Deliberately Losing Georgia?

 

Democrats barely won Georgia in 2020.  In sane times, a party that barely wins a state for the first time would do everything it can to shore up (fortify?) its margin of victory, hoping for bigger future wins.

Democrats are doing the exact opposite.   They are doing everything they can to alienate the state by preventing members of their most loyal constituency from making money off the All Star game.

I guess that kind of craziness isn’t surprising in an era where mayors let their own cities burn, thinking it will enhance their resumes.  Or a time when large companies openly alienate half of their customers.  The Democrats’ attitude toward Georgia would seem to fit with the other craziness.

Maybe.

There might be a less crazy reason for the Democrats’ behavior:  Maybe they believe they can’t win Georgia again.  Why?  Voter ID and other fraud prevention measures.  If true,  the Democrats are implicitly making one heck of an admission.

Take Florida for example, That state turned from purple to red after it cleaned up its vote-counting process.  Coincidence?

The Democrats are very good at the game of politics.  It’s hard to believe they would throw away a hard-won state just to burnish their woke credentials.  Unless they think the state is already gone.

If Georgia is already lost to the Democrats, they might as well heap abuse on it as an example to intimidate other states considering similar reforms.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 67 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    An attempt by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to block physical inspection of ballots cast in Fulton County, Ga. in the November presidential election is part of an election fraud “coverup,” voting integrity activist Garland Favorito charged Tuesday in an interview with Just the News.

    In December 2020, Favorito’s organization Voter GA filed a suit against the then-chairperson of the Fulton County Board of Elections based on a sudden, implausible spike of 20,000 votes in favor of Joe Biden on election night, along with sworn testimony from hand count auditors who say they saw batches of counterfeit ballots during the county’s post-election hand recount. The witnesses cite uncreased ballots, different paper stock, and ballots marked with toner instead of writing implements as reasons for their suspicions. 

    Based on the affidavits and other evidence, the judge in the case found probable cause to conditionally unseal the county’s ballots for a forensic audit. Voter GA was given until March 25 to submit a plan to the judge detailing what the audit would look like — which experts they were going to use, where the audit would take place, etc.

    Last week, Raffensperger, who is not a party to the suit, filed an amicus brief in an attempt to block the effort to unseal and examine the ballots. a Republican who has resisted demands by former President Donald Trump and others to investigate claims of vote-counting mischief in the state’s 2020 presidential vote,

    In the months following the November election, Raffensperger unbendingly defended the validity of the ballots cast in Georgia. In the process, he emerged as a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly told Raffensperger that if his office scrutinized the ballots in Fulton County, they would find election cheating.

    Favorito believes Raffensperger filed his amicus brief because Trump is right, and the secretary of state has something to hide. Raffensperger is “in coverup mode,” alleged Favorito. “There’s nothing new in this brief that concerns us. What concerns us is that we have a secretary of state who doesn’t believe in election integrity.”

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    An attempt by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to block physical inspection of ballots cast in Fulton County, Ga. in the November presidential election is part of an election fraud “coverup,” voting integrity activist Garland Favorito charged Tuesday in an interview with Just the News.

    In December 2020, Favorito’s organization Voter GA filed a suit against the then-chairperson of the Fulton County Board of Elections based on a sudden, implausible spike of 20,000 votes in favor of Joe Biden on election night, along with sworn testimony from hand count auditors who say they saw batches of counterfeit ballots during the county’s post-election hand recount. The witnesses cite uncreased ballots, different paper stock, and ballots marked with toner instead of writing implements as reasons for their suspicions.

    Based on the affidavits and other evidence, the judge in the case found probable cause to conditionally unseal the county’s ballots for a forensic audit. Voter GA was given until March 25 to submit a plan to the judge detailing what the audit would look like — which experts they were going to use, where the audit would take place, etc.

    Last week, Raffensperger, who is not a party to the suit, filed an amicus brief in an attempt to block the effort to unseal and examine the ballots. a Republican who has resisted demands by former President Donald Trump and others to investigate claims of vote-counting mischief in the state’s 2020 presidential vote,

    In the months following the November election, Raffensperger unbendingly defended the validity of the ballots cast in Georgia. In the process, he emerged as a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly told Raffensperger that if his office scrutinized the ballots in Fulton County, they would find election cheating.

