There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: djz3ro

Have proof the actives on the video were made open, made in good faith, and made known to the observes?

No, much like you have no proof they weren't. There are more witnesses claiming there were observers there though than say there wasn't.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

As this is being discussed again. Democrats and those opposed to Trump were not going to any political rally during a pandemic in any significant number. They were however, actively working to encourage those who were not registered to vote to do so. They encouraged those who hadn't voted in a while to do so. They worked with others to make sure friends,family, etc were voting and had a plan to vote, in person, by mail, requesting a ballot etc. Their emphasis was not on stoking an ego of a candidate but of making sure your voice is heard by using your right to vote, no matter how hard it was, as it was changed to make it more difficult to vote such as disrupting mail services, removing drop boxes and closing poll locations.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

So we can debate how credible your sources are vs. mine? No thanks.

I’d say the crazy, wild, over-the-top rallies worked against Trump

Non-Trump fans definitely took notice. Not in a favorable way.

Plus, all the falsehoods Trump spouted to feed his base — also did not go unnoticed.

a reply to: frogs453

Yes, I am sure they are well aware of how easy it is to provide just enough information to have a 'name' registered.

Just use the federal application. Mark an 'X' on the application map because you don't have a residential address. Provide a PO Box mailing address where you can receive your voter notification cards and ballots. Don't provide a SS# or ID#...the states have to assign a Voter ID number and register the name pursuant to the HAVA. And, hey, you can just make an 'X' or sign whatever phony names you want.

I have no doubt the various loopholes were created to make it that easy for cheating politicians to vote themselves in. They were not created to keep those with disabilities, the homeless, elderly, minorities, and the poor from being disenfranchised because all the fraud disenfranchises them and everyone else.

a reply to: Annee

I think that is true. My father who is elderly, was swayed to not vote for Trump again because of his response to the pandemic, his still having his rallies and as my Dad said " He just wouldn't shut his mouth up and it made things worse". He said he would have voted for him if he could have just accepted some responsibility instead of pitting himself against the scientists. He said as an elderly person he should not be considered expendable.

a reply to: Annee

My perception was the opposite. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.

I did this time. His supporters were the one joyful thing going on during a very bleak time in history. They won me over more than him, I'd say.

Anecdotal on both our parts.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is amusing as I have not encountered any Democrat telling me or others I know to game the system, yet as of yesterday still seeing video of a Republican encouraging others to vote outside of their home state for the upcoming GA election.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is amusing as I have not encountered any Democrat telling me or others I know to game the system, yet as of yesterday still seeing video of a Republican encouraging others to vote outside of their home state for the upcoming GA election.

Do you work/volunteer for any voter registration organizations?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I actually did volunteer for the first time ever. I assisted with how to request an absentee ballot, how to make sure it was completed properly and their option for sending or dropping the ballot such as the location or where to vote in person. Also how to track their ballot. No one ever asked me to do anything outside of the correct legal process. I was encouraged to make sure people understood the accurate and proper way. Where this "massive" fraud was supposedly encouraged I do not know.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

My perception was the opposite. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.

I did this time. His supporters were the one joyful thing going on during a very bleak time in history. They won me over more than him, I'd say.

Anecdotal on both our parts.

I am not influenced by emotions. Chalk that up to an alcoholic parent.

I followed other “non-flashy” trails.

a reply to: frogs453

I probably shouldn't have asked because I was bound to not trust whatever your answer was. That's not your fault. So since I did ask, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

That said, I've seen enough from Democrats over the last 20 years to know better. And to be perfectly honest, I think republicans are in on it up to their eyeballs.

The record shows these two parties conspire against the people behind closed doors. It's evident in every bit of legislation that's passed, all the spending bills, even the courts consistently make decisions that favor the government or can be exploited by the government.

So I do believe these voter laws are being exploited. I've seen evidence just picking through voter registration data in states that make it publicly available.

I also think it takes desperation or depravity to help politicians cheat and you likely suffer from neither...but I know some people do. I know that because I've picked through enough of the data to find a few frauds on my own.

a reply to: Annee

I haven't been inspired to vote since the 2008 primary. Even then I was still bruised by Gore's loss in 2000. I have had no faith since then in our elections. However, I do not like how the 2000 election was used as a catalyst to open our elections up to fraud. It was truly a bipartisan effort, too.

I wasn't so inspired by Trump, but his supporters are generally very nice people. Almost too nice and it's gotten to the point that I feel like I have to stick up for them because they take so much unfair abuse. And we can argue about whether it's deserved or not, but I know enough Trump supporters IRL to justify my feelings. Some of the very best people I know are Trump supporters. They don't deserve to be hated.

I know that you know we have some gems on ATS that support Trump, too, and this place wouldn't be worth the time without them.

The hearts of Democratic and Republican voters are just not that different.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

We have basically a 2-party system — so, it tends to fall into one side against the other.

Cheating, errors, confusion, conspiracy, fraud, etc — are nothing new

Those are not one sided.

However, current investigations are being driven by one side against the other.

And to date — none of the speculation has shown any real evidence that will hold up in court.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

I haven't been inspired to vote since the 2008 primary. Even then I was still bruised by Gore's loss in 2000. I have had no faith since then in our elections. However, I do not like how the 2000 election was used as a catalyst to open our elections up to fraud. It was truly a bipartisan effort, too.

I wasn't so inspired by Trump, but his supporters are generally very nice people. Almost too nice and it's gotten to the point that I feel like I have to stick up for them because they take so much unfair abuse. And we can argue about whether it's deserved or not, but I know enough Trump supporters IRL to justify my feelings. Some of the very best people I know are Trump supporters. They don't deserve to be hated.

I know that you know we have some gems on ATS that support Trump, too, and this place wouldn't be worth the time without them.

The hearts of Democratic and Republican voters are just not that different.

Let me clarify something: I don't hate anyone, and I am not trying to demonize Trump supporters. I think what Gulliani is doing is irresponsible and despicable--he is parading around baseless nonsense as fact and trying to get Trump supporters to believe it. He is preying on people that want to believe his claims. This whole thread is merely about pointing out to those supporters that they should not be believing Trump's and Gulliani's inane claims; it is about introducing some reason and logic into these discussions and not taking claims at face value. I don't hate people that believe Gulliani, but I will try to show them why they are wrong to do so.

The place we are at now is a result of the unmooring from "reality" under GW Bush. In 2004, Journalist Ron Suskind wrote about his encounter with an anonymous Bush Official, who spoke to him thusly:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

Now over 15 years later we live in a world where people on both sides seek to push their agenda without regard for "reality."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am sure there is some fraud on both sides along with to me obvious voter suppression this year. However, I do believe as others that Guiliani is compiling some very bad info, and we now have info that Project Veritas wrote at least one of the affidavits that has since been rescinded, the star witness in Michigan has had her own computer related crimes, etc.

The massive scale of compliance needed to commit fraud in the scale claimed is pretty staggering. Also the fact that legally Donald Trump can keep up to 70% of the 200 million raised for this in the past month is unsettling as he has hundreds of millions in loans due soon. I believe it's a money maker on top of his ego fueling this. He stated the only way he would lose was if fraud was involved and he started insinuating that belief into his base months ago.

Also the fact that legally Donald Trump can keep up to 70% of the 200 million raised for this in the past month is unsettling as he has hundreds of millions in loans due soon. I believe it's a money maker on top of his ego fueling this. He stated the only way he would lose was if fraud was involved and he started insinuating that belief into his base months ago.

If I'm not mistaken, there are limits on how the money can be used. I don't believe that he is permitted to use it for completely personal expenses, like paying off personal or business debts.

But the point still stands--he has no obligation to actually use the vast majority of the money for the recount and election lawsuit efforts, which is contrary to what many of the donors are being lead to believe.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

We have basically a 2-party system — so, it tends to fall into one side against the other.

Cheating, errors, confusion, conspiracy, fraud, etc — are nothing new

Those are not one sided.

However, current investigations are being driven by one side against the other.

And to date — none of the speculation has shown any real evidence that will hold up in court.

There is a preponderance of evidence that raises doubt about the outcome of the election, including evidence of fraud and deviations from standard, accepted, and established laws, regulations, and procedures. Plus, a lot of governors used emergency powers to waive or make voter ID laws voluntary and, of course, allow for no-excuse mail in voting.

The Voting Rights Act expressly prohibits the state from using arbitrary, non-uniform standards and procedures to register voters and issue legal ballots. In my state, they asked for my ID and scanned at the polls, but people who voted by mail were not asked to provide ID. There's no doubt there's a controversy there for a Court to issue a declaratory judgment.

Imagine if a Court issued a declaratory judgment saying a state abridged the rights of all its qualified voters by exercising those emergency powers in violation of the Voting Rights Act?

Amendment XIV, Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Congress could be crushed by the might of the voters...with the right legal arguments and declaratory judgments.

Anyway, as it is currently, an application to register to vote using the federal application (and most state forms), don't require a SS# or any ID. In my state, statutes actually define 'voter' as only a 'name' in the state's voter registration list. They make no claim that name identifies an actual person -- because they don't know.

'Proof of eligibility' to vote is satisfied with only a signature attestation/affirmation. With that signature, alone, election officials 'presume' the applicant has the right to register and, in this election, vote by mail, too, in many states.

However, presumptive legal facts, in general, have a legal basis that is dependent on some other material fact that is established as true. In this case, presuming an applicant is qualified, and has the right to register or receive a ballot, is dependent on the established fact that the applicant is, in fact, a 'natural person' identified by the name provided.

Only a 'natural person' can be presumed to have the right to vote. A criminal enterprise isn't a natural person. A dog with a name isn't a natural person. Names, alone, are not a basis to presume the right to vote with all its legal protections, too.

Those protections are meant for eligible voters not for cheaters to hide behind.

No election official is able to establish that basis of fact if the entire process can be completed without ID or appearing in person. States that allow for legal 'voter challenges' are also denying their voters a legal remedy, by not requiring people to vote in person.

SCOTUS has found the federal government/Congress has Constitutional power to determine the 'manner' of appointing presidential electors, in so far as it's for the purposes of prohibiting discrimination and protecting its legal self-interest from corruption and fraud.

Augustus posed the question the other day, and it is really the only question that matters. Who is the real party in interest?

Obviously, it depends on whatever legal challenge under consideration, but the parties are the States, the Federal Government, the Electors, the Candidates (which has some overlap with elected state and federal government officials), and the Voters...legal voters.

So, I think a successful voter challenge to this system -- which was so obviously crafted to benefit cheating politicians -- should probably follow the precedent set by the federal government.

The states give voters a 'legal interest' in voting for presidential electors and we do not have full oversight and access to data and information to protect our legal interests, like the other parties to this deal: namely elected state and federal government officials.

The Constitution expressly limits Congressional regulatory powers to the day and time of the meeting of the electors. The states plainly have plenary power to decide the 'manner' of appointing presidential electors. But the federal government has their grubby paws all over regulating the manner of voting for presidential electors thanks to the courts and crap lawsuits masquerading as voter advocacy but are, in fact, intended to favor cheating politicians.

We have a right to take measures to protect our legal interests in voting and free & fair elections -- the same as the other parties to this legal arrangement. Nothing should be kept from the voters' view outside of preserving the sanctity of the secret ballot.

The Voting Rights Act defines 'vote' to include 'all action necessary to make your vote effective.' I can think of a number of ways a court challenge might be approached, but lawyers on behalf of voters aren't interested in protecting all voters...just a few. Black, white, young, old, etc...we are all disenfranchised in the right to 'make our votes effective' when there's fraud and we shouldn't have to jump through legal hoops to inspect any & all the evidence available, let alone celebrate when a court rules it can be withheld by the other parties having an interest.

I see this as a battle between the voters and those elected with the power to give themselves an advantage.

Their interest in winning elections is in conflict with our interest in protecting our votes from cheating politicians -- who happen to also make voter laws & appoint judges. I wish everyone saw it, like that, rather than Republican vs. Democrat. That's low hanging fruit people refuse to stop picking to the detriment of their power to scare the sh*t out of the government and make them accountable to us.

We have rights we need recognized and I wish you saw that protecting those rights together -- every single time there is a preponderance of evidence to doubt an election -- is more worthwhile than a partisan pissing contest.

It does annoy me when I recall that republicans didn't give a crap about counting every vote, in 2000, but now they get it. I think that's a good thing and let's go with it.

(Sorry this is so long, it ended up just being a bunch of stuff I wanted to get off my chest, more than a reply to you.)

So yesterday, the Nevada GOP was bragging about submitting 800 pages of evidence to a federal judge there:

We have 20 binders containing 8,000 pages of evidence that will be presented in just a few minutes showing what took place this election in Nevada! pic.twitter.com/oOEpl4HCCW— Nevada GOP (@NVGOP) December 3, 2020

And today, the judge dismissed the case, stating that they "did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election."

link: thenevadaindependent.com... &utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rop

This is what happens when this fake evidence of fraud is actually tested in court. No surprise that Gulliani and Trump are avoiding courts and instead focusing on meaningless hearings (while still raking in donations).

This offers yet more proof that the thesis presented in the OP of this thread was correct.