Top Wisconsin Election Fraud Investigator Tells Carlson of 100% Voting Rates in Nursing Homes
Fox News host Tucker Carlson responded to the findings of the Wisconsin Assembly’s Office of Special Counsel concerning alleged voter fraud in the 2020 general election, saying they are “horrifying.”
https://www.patriotproject.com/top-wisco...LddvUq00Fg
(03-19-2022, 11:49 PM)JagJohn Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a jags fan?
Relevance of your question?
I almost posted that myself, but what's the point. It's obvious to anyone who is being critical that there was something off with those numbers.
The article exclusively references as a source a recently released Republican report called the "Second Interim Investigative Report On The Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Election System". The report was produced by a former state State Supreme Court Justice named Michael Gableman. The report was authorized two years ago by Wisconsin Assembly Speaker, Republican Robin Vos. Both have been advancing election fraud conspiracy theories since the election. It might be worthwhile to consider that when reading through the report (it's very long but some of the language sounds like it comes straight from a QAnon drop, which is probably not surprising considering who's involved).
Here's an opinion from The Hill.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch...-power-to/
Dude. You are posting an opinion piece that doesn't address any of the statistical anomalies in a peer-reviewed research paper. I took the time to read that garbage opinion piece that is basically one giant strawman. It doesn't even attempt to address the claims made in the report. Can we acknowledge the discrepancies before we jump to Qanon? Is that possible in today's day and age?
(03-29-2022, 09:30 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...47378.html
So this is an editorial from the author of a peer reviewed article, and the article is about ways to infer or derive evidence of voter fraud out of precinct by precinct vote totals.
He is accusing certain counties of creating extra mail in or absentee ballots, and he says the evidence is found at the precinct level where a precinct on the border of one county shows significantly more absentee voting than its neighboring precinct, the next county over. I'm not convinced. Even if the evidence says everything he says it does, it's pretty presumptive to assign that meaning to that evidence.
Besides, the number of people who would have to be "in" on a scheme to manufacture fake voters placing fake votes really large. The number of people who might stumble across such a scheme in the course of their normal duties is also large. Each and every one of them could become a national hero, famous, for exposing such a thing. Yet none of them do. Even with Biden safely installed in the White House, no one is cracking. Maybe there's no conspiracy to cheat after all
This is the same thing I was going on about 3 days after the election. The math doesn't make sense. And, no, the people that are "in" on it doesn't have to be large, which is exactly why this works for Democrats. It doesn't work the same for Republicans because they don't have those very dense populations to pull from.
(03-31-2022, 07:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2022, 09:30 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...47378.html
So this is an editorial from the author of a peer reviewed article, and the article is about ways to infer or derive evidence of voter fraud out of precinct by precinct vote totals.
He is accusing certain counties of creating extra mail in or absentee ballots, and he says the evidence is found at the precinct level where a precinct on the border of one county shows significantly more absentee voting than its neighboring precinct, the next county over. I'm not convinced. Even if the evidence says everything he says it does, it's pretty presumptive to assign that meaning to that evidence.
Besides, the number of people who would have to be "in" on a scheme to manufacture fake voters placing fake votes really large. The number of people who might stumble across such a scheme in the course of their normal duties is also large. Each and every one of them could become a national hero, famous, for exposing such a thing. Yet none of them do. Even with Biden safely installed in the White House, no one is cracking. Maybe there's no conspiracy to cheat after all
That's a good point. Such a scheme would require a conspiracy among many people, and it would be almost impossible to keep such a secret.
It really doesn't. There are already multiple video tapes of people ballot harvesting and dropping off loads of votes at drop boxes. These are basically low-level criminals who are getting paid to do dirty work in the inner cities. Those dudes aren't the kinds that rat anyone out. They live by the mantra, "snitches get stitches." Then you just need to create low standards for ballot rejection, which is EXACTLY what happened as a part of the Zuckerberg initiative in a few select counties. Those people are now just doing their jobs. That requires very little collusion. It's also why it can only happen in blue areas. You need poverty-stricken areas with a dense population, high crime, and low levels of law enforcement. Ergo, the inner cities. These numbers don't make any sense.
I would love nothing more than for you guys to start using your brains. These people have massive amounts of money. It would be WAY harder to pull off this Russian collusion nonsense that you guys ate up for 4 years than it would be to manufacture votes in these counties. You guys just don't want to think something like this could happen.
(04-01-2022, 11:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It really doesn't. There are already multiple video tapes of people ballot harvesting and dropping off loads of votes at drop boxes. These are basically low-level criminals who are getting paid to do dirty work in the inner cities. Those dudes aren't the kinds that rat anyone out. They live by the mantra, "snitches get stitches." Then you just need to create low standards for ballot rejection, which is EXACTLY what happened as a part of the Zuckerberg initiative in a few select counties. Those people are now just doing their jobs. That requires very little collusion. It's also why it can only happen in blue areas. You need poverty-stricken areas with a dense population, high crime, and low levels of law enforcement. Ergo, the inner cities. These numbers don't make any sense.