    Favorito believes Raffensperger filed his amicus brief because Trump is right, and the secretary of state has something to hide. Raffensperger is “in coverup mode,” alleged Favorito. “There’s nothing new in this brief that concerns us. What concerns us is that we have a secretary of state who doesn’t believe in election integrity.”

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    • #32
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    An attempt by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to block physical inspection of ballots cast in Fulton County, Ga. in the November presidential election is part of an election fraud “coverup,” voting integrity activist Garland Favorito charged Tuesday in an interview with Just the News.

    In December 2020, Favorito’s organization Voter GA filed a suit against the then-chairperson of the Fulton County Board of Elections based on a sudden, implausible spike of 20,000 votes in favor of Joe Biden on election night, along with sworn testimony from hand count auditors who say they saw batches of counterfeit ballots during the county’s post-election hand recount. The witnesses cite uncreased ballots, different paper stock, and ballots marked with toner instead of writing implements as reasons for their suspicions.

    Based on the affidavits and other evidence, the judge in the case found probable cause to conditionally unseal the county’s ballots for a forensic audit. Voter GA was given until March 25 to submit a plan to the judge detailing what the audit would look like — which experts they were going to use, where the audit would take place, etc.

    Last week, Raffensperger, who is not a party to the suit, filed an amicus brief in an attempt to block the effort to unseal and examine the ballots. a Republican who has resisted demands by former President Donald Trumpto investigate claims of vote-counting mischief in the state’s 2020 presidential vote,

    In the months following the November election, Raffensperger unbendingly defended the validity of the ballots cast in Georgia. In the process, he emerged as a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly told Raffensperger that if his office scrutinized the ballots in Fulton County, they would find election cheating.

    Favorito believes Raffensperger filed his amicus brief because Trump is right, and the secretary of state has something to hide. Raffensperger is “in coverup mode,” alleged Favorito. “There’s nothing new in this brief that concerns us. What concerns us is that we have a secretary of state who doesn’t believe in election integrity.”

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this.  Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years,  it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this. Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years, it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    Except it would seem impossible to check for printer toner rather than actual ink, for one example, just by looking at images.  And of course images could be doctored in other ways, duplicated, etc etc.

    One of the best parts of the movie “The Verdict” is when maybe even people watching it, suddenly realize that a “Xerox Copy” can be  not necessarily fraudulent itself, but actually evidence that an original has been tampered with.

    • #34
  5. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this. Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years, it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    Except it would seem impossible to check for printer toner rather than actual ink, for one example, just by looking at images. And of course images could be doctored in other ways, duplicated, etc etc.

    One of the best parts of the movie “The Verdict” is when maybe even people watching it, suddenly realize that a “Xerox Copy” can be not necessarily fraudulent itself, but actually evidence that an original has been tampered with.

    Yes and no, you image as close to source, checksum, time stamp with block chain, replicate database secure.  Compare backs will show if funny business is happening.  

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this. Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years, it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    Except it would seem impossible to check for printer toner rather than actual ink, for one example, just by looking at images. And of course images could be doctored in other ways, duplicated, etc etc.

    One of the best parts of the movie “The Verdict” is when maybe even people watching it, suddenly realize that a “Xerox Copy” can be not necessarily fraudulent itself, but actually evidence that an original has been tampered with.

    Yes and no, you image as close to source, checksum, time stamp with block chain, replicate database secure. Compare backs will show if funny business is happening.

    But none of that allows you to verify how the ballot was actually filled out, with what material or technology…  It might not reveal if a mailed-in ballot was ever actually folded as a valid mail-in ballot must be…

    • #36
  7. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this. Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years, it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    Except it would seem impossible to check for printer toner rather than actual ink, for one example, just by looking at images. And of course images could be doctored in other ways, duplicated, etc etc.

    One of the best parts of the movie “The Verdict” is when maybe even people watching it, suddenly realize that a “Xerox Copy” can be not necessarily fraudulent itself, but actually evidence that an original has been tampered with.

    Yes and no, you image as close to source, checksum, time stamp with block chain, replicate database secure. Compare backs will show if funny business is happening.

    But none of that allows you to verify how the ballot was actually filled out, with what material or technology… It might not reveal if a mailed-in ballot was ever actually folded as a valid mail-in ballot must be…

    No, but all the play I have seen involves swapping ballets.

    • #37
  8. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    No, but all the play I have seen involves swapping ballets.

    A Swan Lake for a Nutcracker?

    • #38
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    And now this.

    What are they hiding in Georgia?

    In his brief, Raffensperger cites Georgia’s new election security bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, as allowing the “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots,” meaning the auditors would have access to digital images of the ballots, created by the tabulation machines, but not the physical ballots themselves.

    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    Perhaps more to the point, did Kemp and Raffensperger set up that new bill in part to help provide them cover on not having the actual ballots be subject to verification?

    How bloody hard is this. Source docs stay secure for a year and if no issues the images stay for 7 years, it is IT doc management 101 in the real world.

    Except it would seem impossible to check for printer toner rather than actual ink, for one example, just by looking at images. And of course images could be doctored in other ways, duplicated, etc etc.

    One of the best parts of the movie “The Verdict” is when maybe even people watching it, suddenly realize that a “Xerox Copy” can be not necessarily fraudulent itself, but actually evidence that an original has been tampered with.

    Yes and no, you image as close to source, checksum, time stamp with block chain, replicate database secure. Compare backs will show if funny business is happening.

    But none of that allows you to verify how the ballot was actually filled out, with what material or technology… It might not reveal if a mailed-in ballot was ever actually folded as a valid mail-in ballot must be…

    No, but all the play I have seen involves swapping ballets.

    Might as well deal with phony mail-ins too.  If they were never folded for mailing, they can’t be valid.  And I would bet they’re largely if not entirely for Biden.

    • #39
  10. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    No, but all the play I have seen involves swapping ballets.

    A Swan Lake for a Nutcracker?

    Right down the smokestack! 

    • #40
  11. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    What are Kemp and Raffensperger trying to keep hidden? What are they covering up?

    They are probably trying to cover up their own incompetence, rather than protect the left.

    This puts a hole in my argument that the Democrats can’t win Georgia.

    Don’t get me wrong.  The Democrats’ behavior toward Georgia is a great gift to the Republicans, but the Republicans will throw that gift away if they keep leadership in place that can’t be trusted.

    Both men should opt out of running for reelection.

    • #41
  12. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    buzzbrockway (View Comment):
    If Trump wants to continue to claim Georgia’s elections are rigged, and some of his allies keep telling people not to vote (as some did in January), Trumps support in Georgia will evaporate.

    Among who? Certainly not the 30-50% of GOP voters that would seem to include everyone on this thread that think it’s Raffensperger’s fault that Trump lost the election and believe there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost. And in a state where Abrams was quite close in her own run in 2018.

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Baker (View Comment):

    buzzbrockway (View Comment):
    If Trump wants to continue to claim Georgia’s elections are rigged, and some of his allies keep telling people not to vote (as some did in January), Trumps support in Georgia will evaporate.

    Among who? Certainly not the 30-50% of GOP voters that would seem to include everyone on this thread that think it’s Raffensperger’s fault that Trump lost the election and believe there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost. And in a state where Abrams was quite close in her own run in 2018.

    Was Abrams ACTUALLY close in 2018, or did they already have the cheating mechanisms in place but they just weren’t used enough?

    • #43
  14. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Was Abrams ACTUALLY close in 2018, or did they already have the cheating mechanisms in place but they just weren’t used enough?

    What do you consider 55,000 votes?

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Arahant (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Was Abrams ACTUALLY close in 2018, or did they already have the cheating mechanisms in place but they just weren’t used enough?

    What do you consider 55,000 votes?

    The number isn’t especially relevant if there is reason to doubt how it came to be.  As I understand it, the illegal consent decree(s) came after that election, but there still might have been other cheating in place that could have made it improperly “close.”  And that means it wasn’t REALLY close.

    Meanwhile, a six-vote margin for the Iowa seat in the House, is really close.

    • #45
  16. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Baker (View Comment):
    Among who? Certainly not the 30-50% of GOP voters that would seem to include everyone on this thread that think it’s Raffensperger’s fault that Trump lost the election and believe there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost. And in a state where Abrams was quite close in her own run in 2018.

    Trump came within 0.25% of a win in Georgia, well within the fraud margin.  The argument that this “most consistently unpopular incumbent” is bound to lose Georgia doesn’t hold up very well here.

