Fox News: surge in new cases
11-18-2020, 08:49 AM
#781
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
It would seem so yes, considering COVID precautions the city seemed to meet the law as written. Don't like it? Change the law. On November 5th, a second judge deemed it otherwise and allowed observers with 6 feet. That's fine like I said, the thing is...in essentially 24 hours time do you have evidence to back your claims that somehow massive fraud occurred when observers from both parties were just a little bit farther away? That's a heavy burden to prove.
I don't think the burden is proof of fraud. I think they are going for equal protection violation due to some precincts having full access and some not. Not sure fraud is part of the argument. I haven't read the complaints so not really sure.
11-18-2020, 08:55 AM
#782
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,209
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/10/92254...r-absentee-bal
11-18-2020, 09:07 AM
#783
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
POTUS has been trying to undermine the election results for a long time, you should know this by now. The claims of POTUS and his followers is fraud, that is the only reason they are pursuing this stuff. Otherwise if they were truly set on election equality and such they wouldn't do things like this...
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/10/92254...r-absentee-bal
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/10/92254...r-absentee-bal
I will admit to not being consumed by this so I am not familiar with all the claims made in court. It was my understanding that the claim against the large number of ballots in PA was a claim of lack of access to the count not fraudulent ballots. The Texas thing was a state matter and not up to Trump as far as I know, but again I am not consumed by this so I may not be paying attention as much as you guys.
11-18-2020, 09:12 AM
#784
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
It would seem so yes, considering COVID precautions the city seemed to meet the law as written. Don't like it? Change the law. On November 5th, a second judge deemed it otherwise and allowed observers with 6 feet. That's fine like I said, the thing is...in essentially 24 hours time do you have evidence to back your claims that somehow massive fraud occurred when observers from both parties were just a little bit farther away? That's a heavy burden to prove.
11-18-2020, 09:38 AM
#785
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 764B
Posts: 467
Not sure where you got that from, MSNBC? From the official ECDC website https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/data
11-18-2020, 10:06 AM
#787
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
From the Washington Post. Let me guess, lefty rag so it's clearly lies! Only thing I can think of (without resorting to dismissing data as fake) is that your chart only goes to the 15th. The rolling 7 day trend increased from 143 to 239 dead in the last 24hrs. Regardless, they're obviously not herd immune, like you've been parroting. Compare that with Norway, where with only 14 dead the last week, are seeing their weekly rate triple.
Up to the minute statistics.
https://virusncov.com/covid-statistics/sweden
11-18-2020, 10:56 AM
#789
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
So now you begin to backtrack, earlier you agreed the court order was indicative of observers being prevented from meaningful observation.
Interestingly I had not brought up any fraud, and yet you continually say “no fraud”. I mentioned that observers were being prevented from actually observing. I guess you have to keep telling yourself “no fraud” because something inside you tells you that when one side of an election is actively prevented from observing in a meaningful way something is awry.
Since you brought up fraud, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to observe election fraud when you are prevented from meaningful observation of said election.
Interestingly I had not brought up any fraud, and yet you continually say “no fraud”. I mentioned that observers were being prevented from actually observing. I guess you have to keep telling yourself “no fraud” because something inside you tells you that when one side of an election is actively prevented from observing in a meaningful way something is awry.
Since you brought up fraud, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to observe election fraud when you are prevented from meaningful observation of said election.
11-18-2020, 11:25 AM
#790
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,209
So now you begin to backtrack, earlier you agreed the court order was indicative of observers being prevented from meaningful observation.
Interestingly I had not brought up any fraud, and yet you continually say “no fraud”. I mentioned that observers were being prevented from actually observing. I guess you have to keep telling yourself “no fraud” because something inside you tells you that when one side of an election is actively prevented from observing in a meaningful way something is awry.
Since you brought up fraud, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to observe election fraud when you are prevented from meaningful observation of said election.
Interestingly I had not brought up any fraud, and yet you continually say “no fraud”. I mentioned that observers were being prevented from actually observing. I guess you have to keep telling yourself “no fraud” because something inside you tells you that when one side of an election is actively prevented from observing in a meaningful way something is awry.
Since you brought up fraud, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to observe election fraud when you are prevented from meaningful observation of said election.
The bigger story is a sitting president purposefully undermining what has proven to be a free and fair election.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