I would love nothing more than for you guys to start using your brains. These people have massive amounts of money. It would be WAY harder to pull off this Russian collusion nonsense that you guys ate up for 4 years than it would be to manufacture votes in these counties. You guys just don't want to think something like this could happen.
There are plenty of non-inner city harvesters. This wasn't just those areas, this involved bluish areas around the inner cities. Ballot harvesting shouldn't have existed with mail in voting. How could you not just fill it out and stick it in your mall box? If you couldn't do that, you shouldn't be voting or you don't exist.
There are 5 or 6 counties with very obvious discrepancies. This happened predominantly in the inner-city areas of very blue counties in only the swing states.
Ballot harvesting is illegal, but it doesn't make the vote invalid. Mail in or absentee ballots typically have unique codes on them from the supervisor, so it's not as if you can just go to Kinko's and make more. You have to steal real ballots from real people, or you have to hack the supervisor's list of voters and add fake people to it. Fake people with mailing addresses that you can collect from.
Both of these things are very difficult and very unlikely.
It's much more likely that any ballot harvesting you saw was real ballots from real people, so, valid voting.
You mean like the nursing homes in WI?
(03-31-2022, 03:41 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dude. You are posting an opinion piece that doesn't address any of the statistical anomalies in a peer-reviewed research paper. I took the time to read that garbage opinion piece that is basically one giant strawman. It doesn't even attempt to address the claims made in the report. Can we acknowledge the discrepancies before we jump to Qanon? Is that possible in today's day and age?
How was it peer reviewed and who did the peer review? What were their qualifications and possible biases?
I read the chapter about the nursing home anomalies and the essential conclusion (once you wade through the verbosity) was that 100% voting participation in nursing home residents in Wisconsin is not plausible because nursing home residents are old and feeble. There are also some allegations of ballot harvesting but not much outside of anecdotes to back it up.
A report by an individual that proves assertions made by the same individual prior to investigating an issue is well worth a healthy dose of skepticism.
The claims vof widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked.
They have not been "debunked." This is a line that has just been fed to you over and over. You've got the kraken types on one side, and you've got the "it's been debunked" on the other. Until someone can account for how those counties became so slanted, I strongly lean towards shenanigans.
I know you want to think the news is trustworthy and reasonable, but it isn't. We have wholly uncredible institutions that have been repeatedly caught in lies over the last 5-8 years. Until we start getting mad about it, we will get more of the same. I know you guys didn't like Trump, but you guys (along with our major power structures) have been absolutely unwilling to thoroughly entertain this idea from its onset, which is its own injustice.
(04-01-2022, 02:26 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2022, 03:41 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dude. You are posting an opinion piece that doesn't address any of the statistical anomalies in a peer-reviewed research paper. I took the time to read that garbage opinion piece that is basically one giant strawman. It doesn't even attempt to address the claims made in the report. Can we acknowledge the discrepancies before we jump to Qanon? Is that possible in today's day and age?
How was it peer reviewed and who did the peer review? What were their qualifications and possible biases?
I read the chapter about the nursing home anomalies and the essential conclusion (once you wade through the verbosity) was that 100% voting participation in nursing home residents in Wisconsin is not plausible because nursing home residents are old and feeble. There are also some allegations of ballot harvesting but not much outside of anecdotes to back it up.
A report by an individual that proves assertions made by the same individual prior to investigating an issue is well worth a healthy dose of skepticism.
The claims vof widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked.
Ballot harvesting is easy to prove. They have security camera videos from the drop boxes. People dropping lots of ballots, taking pictures of them for payment, cell phone records, etc. It's all clear what they were doing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(04-01-2022, 02:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Ballot harvesting is illegal, but it doesn't make the vote invalid. Mail in or absentee ballots typically have unique codes on them from the supervisor, so it's not as if you can just go to Kinko's and make more. You have to steal real ballots from real people, or you have to hack the supervisor's list of voters and add fake people to it. Fake people with mailing addresses that you can collect from.
Both of these things are very difficult and very unlikely.
It's much more likely that any ballot harvesting you saw was real ballots from real people, so, valid voting.
The voter rolls in most states are in terrible condition. People move, people registered to abandoned properties, 1000s of people in 1 apartment building, missing information that shouldn't allow them to be registered, etc. Then the rolls are not locked and workers can add to it on the fly. They should be locked when registration ends, everyone should verified using state taxes, driver license, car registration, insurance, etc. The states should know where you live in some database.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk