The 2020 Election

[coati]

Once again, the ignorant, Left-wing troll refuses to address the OP’s information! You’re a complete partisan hack!

And your Deplorable tears are falling like refreshing summer rain.

 

[phrodeau]

Once again, the ignorant, Left-wing troll refuses to address the OP’s information! You’re a complete partisan hack!

If 15 million more votes were cast, Biden would have won by more than 7 million.

 

[YDB95]

Ok. Now that we've gotten the obligatory logical fallacy out of the wy, can you address the article? What is incorrect?

Given the source, probably everything. My stock response to this sort of query is to google it and see if anyone besides far-right sources has run with it yet. So far, that would be no, ergo I'm not going to waste my time chasing down a story that they probably pulled out of their ear.

 

[phrodeau]

Given the source, probably everything. My stock response to this sort of query is to google it and see if anyone besides far-right sources has run with it yet. So far, that would be no, ergo I'm not going to waste my time chasing down a story that they probably pulled out of their ear.

I’m sure that there were many mail-in ballots that weren’t filled in, either because they went to people who didn’t vote, or chose to vote another way. 15 million seems like a likely number for that.

 

[CornusKousa]

Amazing how it all came about. More than 15 million mail in votes unaccounted for:

If (R)'z don't find a BILLION mail in votes for their guy this next election cycle, they're fucking up.

 

[icanhelp1]

Given the source, probably everything. My stock response to this sort of query is to google it and see if anyone besides far-right sources has run with it yet. So far, that would be no, ergo I'm not going to waste my time chasing down a story that they probably pulled out of their ear.

Apparently you don’t google, just so ya know, if you google anything the first 15 responses are usually left wing rags. You really have to search to find a conservative viewpoint.

 

[Champakian]

It's 2021.

Leave it, let it rest.

I hope the hell Trump stays out of the next one.
Anyone, ANYONE, with a pulse can defeat Harris.

 

[Champakian]

Heck. She's the kind of candidate that
could lose to the recently deceased...

 

[YDB95]

if you google anything the first 15 responses are usually left wing rags.

From your perspective, I'm sure that's true!

 

[ll74]

Once again, the ignorant, Left-wing troll refuses to address the OP’s information! You’re a complete partisan hack!

The OP doesn't have information. More speculation and extrapolation based on a few rejected ballots, which had every right to be rejected.

We found 5 votes that were for Biden, but they changed their mind due to a sign they saw on the way to the polls. By taking into account the number of voters in Massachusetts, that means 1.6 billion votes were incorrectly cast because of signs....it's so obvious......the fraud.....

 

[Cubantripod]

Yes, and so you know when I say he won by over 7 million votes, I was talking about the popular vote. He also won the Electoral college vote. No matter how pedantic you wish to be, the point of my post was to reject whatever horseshit RG is presenting here because he still believes there was massive fraud only in specific battleground states that Trump started talking about in 2019.

And sadly...RG's whole reasoning here is that mail-in ballots that were rejected and not counted because voters didn't send it correctly would've made a difference.

Many on the right will argue that there was massive voter fraud, the same way many on the left refused to give up the Russia conspiracy theories to undermine Trump's victory. Tit for tat.

 

[ll74]

Many on the right will argue that there was massive voter fraud, the same way many on the left refused to give up the Russia conspiracy theories to undermine Trump's victory. Tit for tat.

The right continues to ignore Russian involvement in the 2016 election that its own party concluded existed multiple times.

Accepting multiple independent investigations' conclusions is quite different than rejecting multiple independent audits based on shit found on the internet.

And that's not even discussing the huge speculative leaps in logic that typically lead to extrapolations of voter count well outside the margin of error that are being presented (as this OP does) as evidence.

 

[Rightguide]

"Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/

So, you're prepared to refute the facts of the article? Get on with it. We don't give two shits about your left wing fact checking source.

 

[ll74]

So, you're prepared to refute the facts of the article? Get on with it. We don't give two shits about your left wing fact checking source.

Speculation is not fact.

 

[Rightguide]

It’s actually quite simple to explain, trumps efforts to hamstring the postal service notwithstanding.

But I must say, RG may need an intervention for his BDS.

Translation: I have no facts to refute those in the article, so it's time to resort to the old tried and true cowardice of attacking the messenger.

 

[Rightguide]

All you have to do with any RG thread is examine the sources - if he refers to any. In this instance, the pompously titled "Public Interest Legal Foundation" is an extreme right wing group set up to sue States for their alleged poor electoral administration.

They only sue D states. They fail 99% of the time. Their sources of funds are obscure. Their CEO was appointed by the Mr Trump to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity. Is that good?

They have been required to disclaim their former relationship to Klu Klux Klan, and their shared membership with quaisi military right wingers is under investigation. I could go on but don't want to embarrass RG more than necessary.

Translation: My ignorance won't allow me to explain the facts so it's time to slander the messenger and the source.

 

[Rightguide]

If (R)'z don't find a BILLION mail in votes for their guy this next election cycle, they're fucking up.

Just read about somebody arrested today in California with 300 mail in ballots in his car. So Newsom's people are busy subverting his recall vote.

 

[CornusKousa]

Just read about somebody arrested today in California with 300 mail in ballots in his car. So Newsom's people are busy subverting his recall vote.

Can't have white supremacist like Elder winning.

 

[Champakian]

Can't have white supremacist like Elder winning.

I think the Left refers to him as Uncle Tom Elder...

 

[Rightguide]

Can't have white supremacist like Elder winning.

It will probably take the biggest landslide in CA history to overcome the corruption of the Democrat election machine in CA.

 

[jomar]

Translation: I have no facts to refute those in the article, so it's time to resort to the old tried and true cowardice of attacking the messenger.

That’s total bullshit! [/RG impression]

Fact is, when you are able to cite a credible source that is relatively unbiased and does not push conspiracy theories, distort, mislead and misconstrue information and facts I’ll gladly refute your flawed and ill informed opinions. Until then, your complaints of attacking the messenger remain patently absurd.

And FYI, mediabiasfactcheck calls em they see em, right or left based.

 

[Champakian]

No, those places/people always claim not to be biased,
but I have yet to meet a single person in a position of any influence
who did not have an arrogant self-sense of "fairness" one way or another...

It is a chimera.

 

[ll74]

That’s total bullshit! [/RG impression]

Fact is, when you are able to cite a credible source that is relatively unbiased and does not push conspiracy theories, distort, mislead and misconstrue information and facts I’ll gladly refute your flawed and ill informed opinions. Until then, your complaints of attacking the messenger remain patently absurd.

And FYI, mediabiasfactcheck calls em they see em, right or left based.

I consider the whole "source" argument to be lazy. It's a much better argument to cite a lack of corroborated information or even better, to cite corroborated source that disputes the presented information.

In this particular case, no one is arguing facts. The conclusion of the OP was based on speculation. And even if you accept that, it's based on mail-in ballots that were rejected based on a failure to follow the process. From those "election integrity experts", they are arguing against their own position in this instance.

It's the same as arguing that people who had their provisional ballots rejected because of improper identification would've led to a different election result.

 

[Cubantripod]

The right continues to ignore Russian involvement in the 2016 election that its own party concluded existed multiple times.

Accepting multiple independent investigations' conclusions is quite different than rejecting multiple independent audits based on shit found on the internet.

And that's not even discussing the huge speculative leaps in logic that typically lead to extrapolations of voter count well outside the margin of error that are being presented (as this OP does) as evidence.

No one denies Russian "involvement." Russia has been interfering in our elections since Kennedy. However, we had Rod Rosenstein at a press conference say that there was no evidence that one vote was altered by Russia. The nonsense continued arguing that Trump was a Russian plant. That was as nonsensical or even worse that Pizzagate.

 

[Champakian]

It was fun (for the Left especially)
to dream of hookers peeing on beds.

Man, that was so credible. :nods: