The post that was quoted here has been removed

It has the word "cheating" in it.

There was a massive brouhaha about cheating accusations in the Public Forums on this site years ago and it seems that any post with the word "cheating" in it gets automatically flagged for review.

EDIT: See this one got an automatic alert as well.

@duchess64 removed their quoted post

You shouldn't be allowed to consistently violate the Posting Guidelines like you do.

My response to your post was innocuous and fact based yet you choose to respond with your usual harassment in violation of the this site's rules. So I alerted it and hope it is removed.

Any further posts where you continue such harassment will be alerted as well.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Even if could (you can't) it would be off-topic and in violation of the Posting Guidelines.

This Forum is not a vehicle for you to spill out your never ending grievances against other posters. It is for Debate of issues of general interest.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner it will become unnecessary for the site to remove your posts.

@metal-brain said
Perhaps this is a setup for a DJT run in 2024. Democrats are unwittingly helping this along. The more they resist recounts the greater the odds of another term with Trump in 2024.

Democrats must secretly be worried there is more election fraud than they will ever admit to. If they were really so confident they would support as many recounts as Trumps requests and prove ...[text shortened]... xt 4 years as the dems had for DJT for the last 4 years.

It will work like a charm. You will see.

Democrats are not resisting the recounts. The courts are. Judges are denying Trump because he has no evidence that merits recounts. There is no evidence of fraud.

@phranny said
Democrats are not resisting the recounts. The courts are. Judges are denying Trump because he has no evidence that merits recounts. There is no evidence of fraud.

Trump is getting the recounts he requests. But his legal team is also insisting on invalidating huge swatches of votes and other absurd remedies; his dismissed lawsuit in Pennsylvania asked that the State not be allowed to certify the Presidential election results in that State at all.

@phranny said
Democrats are not resisting the recounts. The courts are. Judges are denying Trump because he has no evidence that merits recounts. There is no evidence of fraud.

There is always evidence of fraud. It is just a question of how much.

@metal-brain said
There is always evidence of fraud. It is just a question of how much.

agreed, and I don't think there was nearly enough to change the result.

@no1marauder said
Trump is getting all the legal recounts he is entitled to and asked for. Democrats have not attempted to block any of them. You are either badly misinformed or outright lying.

I was talking about democrats in general. I'm talking about people like you who oppose recounts because of a failure to recognize probable cause as the criteria for a recount. You want hard evidence which is never revealed without recounts.

Can you show me a single example of hard evidence of widespread election fraud that was not discovered by a recount in the history of mankind?

@metal-brain said
I was talking about democrats in general. I'm talking about people like you who oppose recounts because of a failure to recognize probable cause as the criteria for a recount. You want hard evidence which is never revealed without recounts.

Can you show me a single example of hard evidence of widespread election fraud that was not discovered by a recount in the history of mankind?

I haven't opposed any recounts where they are pursuant to State law.

You haven't demonstrated "probable cause" to have them anywhere where State law doesn't mandate or allow them. A few instances of human error quickly corrected doesn't show a necessity for a hand recount.

You keep putting the cart before the horse; BEFORE any remedies are put in place someone declaring there is fraud must produce evidence supporting that claim AND that the fraud committed would have had a reasonable possibility of changing the result of an election. Nothing has been shown that remotely satisifies such criteria.

@no1marauder said
I haven't opposed any recounts where they are pursuant to State law.

You haven't demonstrated "probable cause" to have them anywhere where State law doesn't mandate or allow them. A few instances of human error quickly corrected doesn't show a necessity for a hand recount.

You keep putting the cart before the horse; BEFORE any remedies are put in place someone decla ...[text shortened]... f changing the result of an election. Nothing has been shown that remotely satisifies such criteria.

In MIchigan thousands of votes were flipped from Trump to Biden. It happened. It was not caught by any safeguard. It was caught because it was simply "noticed". In other counties it may NOT have been "noticed".

That is probable cause. It is as much evidence as anyone could possibly find to justify a recount to find hard evidence. There is no such thing as hard evidence of widespread election fraud. No regime that allows that to happen ever allows a judge to make a ruling that would uncover it.

You should write a book called "democracy in a plutocracy". The divide between the rich and poor is now far too great for that to exist. I think you know it too.

@metal-brain said
In MIchigan thousands of votes were flipped from Trump to Biden. It happened. It was not caught by any safeguard. It was caught because it was simply "noticed". In other counties it may NOT have been "noticed".

That is probable cause. It is as much evidence as anyone could possibly find to justify a recount to find hard evidence. There is no such thing as hard evidence ...[text shortened]... he divide between the rich and poor is now far too great for that to exist. I think you know it too.

Your constant lying about the Antrim incident doesn't change the facts. There was an error, it was quickly corrected and it would have been found in the canvass process even if the person who originally made the error hadn't quickly realized it.

"Probable cause" doesn't mean what you think it does which seems to be "Who knows? SOMETHING might have happened." Instead:

"Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html

A human error quickly corrected in one county does not lead a reasonable person to believe that the error occurred in a bunch of other counties and that no one caught it either quickly (as in Antrim) or in the canvass process. That is remarkably unlikely, not "probable".

@no1marauder said
Your constant lying about the Antrim incident doesn't change the facts. There was an error, it was quickly corrected and it would have been found in the canvass process even if the person who originally made the error hadn't quickly realized it.

"Probable cause" doesn't mean what you think it does which seems to be "Who knows? SOMETHING might have happened." Instead:
...[text shortened]... ither quickly (as in Antrim) or in the canvass process. That is remarkably unlikely, not "probable".

"it would have been found in the canvass process even if the person who originally made the error hadn't quickly realized it."

How do you know that is true? I can say the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make it true. How would the canvass process catch it if it was not "noticed" before that?