Your Electoral College Predictions

Don’t forget to send all the $$$ you can to the Donald, Don Jr. and Eric Trump relief fund. This is their last chance to bilk you suckers out of your hard earned money. They are going to need it bad once Daddy gets dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming...Trump’s last bilk...Get in on it! Lol

 

They don't need the money. No reason for me to send them any...

 

All of the suits concerning "hundreds of thousands of votes," will all get laughed out of Court.
(Although, it may be possible that decisions that affect a minuscule amount of the vote may go Trump's way).

But, certainly nothing that will alter the results.

You may want to consider giving it a rest.

BIDEN WON/Trump LOST. Period!

Why sit here all day making post after post that won't age well?

Puzzling.

 

Patience, grasshopper...

 

Sure, in some sense it's "evidence", but is it RELIABLE evidence - and specifically, is it admissible in court? In a case in Maricopa County, Az, Trump's attorneys solicited affidavits over the internet. They investigated some of them and found that many were filled with lies and spam. The excluded these, but did no other verification. Judge Kiley remarked, " How is that a reliable process of gathering evidence? Trump's attorney (Kory Langhofer) defended the process by touting the fact that the input form included CAPTCHA, which weeded out the bots. Judge Kiley remarked that their process did not demonstrate the submitted affidavits were reliable, "that just shows you cannot disprove what's asserted." The judge deemed them inadmissible.

I'm doing that by engaging on this forum. I'm still waiting for you guys to step outside your Trumpian bubble and either acknowledge that TO DATE there has been no credible evidence that Biden's victory was a product of fraud, OR to provide the credible evidence. A vague reference to affidavits (which I tried to make sense of above) does not show me that I'm overlooking anything. Do the work: give me some good, credible evidence - not just assertions that there is evidence.

That's fine, and you can keep your fingers crossed - but until credible evidence is presented, you don't have an objective basis for assuming Biden's victory was the product of fraud. Wishful thinking, and Trump assertions are not evidence.

 

True.

Trump will NEVER accept Reality, until Biden us sworn in on 1/20/21.

The odds that Trump will be dragged kicking and screaming increase every day.

 

I have no problem with letting the process play out.

The Pennsylvania legislature cannot do this by law. What states do you believe this is possible in?

 

That ship sailed a long time ago.

But, just in case you missed the latest:

https://apnews.com/article/election...pennsylvania-b199b2debc87fbb20612a48835bc0dba

 

In EVERY sense it is evidence.

Probably, especially when there are HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of them all supporting each other...

Yes, they are. Affidavits are commonplace in the court system.

That judge sounds like he/she shouldn't even be a judge...

It's been provided to you already... Affidavits ARE evidence... Dead people voting IS evidence... Minors voting IS evidence... Issues with the Dominion software IS evidence... Listen to Trump's legal team discuss it... Listen to Kayleigh McEneny...

Do your own homework and look at the evidence. Affidavits ARE evidence... Read through some of them... Read through some of the litigation being filed... The PA one from last Monday and the MI one from Wednesday were both quite solid cases imo...

RQAA (repetitive question already answered).

 

Yes, it can, and any State can do so... Read the Constitution.

 

No, it hasn't.

 

Affidavits are not always admissible, and a judge indeed has the power to deem them inadmissible. Consider why: Trump's attorneys had done no verification of facts. They need to identify some actual fraudulent activities, and use these affidavits as evidence for those specific activities.

Of course, the judge's decision can be appealed, and if you're right that "he/she shouldn't be a judge" then the appeal should be a slam dunk...right? But please explain the legal basis for your denigration of the judge, or point me at an article where an attorney has defended this position. Their quantity doesn't matter if they aren't admissible.

You say the affidavits support each other. Clearly, it's not sufficient to claim they all say there's fraud - they have to agree as to what fraudulent activities occurred. Point me at an analysis of the affidavits that identifies the specific fraudulent activities that are multiply attested to. Frankly, I don't think this exists - but I could be wrong, and I'd very much like to know.

FYI - the affidavits in the Michigan lawsuit do NOT show widespread fraud. They pertain to process issues in the vote counting and monitoring (see this), and many of them reflect ignorance of the process by observers. Process problems aren't fraud. Best case for Trump is that this would lead to a recount.

 

Trump won't be President on January 21, 2021. He lost the election, fair and square, almost certainly because he screwed up our COVID-19 response.



P.S. I think he's too old to try a "Grover Cleveland" comeback.

 

The State legislators are bound by state and federal laws, not just the Constitution
State law mandates assigning the slate of electors according to popular vote. Federal law prohibits the legislature from changing this law after the election.

 

Learn what a groundless conspiracy theory is.

None of the litigation in any state will change the result of the election.
Trump lost, Biden becomes president January 20th, 2021.

 

Benford's law only applies to cases of exponential growth over several orders of magnitude. In such cases, you expect 30% of the numbers to start with "1", 17% with "2", 13% with "3", 10% with "4", and so on.

That does apply to accounting.

It does not apply to elections, as elections are not a case of exponential growth over several orders of magnitude.

For example, look at Chicago, where 98% of the precincts are sized between 100 and 999 voters, averaging around 500. It's likely that Milwaukee is similar. In such cases, given the Biden-favoring nature of the urban vote, it's very common for precincts to show Biden getting 3xx votes while Trump gets 1xx votes. Saying that it violates Benford's law is as senseless as saying that it violates the law of gravity, because both the law of gravity and Benford's law do not apply to elections.

 

I posted this before the election, and I'm feeling pretty good about it.

But don't stop on my account...

 

The more I've learned, the more I think that I lacked important understanding via that particular point. I accept correction.

 

Hmmm...

This post didn't age well...

Just sayin'...

 

Well, that didn't happen.

 

Really?

 

Why not?

Biden WON in a Landslide!

 

Trump is going to win and will win by A LOT?

Sure thing...

 

Big miss.

 

Sure thing.