    • #46
  17. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):
    Among who? Certainly not the 30-50% of GOP voters that would seem to include everyone on this thread that think it’s Raffensperger’s fault that Trump lost the election and believe there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost. And in a state where Abrams was quite close in her own run in 2018.

    Trump came within 0.25% of a win in Georgia, well within the fraud margin. The argument that this “most consistently unpopular incumbent” is bound to lose Georgia doesn’t hold up very well here.

    I didn’t say bound to lose, just that it was certainly possible and with all above board.

    Meanwhile, Vernon Jones may run for governor against Kemp with Trump’s endorsement. That would be hilarious. Or very depressing.

    • #47
  18. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Baker (View Comment):
    I didn’t say bound to lose, just that it was certainly possible and with all above board.

    True.  But you did put everyone on this thread in the same box by claiming they believe “there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost.”

    Any extremely close election will generate suspicion.  In Georgia’s case it has been exacerbated by the behavior of its election officials, including the two Republicans.  I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that Georgia was flipped by voter fraud.

    • #48
  19. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):
    I didn’t say bound to lose, just that it was certainly possible and with all above board.

    True. But you did put everyone on this thread in the same box by claiming they believe “there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost.”

    Any extremely close election will generate suspicion. In Georgia’s case it has been exacerbated by the behavior of its election officials, including the two Republicans. I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that Georgia was flipped by voter fraud.

    Happy to be corrected if someone weighs in and agrees with me that Joe Biden won fair and square and that the jobs done by Kemp and Raffensperger were unfairly characterized in the service of one man’s ego.

    • #49
  20. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Baker (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):
    I didn’t say bound to lose, just that it was certainly possible and with all above board.

    True. But you did put everyone on this thread in the same box by claiming they believe “there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost.”

    Any extremely close election will generate suspicion. In Georgia’s case it has been exacerbated by the behavior of its election officials, including the two Republicans. I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that Georgia was flipped by voter fraud.

    Happy to be corrected if someone weighs in and agrees with me that Joe Biden won fair and square and that the jobs done by Kemp and Raffensperger were unfairly characterized in the service of one man’s ego.

    Democrats fought to prevent voter rolls from being accurate. Democrats fought to prevent normal rules from being enforced. Mark Zuckberg donated millions to promote more registrations all effected under these dubious new circumstances. We know with certainty that deceased and non-resident persons voted in Georgia. We know with certainty that some voters cast multiple ballots.

    To prevent a recount involving physical inspection of ballots (such as those mailed ballots that managed to remain unfolded), all Georgia ballots were rather hastily destroyed—and the FBI arrived to help destroy them (Explain that. It would make sense for the feds to be needed guard physical evidence from corrupt locals but why help shred?)  Better lawyering might have preserved them (unless Stacey Abrams’ sister was again the judge handling it).

    We can reasonably assume that Georgia Democrats believe (know?) that a significant share of Democratic winning margins were achieved by questionable means. Why else the preposterous campaign to defeat votings laws that are less stringent than most other states?

    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states, including Georgia or the bizarre late-night stopping but not really stopping counting in Atlanta. 

    Trump’s handling of the issue and behavior were appalling. His legal team was grossly unqualified to deal with this level of suspect activity. Giuliani seemed to think it was about busting some clumsy cheating by ward bosses in a few urban precincts and he was still a US attorney who could sweat some underlings. What a buffoon. The scope of the systemic “irregularities” required a legal team with tech, intel and math skills.

    Raffensberger is Tracy Abrams’ bitch. The thought of being called “racist” apparently terrifies him. Kemp would have needed to act through Raffensberger so he gets a limited pass.

    Your notions of “fair and square” comport with OJ Simpson and a lot of mafiosos being innocent of murder because the agreed-upon formal process says so but going beyond that limited, technical  acknowledgment to imply that the 202o Georgia outcomes were fair and factually true would be utterly asinine. 

    • #50
  21. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states

    Plenty of people bothered, you just wouldn’t accept or didnt like their answers.

    • #51
  22. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Baker (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states

    Plenty of people bothered, you just wouldn’t accept or didnt like their answers.

    Rain comes from angels crying in heaven over our electoral credibility. That’s an explanation for rain. Accept it? If not, why not?

    • #52
  23. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Baker (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states

    Plenty of people bothered, you just wouldn’t accept or didnt like their answers.

