[Tom Bishop]

Going back to the lawsuits argument? You guys have yet to show that the lawsuits were all from Trump or that they were dismissed on merit. Judges did agree with Powell and the fraud claims and have granted audits. Kind of late to go back to those old arguments.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Let me guess: "Senator Paul is LieInG!!!"

Is that right?

So desperate to claim that you have positive evidence in your favor when you clearly have none.

[stack]

Going back to the lawsuits argument? You guys have yet to show that the lawsuits were all from Trump or that they were dismissed on merit. Judges did agree with Powell and the fraud claims and have granted audits. Kind of late to go back to those old arguments.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Let me guess: "Senator Paul is LieInG!!!"

Is that right?

So desperate to claim that you have positive evidence in your favor when you clearly have none.

You still are dodging the question. What court appointed Ramsland?  Why not just answer the question and back up your claim?

[honk]

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

[Lord Dave]

Better question: why would a bunch of highly qualified lawyers make mistakes so bad, that judges dismiss a case without even seeing the evidence?  I mean, thats like turning away Einstein because he wrote his math in crayon.  Clearly these lawyers aren't actually trying to get judges to see the evidence.

Wonder why....

[Tom Bishop]

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

Would you consider your accusations that political experts are lying to be strong evidence or weak speculation?

You guys are arguing from a position of weakness. No evidence. No positive evidence in your favor. Not a position of strength. Quite sad.

[Lord Dave]

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

Would you consider your accusations that political experts are lying to be strong evidence or weak speculation?

You guys are arguing from a position of weakness. No evidence. No positive evidence in your favor. Not a position of strength. Quite sad.

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

[AATW]

desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Umm. You know that the above entirely sums up your FE belief, right?

People calling you out on your previous “hot takes” is entirely valid and your dodging of questions about them is telling. You have no credibility because you have spent the last nearly 2 months now flailing around hopping from one conspiracy theory to the next, hanging on Trump’s every embarrassing word and desperately Googling to find increasingly extreme sources which back up your views. (I don’t actually believe they are your views, but I’ll play along). Remember how you said the Supreme Court would decide the election? You said how good it was that Trump and his sycophants kept losing in court because it cleared the way to the SCOTUS. You laughed when all the States piled in on Texas’s desperate gambit and naively thought that because Trump had appointed 3 of the judges that they would overturn the election. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), it didn’t go that way.

You’ve got excited about various “statistical anomalies” but failed to engage when they have been taken apart. The fact that all you could do was discuss the qualifications of the person rather than engage in their argument shows the weakness of your position.

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Bill Barr said there’s no evidence of systemic fraud. The head of cyber security said the same. Many Republican judges and senators have called Trump out on his bullshit.
Trump himself said it was the most secure election in history. Amazingly, he managed to claim the Democrats stole the election in the same Tweet.

Finally, why would the Democrats steal the Presidential election but not the Senate one which was on the same ballots? That’s another question you continue to dodge.

[Rama Set]

GA did a signature audit, guess what it showed?

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_audit_finds_no_fraud

[Rama Set]

Lin Wood being human trash:

https://mobile.twitter.com/llinwood/status/1344448775692177409

[Tom Bishop]

desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Umm. You know that the above entirely sums up your FE belief, right?

I love it when you guys try to flip the script with "well.. how about you" and try to (wrongly) argue that your opponent is also being hypocritical because of xyz. It is an implicit admission that you agree with their statements. You have conceded, and agree that you are in a desperate and pathetic position and have no evidence to counter the evidence against you.

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

Sure you can. But your question appears to suggest that you agree that you have no evidence.

GA did a signature audit, guess what it showed?

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_audit_finds_no_fraud

Is says they found 386 matching signatures from a single county. Is this supposed to be your slam dunk evidence which shows that the 2020 Presidential Election was legitimate?

[Rama Set]

Death by 1,000 cuts, Tom.

[Tom Bishop]

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Nope. Senator Paul says that the court cases were not dismissed on merit. Scroll up. You have not provided a source which can counter his statements. You have NO EVIDENCE except for your internet opinion.

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up further evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it. You just keep asking for evidence and claim burden of proof. The burden has been presented. There is evidence against you.

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

There is evidence against you. In the face of evidence against you say 'prove me wrong'. At this stage this is a weak, invalid response. I am waiting on you to provide evidence to counter the evidence against you.

[Rama Set]

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Nope. Senator Paul says that the court cases were not dismissed on merit. Scroll up. You have not provided a source which can counter his statements. You have NO EVIDENCE except for your internet opinion.

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it. You just keep asking for evidence and claim burden of proof. The burden has been presented. There is evidence against you.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election lol.  Your evidence sucks shit.  Many, many, many people have been over this.

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.  There have been multiple audits of election results in battle ground states, all of which affirmed the result that was certified.  Please continue ignoring it.

There is evidence against you. In the face of evidence against you say 'prove me wrong'. At this stage this is a weak, invalid response. I am waiting you to provide evidence to counter the evidence against you.

Why do you frequently "edit" your comments so they appear unread, but not change anything?

[Tom Bishop]

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.

Rama Set: "I'm a better source on political and legal matters than Senator Rand Paul. I know all about the machine audit in Antrim. I am also a mathematical fraud whiz."

Funny, but I was expecting a real source.

[Rama Set]

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.

Rama Set: "I'm a better source on political and legal matters than Senator Rand Paul. I know all about the machine audit in Antrim. I am also a mathematical fraud whiz."

Funny, but I was expecting a real source.

I never said any of those things. Now please refrain from lying about my comments. Thanks.

[Lord Dave]

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

Sure you can. But your question appears to suggest that you agree that you have no evidence.

I mean, if I look at a random county and they have not found any oddities and no audit has been done(which is most counties in America), then its not evidence is it?  Its an absense of evidence of fraud.  Is that positive evidence of no fraud?  Can you show positive evidence that you have never committed election fraud?

Also, the audit on those voting machines was pretty clear: no fraud occurred.  At best they claimed there was a potential for fraud but thats pretty obvious.  You could have easily adjuncted a 50,000 ballots in favor of Trump yourself.  Of course the democrat and republican watching you would have noticed something was wrong when they saw you do it.  Plus the log files.
And when something DID go wrong, it was spotted and corrected.  Which means the system works.

[Rama Set]

And they had two outside data sets to audit against. Both of those data sets would have to have a commensurate manipulation which only decreases the likelihood of fraud.

[AATW]

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

You are lying. As you would say, scroll up.

You have been shown details of machine audits.
You have been shown details of signature audits.
You have been shown results of hand recounts which affirmed the initial results.
You have been shown videos of judges dismissing the “evidence” as unreliable.
You have been shown a video explaining why Benford’s law isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.
You have been shown a video explaining why the “statistical anomalies” are bogus (TL;DR, they’re based on false assumptions, if you start that way you will draw a false conclusion).

Your entire response has been to desperately shout that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up further evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it.

Bill Barr disagrees with you.
So does the head of cyber security.
So do a lot of Republican senators and election officials.
So does Donald Trump actually - he called it “the most secure election in US history”.

And despite all this “evidence” all 50 States have certified their election results, the Electoral College has voted and in a few weeks Biden is going to be inaugurated.

Why did the Democrats steal the Presidential Election and not the Senate one on the same ballots? The fact you have no answer to this shows the embarrassing weakness of your position.

[Tom Bishop]

Bill Barr:

A quote from someone who says that they didn't see something isn't positive evidence in your favor. That is middle school logic. That's something a silly and unlearned sixth grader would say.

Can't you understand that you guys are providing NO positive evidence in your favor by quoting someone who says that they did not see something?

As of Dec 21/29th the Justice Department is now suggesting the presence of tens and hundreds of thousands of excess votes.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

A Simple Test for the Extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data

Posted: 29 Dec 2020
John R. Lott
US Department of Justice

"The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes."

"The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes."

So now you have more evidence against you.

[Rama Set]

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.