Be careful what you wish for.

[j-mac]

The graph is not troubling to me at all. Even if it is accurate we do not know it is is abnormal. For all we know this happens every election.

During the early stages of the stolen election claims I watched a lot of the hearings held by state legislatures. I watched the one Ga held and they had a data analyst that claimed that specific precincts going more than 75% for one candidate was "rare" but that any going more than 90% going was a sure sign of fraud. This sounded reasonable so I did some of my own research. I looked at results from Atlanta and Salt Lake City for 2016 and 2012. Turns out that it is common for precincts to go more than 75% for one candidate and that even going 90% was not rare. They went that way for both parties.

So, if the graph is legit, which I question, then we would need to see if if happens on a normal basis across the country, and I would be that it does.

Ok, do you have any suggestions on the steps involved to do that? In order ofcourse to satisfy what you need to give such consideration?

 

[j-mac]

Your opinion means nothing, sorry.

Ok, dismissed…

 

[Mac1958]

Your opinion means nothing, sorry.

Just like yours, right?

And look at you asking for my opinion.

Too funny.

 

[jc456]

And look at you asking for my opinion.

Too funny.

Demonstrating my point

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, do you have any suggestions on the steps involved to do that? In order ofcourse to satisfy what you need to give such consideration?

If the graph is accurate then there has to be a database somewhere with vote counts by hour. If one state does it, it seems a good bet that many would do so.

I have never found any such data in my time spent looking into this, which was a fair amount for the first couple months after the election.

 

[sartre play]

No chance in the world of fixing this mess with the population picking sides,
based ONLY on political party. instead of holding ALL our elected officers responsible.

 

[Foolardi]

Can you provide the actual data behind this graph?

Data Schamaida! Liver and Lox.We have no Bananas today.
Nor Lox worth their cream cheese.

 

[j-mac]

If the graph is accurate then there has to be a database somewhere with vote counts by hour. If one state does it, it seems a good bet that many would do so.

I have never found any such data in my time spent looking into this, which was a fair amount for the first couple months after the election.

Why would you say that is?

Shouldnt count data be available to the public?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why would you say that is?

Shouldnt count data be available to the public?

If they track hourly counts it should be. I am not sure it is done or even why it would be.

I wish it was, but there is a lot of data you can only get from states if you are willing to pay for it, and I am not

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If absentee was the only thing there you'd be spot on, but we both know it wasn't....

Drop boxes, being stuffed by ballot harvesters.

Certain battleground states illegally changing their voting procedures without following their constitutions...

Certain states certifying voting machines that didn't pass testing in their states...

etc....

These are all valid concerns working up to election day...

Now why did certain courts deny a POTUS in an election standing to bring cases and hear evidence? You'd have to ask the Judges, even the Trump appointed ones...My guess is that those with liberal leaning views were obvious in thwarting his filings, those judges whom Trump appointed either lied in their confirmation about their leanings, or as newly appointed judges they wanted to be seen by the larger legal community as not carrying water for Trump, which meant that they rightly or wrongly didn't want to be involved, or lastly, they were just cowards.

You tell me?

Judges don't like to get involved in elections period. The only reason they got involved in the Bush/Gore race is because of Gore's buddies on the state supreme court that changed law on the bench.

There is only one way to fix all this and restore voter confidence, and that is getting technology out of our elections. Countries in Europe hand count every vote. Republican and purple states also need to have restrictions on mail-in voting. You're only allowed to vote by mail if you have a legitimate reason why you can't vote in person. Every mail-in ballot must have a space for SS number, state ID number, or military ID's. You must present a copy of that ID with the ballot.

Until we do that, every election is to be suspect.

 

[j-mac]

If they track hourly counts it should be. I am not sure it is done or even why it would be.

I wish it was, but there is a lot of data you can only get from states if you are willing to pay for it, and I am not

So, when you asked him for data, you knew darned well, that he probably couldn't produce it?

That's odd, why would you do that, unless you were just shooting down opposition argument against something you didn't want to consider?

 

[jc456]

Judges don't like to get involved in elections period. The only reason they got involved in the Bush/Gore race is because of Gore's buddies on the state supreme court that changed law on the bench.

There is only one way to fix all this and restore voter confidence, and that is getting technology out of our elections. Countries in Europe hand count every vote. Republican and purple states also need to have restrictions on mail-in voting. You're only allowed to vote by mail if you have a legitimate reason why you can't vote in person. Every mail-in ballot must have a space for SS number, state ID number, or military ID's. You must present a copy of that ID with the ballot.

Until we do that, every election is to be suspect.

Personally for me, if judges don’t want to be involved, then remove the inconsistencies of an election and make it in person only!

 

[Skylar]

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling

Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

www.politico.com

So this is a new stunt by Desantis. Drinking liberal tears being a good way to rile up your base. Having said that, I doubt that any of his supporters have really thought it true. Or actually care beyond the tears I was talking about. So I thought it would be interesting to do so.

First, let me say it's probably unconstitutional. The reason the actual malice standard exists is because without it, the press wouldn't be able to do their job. If any mistake in reporting even inadvertent onces, would make the press liable, reporting anything that you are not absolutely certain about is an unacceptable risk. In theory this is fine I have my doubts it wouldn't kill all reporting in practice though.

Practically speaking though it would be hilarious. I won't claim that the dreaded MSM wouldn't be affected.They sometimes make mistakes. But for those on the right the effects would be nothing less than devestating. Fox, OAN, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, all will have a choice. Fact check or be sued into oblivion.

So my inner demons would say bring it on Desantis. Let's see who's the "fake news" when giving fake news has actual consequences.

Its about virtue signalling to his base. Not about the legality.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, when you asked him for data, you knew darned well, that he probably couldn't produce it?

That's odd, why would you do that, unless you were just shooting down opposition argument against something you didn't want to consider?

I asked as I have seen that same graph posted on this forum alone probably 100 times. I have asked a few times for the data supporting it and you are the first one to even respond.

People see these things on Twitter/FB and they post them since they support their preconceived views. I is wrong to ask them for the data to support what they are posting?

Is that too much of an ask and we should just believe anything on Twitter/FB is true?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Personally for me, if judges don’t want to be involved, then remove the inconsistencies of an election and make it in person only!

Judges don't have that kind of power. The Constitution gives states the right to conduct their voting anyway they desire and a judge can't change that.

 

[forkup]

Its about virtue signalling to his base. Not about the legality.

I've made that point myself in this OP. You are almost certainly right.

 

[Skylar]

I've made that point myself in this OP. You are almost certainly right.

Trump did the same thing with his lawsuit against Hillary and Comey. It was always a garbage suit filled with meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

It existed.....to repeat meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[j-mac]

I asked as I have seen that same graph posted on this forum alone probably 100 times. I have asked a few times for the data supporting it and you are the first one to even respond.

People see these things on Twitter/FB and they post them since they support their preconceived views. I is wrong to ask them for the data to support what they are posting?

Is that too much of an ask and we should just believe anything on Twitter/FB is true?

No, of course we shouldn't...But, the point I am making is that you already knew that the data for that graph, (If from the State) may not be, and most likely wouldn't be available...So, what you are doing is dismissing the argument based on a disingenuous question, IMHO.....

Just sayin'

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, of course we shouldn't...But, the point I am making is that you already knew that the data for that graph, (If from the State) may not be, and most likely wouldn't be available...So, what you are doing is dismissing the argument based on a disingenuous question, IMHO.....

Just sayin'

I am pointing out that people are posting things they cannot support.

If that dismisses their argument, that is on them.

 

[forkup]

No, of course we shouldn't...But, the point I am making is that you already knew that the data for that graph, (If from the State) may not be, and most likely wouldn't be available...So, what you are doing is dismissing the argument based on a disingenuous question, IMHO.....

Just sayin'

I don't really see how that would follow. Gator looked for the graph and couldn't find the supporting data. He also isn't using it to support his position. Maybe he assumed that the other person could come up with the underlying data.

I would personally operate the same way. If you have a piece of data that I find questionable I would ask you to support it even if I searched for it and couldn't find it. It's not a gotcha thing for me. It's an acknowledgment that I'm fallible and just because I can't find something it can still exist