    Really? Which explanation was that: “Never happened” “shut up” “coincidence”? I would love to know which brilliant explanation I missed. The official response is that we are not allowed to allude to it on social media or MSM which may explain why it’s so hard to find.

    You would think that if there were such an explanation, MSNBC/CNN/WaPo/NYT would have run with it for weeks under the rubric of “oh, those dumb conservatives.” Are you so oblivious to the nature of media culture that it does not occur to you that an enforced silence is itself a statement? 

    Outside of Georgia, it is a given that Democrats always cheat in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. The only question is (a) how much this time and (b) are you going to muster the resources to prove it in time to matter.

    Election results are what the process say they are. If our election officials are corrupt or feckless, then we suffer accordingly.  But only an apologist or a fool would characterize this last dog’s breakfast that had the whole world laughing at us as “fair and square.”

    • #53
  24. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    it is a given that Democrats always cheat in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia.

    You left out Chicago.  And Baltimore.  And St. Louis.  And New York City.  And, well, never mind…

    • #54
  25. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states

    Plenty of people bothered, you just wouldn’t accept or didnt like their answers.

    Really? Which explanation was that: “Never happened” “shut up” “coincidence”? I would love to know which brilliant explanation I missed. The official response is that we are not allowed to allude to it on social media or MSM which may explain why it’s so hard to find.

    You would think that if there were such an explanation, MSNBC/CNN/WaPo/NYT would have run with it for weeks under the rubric of “oh, those dumb conservatives.” Are you so oblivious to the nature of media culture that it does not occur to you that an enforced silence is itself a statement?

    They did run with it. And then people who refused to accept the result called Georgia officials traitors who just wanted to be popular because they were going on and going interviews to those same networks.

    And the SoS office repeatedly addressed those claims

    https://youtu.be/zLYugNRVLiQ

    • #55
  26. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    The bottom line is this, or one bottom line at least: (at the risk of going along with your premise) its one thing to steal a mayor race with a couple hundred votes. Thats possible with only a few people being in on it. 

    The scale at which you are alleging would require dozens of people being in on it. None of whom have apparently told their little cousin Jimmy about their nefarious deeds. That just doesn’t happen at this scale.

    • #56
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):

    True. But you did put everyone on this thread in the same box by claiming they believe “there’s just no way the most consistently unpopular incumbent in quite some time could have lost.”

    Any extremely close election will generate suspicion. In Georgia’s case it has been exacerbated by the behavior of its election officials, including the two Republicans. I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that Georgia was flipped by voter fraud.

    Happy to be corrected if someone weighs in and agrees with me that Joe Biden won fair and square and that the jobs done by Kemp and Raffensperger were unfairly characterized in the service of one man’s ego.

    Democrats fought to prevent voter rolls from being accurate. Democrats fought to prevent normal rules from being enforced. Mark Zuckberg donated millions to promote more registrations all effected under these dubious new circumstances. We know with certainty that deceased and non-resident persons voted in Georgia. We know with certainty that some voters cast multiple ballots.

    To prevent a recount involving physical inspection of ballots (such as those mailed ballots that managed to remain unfolded), all Georgia ballots were rather hastily destroyed—and the FBI arrived to help destroy them (Explain that. It would make sense for the feds to be needed guard physical evidence from corrupt locals but why help shred?) Better lawyering might have preserved them (unless Stacey Abrams’ sister was again the judge handling it).

    We can reasonably assume that Georgia Democrats believe (know?) that a significant share of Democratic winning margins were achieved by questionable means. Why else the preposterous campaign to defeat votings laws that are less stringent than most other states?

    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states, including Georgia or the bizarre late-night stopping but not really stopping counting in Atlanta.

    Trump’s handling of the issue and behavior were appalling. His legal team was grossly unqualified to deal with this level of suspect activity. Giuliani seemed to think it was about busting some clumsy cheating by ward bosses in a few urban precincts and he was still a US attorney who could sweat some underlings. What a buffoon. The scope of the systemic “irregularities” required a legal team with tech, intel and math skills.

    Raffensberger is Tracy Abrams’ bitch. The thought of being called “racist” apparently terrifies him. Kemp would have needed to act through Raffensberger so he gets a limited pass.

    Your notions of “fair and square” comport with OJ Simpson and a lot of mafiosos being innocent of murder because the agreed-upon formal process says so but going beyond that limited, technical acknowledgment to imply that the 202o Georgia outcomes were fair and factually true would be utterly asinine.

    Still waiting for the like-to-the-Nth-degree button…

    • #57
  28. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Baker (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Baker (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    No one has bothered to adequately explain the odd mathematics of Biden’s simultaneous late night surge to the lead is six key states

    Plenty of people bothered, you just wouldn’t accept or didnt like their answers.

    Really? Which explanation was that: “Never happened” “shut up” “coincidence”? I would love to know which brilliant explanation I missed. The official response is that we are not allowed to allude to it on social media or MSM which may explain why it’s so hard to find.

    You would think that if there were such an explanation, MSNBC/CNN/WaPo/NYT would have run with it for weeks under the rubric of “oh, those dumb conservatives.” Are you so oblivious to the nature of media culture that it does not occur to you that an enforced silence is itself a statement?

    They did run with it. And then people who refused to accept the result called Georgia officials traitors who just wanted to be popular because they were going on and going interviews to those same networks.

    And the SoS office repeatedly addressed those claims

    https://youtu.be/zLYugNRVLiQ

    Which presentation did not address the math anomaly. Most of those claims that were addressed were straw men and silly rumors. He said one claim was people voting who were not registered and said that was impossible (true) as if that was the issue. He did not address the substantive claim that there were registrations that were bogus. He plainly BS’ed on the claim that a stack of unfolded ballots were entered.
    The  GOP filed suit to deal with registration and signature issues before the election and Stacey Abrams’ sister the judge blocked it.

    The mathematical issue is that late at night, Biden’s votes accumulated uniformly in a manner that was improbable. The graphs showing a jump and then a sustained ratio in several states. That requires a direct explanation. Where is that specific explanation?

    • #58
  29. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Baker (View Comment):

    The bottom line is this, or one bottom line at least: (at the risk of going along with your premise) its one thing to steal a mayor race with a couple hundred votes. Thats possible with only a few people being in on it.

    The scale at which you are alleging would require dozens of people being in on it. None of whom have apparently told their little cousin Jimmy about their nefarious deeds. That just doesn’t happen at this scale.

    Wrong. It required no massive conspiracy. Democrats are already poised to cheat in routine ways in urban areas. COVID rules and mass mailing did increase legit turnout but also provided enormous opportunities to cheat. Philadelphia Democrats do not need a Zoom meeting with colleagues in Detroit or New Orleans to plan to massage voter rolls and stuff boxes.

    As for the systemic anomalies in the progress of the count, very few people would be required. From a security standpoint, the system is a joke as our intel and law enforcement agencies told us when they thought that the Russians might aid Trump. Entire federal agency systems have been hacked. The crapfest Dominion system under the aegis of state employees is more secure than that?

    That there are discrepancies between electronic totals and the contents of the paper ballots is why some civic-minded Democrats left their beds late at night in Las Vegas to dispose of a large number of ballots when a judge was considering ordering an inspection and recount.

    When I used to go to the track in misspent youth, we used to watch the tote board to look for anomalies. My colleague and I used to predict the surprise outcome of races where the numbers were suspect. We never bet such races because (a) these geniuses often fail to execute or double-cross one another and (b) being made a person of interest/taken in for questioning when you go to cash a fixed trifecta is to be avoided.

    The election-night tote board was screwy. Why am I not entitled to a very specific explanation for a very specific set of observations?  Some Georgia bureaucrat mowing down straw men in a January presser does not meet the bill.

    • #59
  30. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Baker (View Comment):
    They did run with it. And then people who refused to accept the result called Georgia officials traitors who just wanted to be popular because they were going on and going interviews to those same networks.

    You’re saying they aren’t traitors and on the take?  You’re saying for sure that Kemp (and probably Raffensperger) didn’t select Dominion because they were assured their return would be that they would be reelected no matter what?  I can’t prove it of course, but it makes more sense than anything else.

    Kemp did make the mistake of authorizing a verified recount, but then the next day his daughter’s boy friend was blown up in his car and then (iirc) that same day Kemp rescinded his order.  And then ironically a three days later the GBI officer who was tasked with investigating the so-called crash was found dead, I believe of a gunshot would to the head that they a called suicide.

    But, no, fortunately there was nothing untoward about anything in Georgia’s election process.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.