The American “Coup d’etat”

Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
1,805
It's already happening now. Some unnamed posters here will be proven wrong, will have been explained why there were wrong, will have been provided the information and evidence to perfectly understand why they were wrong, but will still clearly follow the narrative of the corrupt media rather than admit they have been wrong.

Mark my words.

You are going to have to explain to us how Rudy Giuliani, who was literally the elites point man in NY during 911, the biggest ever LIE and deception in modern history, who oversaw the cover up, a guy long connected to the Russian/Jewish mob is suddenly the epitome of credibility, and why he should be trusted. Sorry I'll trust CNN over that crook. Easy decision too.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,524
Hah, parrotting the internationally orchestrated media like a pro.

Might as well go work for them.



View attachment 47159

View attachment 47160



Here's the interview. Watch it and see the deceitful ways of corporate media.


You know what they say: "don't read the news and you're uninformed, read it and you're misinformed."

Be ready to parrott the media when they try to spin the narrative that the actual coup d'état is against those who stole the election with millions of fraudulent votes.
the article I posted included the video clip. I already watched it. I included the whole quote and did not clip only the part where he said he was exaggerating.

the problem with what you are saying is that I didn’t narrow anything to try to create a spin. I posted a quote where Giuliani clearly is still claiming fraud while admitting that the fraud cannot be defined by the claim of there being more votes than voters because he was exaggerating this.

therefore, the viral message when it is based on this claim, is a false claim by his own admission, but he is still claiming there is fraud in the video clip. This isn’t removed in order to spin something.

You could try to say that other sources still support this claim of more votes than voters, but Giuliani is trumps lawyer and these are just random people who are upset that trump is losing. If Giuliani admits this, than this is not a claim that has enough evidence to be proven in court. Do you understand this?

the problem with many of you is that you can’t seem to define boundaries when you are researching something. If something can’t be used in court by the lawyer working to defend trumps case regarding election fraud, than articles specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters are useless. Do you understand? Lol, I’m guessing you or somebody is still going to try to post something that you think provides evidence that this claim is still true even though Giuliani is providing a boundary with what he is saying here. This boundary will probably go right over your heads though.

this is another reason that trump sources are worse than msm. The researching techniques of the people who support trump fly over boundaries all the time that would serve to increase their credibility. While biased, msm still has to work within boundaries that the trump camp has basically thrown out altogether. That is the difference. When you listen to msm, you have to look out for bias, but you don’t have to look out for exceeding research boundaries the way you do with the alt right news media.

I know reading comprehension becomes a challenge when someone challenges your narrative, but don’t go making something up. I’m not trying to spin anything the way you are. I didn’t isolate anything about the exaggeration comment to try to create a false impression.

and the quote is from the horses mouth with video corroboration of Giuliani saying it in contest. It isnt translated from an interview and used to prove an argument within an article. As disappointing as this may be for you, it is the reality of the situation specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters.
 






Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,524
the article I posted included the video clip. I already watched it. I included the whole quote and did not clip only the part where he said he was exaggerating.

the problem with what you are saying is that I didn’t narrow anything to try to create a spin. I posted a quote where Giuliani clearly is still claiming fraud while admitting that the fraud cannot be defined by the claim of there being more votes than voters because he was exaggerating this.

therefore, the viral message when it is based on this claim, is a false claim by his own admission, but he is still claiming there is fraud in the video clip. This isn’t removed in order to spin something.

You could try to say that other sources still support this claim of more votes than voters, but Giuliani is trumps lawyer and these are just random people who are upset that trump is losing. If Giuliani admits this, than this is not a claim that has enough evidence to be proven in court. Do you understand this?

the problem with many of you is that you can’t seem to define boundaries when you are researching something. If something can’t be used in court by the lawyer working to defend trumps case regarding election fraud, than articles specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters are useless. Do you understand? Lol, I’m guessing you or somebody is still going to try to post something that you think provides evidence that this claim is still true even though Giuliani is providing a boundary with what he is saying here. This boundary will probably go right over your heads though.

this is another reason that trump sources are worse than msm. The researching techniques of the people who support trump fly over boundaries all the time that would serve to increase their credibility. While biased, msm still has to work within boundaries that the trump camp has basically thrown out altogether. That is the difference. When you listen to msm, you have to look out for bias, but you don’t have to look out for exceeding research boundaries the way you do with the alt right news media.

I know reading comprehension becomes a challenge when someone challenges your narrative, but don’t go making something up. I’m not trying to spin anything the way you are. I didn’t isolate anything about the exaggeration comment to try to create a false impression.

and the quote is from the horses mouth with video corroboration of Giuliani saying it in contest. It isnt translated from an interview and used to prove an argument within an article. As disappointing as this may be for you, it is the reality of the situation specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters.
lol Giuliani is calling trumps claim of more votes than voters an exaggeration. I’m not sure if trump is still the first person to make this claim or whether he is parroting one of his alt right media sources, but he posted the claim on Twitter on November 18 that Giuliani recently calls an exaggeration.


Trumps case is a joke. He is literally just making things up as he goes that his own lawyers can’t defend in court and his supporters are still out there believing and spreading information that can’t be proven in court as though it were special censored information.

lol
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,971
If the votes were illegal according to PA’s constitution, whose fault is that? Is America a country of laws, or isn’t it?
How were the votes illegal? Mail in voting was never illegal previously. If trump had won Pennsylvania you can be damn sure they wouldn’t be claiming they were illegal at all.

You guys have seemingly adopted an “ends justify the means” way of business and I hope I’m not the first to tell you.. but that isnt the way principles work.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,971
You live in PA and you can't even measure the proper temperature and admit Biden didn't stand a chance to win that state. Even I from across the Atlantic could see that.

And stop conflating absentee ballots with universal mail-in-voting. Everyone with half a brain understands the difference.
I live in PA and there are just as many Biden signs as there are trump signs. I live in PA and am quite aware that everyone living here isn’t an ignorant red neck trump worshipper. I live in pa and am fully capable of recognizing we are way more diverse then the msm makes it out to be. I live in PA and am cognizant of the fact that Scranton already named a street after Biden.

I live in PA and there was no universal mail in voting dumbass. You had to request a mail in ballot and provide your social and drivers license to get one. Stop listening to trump news 24/7.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,971
I’m also going to say this - I think the lack of enthusiasm for Biden fooled a lot of you into thinking no one was going to vote for him. The lack of enthusiasm for Biden was very real, however, the passionate enthusiasm to vote trump out was very real as well. You didn’t see mobs of Biden supporters acting like they were worshipping a resurrected god or rock star because that was never the point. People who didn’t even like him voted for him because they absolutely could not tolerate the idea of one more day with trump and would have voted for a paper bag if it would have got rid of him.
 






Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
1,805
I’m also going to say this - I think the lack of enthusiasm for Biden fooled a lot of you into thinking no one was going to vote for him. The lack of enthusiasm for Biden was very real, however, the passionate enthusiasm to vote trump out was very real as well. You didn’t see mobs of Biden supporters acting like they were worshipping a resurrected god or rock star because that was never the point. People who didn’t even like him voted for him because they absolutely could not tolerate the idea of one more day with trump and would have voted for a paper bag if it would have got rid of him.
Absolutely, couldn't say it any better.

2020 was record voter turnout

Trump got more votes than he did in 2016.

But the real SILENT MAJORITY, was Americans who could not stand a compulsive liar, racist, and divider of the country, a tyrant, and a wannabe authoritarian, and frankly a clown to remain on office.

They were not voting FOR BIDEN the voted AGAINST TRUMP. The popular vote is like 6 million plus for Biden, or should I say against Trump.

Trumpets were never the majority, not now, and not in 2016.

2020 was a referendum on Trumpism, and Trumpism lost big time.

Their only hope was to claim fraud, that's why they've been talking "fruad" even going back to last election.

Lindsey Graham and other Republicans have stated, unless they change something drastically, Republicans will never win the presidency again, and they're right. In the last 30 years Republicans have only won the popular vote ONCE, 2004 after they traumatized Americans with 911. That's literally what it takes for them to win. That's why they complain about immigration and "Illegal votes"

The number of backwards thinking white people is not enough anymore for Republicans to win the presidency.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,014
the article I posted included the video clip. I already watched it. I included the whole quote and did not clip only the part where he said he was exaggerating.

the problem with what you are saying is that I didn’t narrow anything to try to create a spin. I posted a quote where Giuliani clearly is still claiming fraud while admitting that the fraud cannot be defined by the claim of there being more votes than voters because he was exaggerating this.

therefore, the viral message when it is based on this claim, is a false claim by his own admission, but he is still claiming there is fraud in the video clip. This isn’t removed in order to spin something.

You could try to say that other sources still support this claim of more votes than voters, but Giuliani is trumps lawyer and these are just random people who are upset that trump is losing. If Giuliani admits this, than this is not a claim that has enough evidence to be proven in court. Do you understand this?

the problem with many of you is that you can’t seem to define boundaries when you are researching something. If something can’t be used in court by the lawyer working to defend trumps case regarding election fraud, than articles specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters are useless. Do you understand? Lol, I’m guessing you or somebody is still going to try to post something that you think provides evidence that this claim is still true even though Giuliani is providing a boundary with what he is saying here. This boundary will probably go right over your heads though.

this is another reason that trump sources are worse than msm. The researching techniques of the people who support trump fly over boundaries all the time that would serve to increase their credibility. While biased, msm still has to work within boundaries that the trump camp has basically thrown out altogether. That is the difference. When you listen to msm, you have to look out for bias, but you don’t have to look out for exceeding research boundaries the way you do with the alt right news media.

I know reading comprehension becomes a challenge when someone challenges your narrative, but don’t go making something up. I’m not trying to spin anything the way you are. I didn’t isolate anything about the exaggeration comment to try to create a false impression.

and the quote is from the horses mouth with video corroboration of Giuliani saying it in contest. It isnt translated from an interview and used to prove an argument within an article. As disappointing as this may be for you, it is the reality of the situation specific to the claim of there being more votes than voters.
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:

 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,615
How were the votes illegal? Mail in voting was never illegal previously. If trump had won Pennsylvania you can be damn sure they wouldn’t be claiming they were illegal at all.

You guys have seemingly adopted an “ends justify the means” way of business and I hope I’m not the first to tell you.. but that isnt the way principles work.
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?
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,971
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

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,615
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.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,014
@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

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,524
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:

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.
 






Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,524
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.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,014
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.
Precinct 200.png

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
 






Top