NE_Pilot

Oh so preventing observers from doing their job is no big deal, got it. Interestingly one party was fighting for meaningful access while another was fighting against it. What would be the purpose of fighting to prevent election observers from observing?

jetlaggy

Cause they mite discover some tax returns?

Or cause obervers were already there.

NE_Pilot

I guess you missed the part about meaningful observation and the later court order regarding it.

Mesabah

The definition of herd immunity is R0 < 1. I think you are confused with the number of infected or vaccinated to assume herd immunity, a completely different concept. I think the New York Times journalists said 66% or something, a number that is not valid for Covid19.

GeeWizDriver

Aaand you've just proven you don't have a shred of intellectual honesty. Anecdotally, there is a veritable pantload of hinky stuff that went on with this election.

The incumbent received 10 MILLION more votes than his initial election.

The incumbent received more votes from minority voters than any candidate in his party's HISTORY.

The incumbent's pre-election job approval rating was 52%.

Pre-election, 56% of those polled expected the incumbent to win.

Pre-election, the incumbent enjoyed a THIRTY PERCENT enthusiasm gap advantage.

The incumbent's party gained more than a dozen House seats and (so far) maintained its pre-election control of the Senate.

Until the voting in key states "paused" for several hours, the incumbent was running an average of 7% ABOVE the down ballot partisan totals. After the "pause," the ratio versus down ballot totals completely inverted.

Historically speaking, an average of 3% of ballots cast have only the Presidential candidate selected. In Pennsylvania this election, that number was more than 15%.

Uncounted ballots from districts favorable to the incumbent are suddenly being "found" in numerous swing states.

More votes recorded in Wayne County, Michigan than there are RESIDENTS. Let alone registered voters.

Any honest assessment of this information would indicate the challenger would have a difficult time winning and would also indicate that not everything was exactly "kosher." The notion that it's over and that is was a fair and free election is nothing but a narrative being repeatedly hammered by the usual suspects in order to gaslight the American public and the world that Kamala Harris*.....er, I mean Joe Biden is the inevitable next President of the United States.

I'm not saying that the incumbent will prevail. Far from it. The narrative has been so successfully executed that I don't think SCOTUS will touch this case unless the evidence of computer voting/counting fraud is STAGGERINGLY obvious. But to think this election was "clean" is a complete joke.

* Have you noticed they are already turning on Sleepy Joe? If inaugurated, he'll be gone inside of six months.

velosnow

Once again, no one was prevented from observing nor from doing their job. There was a question of distance per COVID precautions, closer access was granted within a day of the count starting. What is the purpose of continuing the discussion?

And again I'll ask, what do you think happened in the interim that this is worthy of so much angst? Will it somehow change the outcome of the count? Is there evidence that this was a nefarious plot against both party's observers and our democracy?

velosnow

An 'intellectual honesty' ad hominem in a post full of dubious claims? Fantastic, well done.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

NE_Pilot

If you are kept at a distance where you cannot actually observe the ballots then it is as if there is no observation at all. That’s the point, you are being dishonest about what happened. The distance is preventing the job from being performed.

I don’t know what happened, and neither do you. Were the ballots correct? Did they arrive in the right envelopes? Were they signed? Were spoiled ballots counted?

Possibly it will.

It wasn’t against both parties though, it was only against one party. One party wanted meaningful access, the opposing party fought against meaningful access.

Here is a question, what harm comes from allowing meaningful access so that only legal ballots get counted? Why did one party fight against it? What would motivate someone to prevent meaningful access?

GeeWizDriver

You want links to every poll pre-election?

You can't do the math that in 2016, the incumbent got 62 million votes and 72 million this time?

You want links to every story of ballots being "found?"

The information is out there for those with an open mind and a curiosity to wonder whether our election system is totally sideways (which it clearly is).

These are FACTS. Calling them "claims" is a continuation of the "nothing to see here....these aren't the droids you're looking for" narrative. Nothing is over and Biden is NOT the "President-Elect" until December 14th IF the Electoral College make him such.

I don't think it will happen. But IF the current result reverses, the meltdown will be EPIC.

velosnow

So file a lawsuit for a recount and let us know how it turns out.