Trump

Do you think this is normal?

Wouldn't this explain why they didn't add the AV ballots per Detroit precinct so we couldn't verify them against registered voters? Because let's imagine that 80% of the 16.41% election day turnout was in Biden's favour (which is very generous for election day voters!), that would mean that for the remaining 83.59% of votes, they would've needed 97.9% of absentee votes to go to Biden, with a 100% turnout!

You don't even see these ratios in elections where dictators are the only candidate.

Does this start to make sense now?

View attachment 47195

Or this?

View attachment 47196

you could say that, but only after you checked out whether they combined precincts because Detroit is a larger city by checking whether smaller areas include the av numbers in your source.

from a aerial view of the file that you have been sourcing considering that I scrolled before and after Detroit in order to find the first and last precinct, other areas included av values in this report. These were areas I had never heard of even though I had have known about Detroit since I was about 8 years old.

when I think of Detroit, I think of an Eddie Murphy movie because the way the city was described reminded me of the visual setting of 48 hours or something. This is a large city. How many other cities have 503 precincts in Michigan? I cant even think of any other way I associate Michigan. Michigan is ice fishing and Detroit. That is what I think of when I think of Michigan. The Michigan version of a hillbilly and Eddie Murphy.

so can you rule out the possibility that Detroit didn’t create av counting boards as a way of consolidating the possibility of high absentee voter turnout into a more controllable number to monitor?

 

[Artful Revealer]

Why? Because of the number of ballots? Or precincts? What is Detroit’s 670k population compared to New York or even Philadelphia?

 

[Helioform]