Despite weak attempts by a troll to divert attention to all the facts I've presented in the last two posts and the fact that I've returned him to persona non grata status, more such attempts continue. One could easily say he's an example...a manifestation...of the threat the left poses to America. He's one guy, but one of many and beyond a doubt he does promote so much that is wrong with the left in America, being he is so wrong himself.
But enough about that moron. I want for now to speak of another ongoing leftist threat, which is the leftist media those like Dan foolishly pretend are noble and necessary. They are neither, even if they strive, in their stupidity, to be so. With the tragedy of Hurricane Ian having just pounded Florida, many "sharp minds" of the media have weighed in to disparage Ron DeSantis...a guy who has proven his intellectual superiority over the lot of them.
When these natural disasters strike, the devastation can be so great that a state is incapable of paying for the damage on its own, and thus federal aid is either sought or offered. Naturally, this is the case now. But the media...and other leftist loons...were quick to accuse DeSantis of hypocrisy in seeking or accepting aid from DC. This is because when Hurricane Sandy hit, DeSantis, as a freshman congressman, voted against the package meant for New Jersey and New York. What the lefties don't say is that the funding bill was also packed with pork. A straight aid package would not have provoked objections in DeSantis (and Rubio, as it turns out). In the same way, DeSantis does not expect anything other than a straight aid package now. The leftists in media are good with intentionally misinforming the public in their roles as lap dogs for the Democratic Party.
They also accused him of hypocrisy for daring to play nice with Biden for the sake of those suffering in his state. Somehow, the leftists expect he should still be speaking the truth about Biden's incompetence rather than to focus on more pressing matters on behalf of Floridians. Imagine having a real asshole as a next door neighbor (we'll call him "feo") with whom arguments, bad feelings and other conflicts are routine because of the neighbor's low character. One's house catches fire and severe damage occurs. The only aid available is that offered by the asshole, who sees the suffering of the entire family as worthy of his offering. Should the home-owner stick to his guns about what an asshole his neighbor is, or should his concerns be for the suffering of his family and the damage to his home? Only a lefty would suggest a problem with the homeowner's character by his setting aside their differences for the greater good. This is what DeSantis...and Biden...are doing, yet the leftist media can't set aside their own hatred on behalf of the suffering Floridians.
And then, there's CNN (https://www.desantisdaily.com/cnn-pulled-a-dirty-trick-on-ron-desantis-but-the-response-will-leave-you-grinning-from-ear-to-ear/). Somehow, DeSantis' handling of the disaster is a problem considering his response to the many idiotic, unnecessary and destruction COVID policies morons insisted on imposing without cause.
Is any of this an example of the responsible journalism for which one hopes is the rule? No. We don't get that from leftist journalists of the type those like Dan insist are reliable, honorable and honest. I collect stories of media malfeasance. It's rampant, and I could do several more posts than I already have in the past to show just how common it is. Their behavior is a danger to the nation because it is MISinforming the people...not INforming them. They do this with purpose and it is also played a major role in the stealing of the 2020 election from Donald Trump. And again, THAT crime has resulted in the most instability we've ever faced in modern times. All because of the left.
But hey...Brett Favre!!
80 comments:
If you truly believe that the media deceives the public on such a massive scale, why do you have any problem believing that Biden actually got more votes than Trump?
I don't understand the question. Where are you seeing any inconsistency with my position?
Prior to the election, Trump insisted that the only way he could lose would be through fraud because it was inconceivable that a majority of Americans would vote for Biden given Trump's own obvious superiority. On the other hand, Trump also claimed that the mainstream media was misrepresenting his character and record on a staggering scale, which means that he must have known that his superiority might not be obvious to a majority of Americans.
The unavoidable conclusion is that Trump knew perfectly well before the election that a majority of Americans might vote for Biden because they believed him to be a better choice. He cooked up the fraud allegations because he knew that he was vulnerable because he knew that he had failed to convince the majority of Americans that he deserved a second term.
I believe that Trump's lies about himself massively outweigh any lies the media may have told about him, but the issue of media bias is a red herring anyway. Media bias has been a part of American politics since before the founding. It wasn't until the 20th Century that newspapers tried to make factual accuracy a selling point. If media bias were a legitimate basis to question the results of an election, the American experiment would have been doomed from the start.
I have no illusions that newspapers are anything but businesses, but competition between businesses can produce benefits for consumers. Fifty years ago, when most major cities had more than one daily newspaper, they were forced to compete on accuracy. The Chicago Tribune couldn't simply ignore an important story that was reported by the Chicago Daily News, and the Chicago Sun-Times knew that inaccurate reporting would be called out by the Chicago American. Adhering to journalistic standards was a matter of economic necessity, not nobility.
Traditional news outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are under much less competitive pressure than they once were when it comes to complete and accurate reporting, but they are still vastly superior to crap like the Epoch Times which exists solely to push an ideological agenda.
Vinny,
I'm reading your comment and picturing you trying to do so with a straight face.
"...Trump insisted that the only way he could lose would be through fraud..."
An obvious suggestion, but low-hanging fruit given all the attempts to unseat him and claim his presidency was illegitimate.
"...it was inconceivable that a majority of Americans would vote for Biden given Trump's own obvious superiority."
A reality confirmed given all which has occurred since Jan 20, 2021.
"On the other hand, Trump also claimed that the mainstream media was misrepresenting his character and record on a staggering scale..."
Also true and an example of the fraud perpetrated by the left referenced by Trump as being the only way he could lose the 2020 election.
"...which means that he must have known that his superiority might not be obvious to a majority of Americans."
This is just stupid. It means there would be enough fraud to prevent his reelection. That fraud doesn't necessarily mean a majority wouldn't recognize the truth...assuming the majority was paying attention. There could still be a majority yet the many forms of fraud perpetrated would also have manifested in false vote totals. Yet even if there were 80 million morons who truly thought Trump was inferior or so evil he needed to be replaced even if the replacement was a complete and utter idiot like Biden, that would require media malfeasance along with other methods to result in such a "turnout". I just can't believe there that many morons in America who would buy into that complete and utter lie.
"The unavoidable conclusion is that Trump knew perfectly well before the election that a majority of Americans might vote for Biden because they believed him to be a better choice."
Yeah...keep telling yourself that and maybe you'll someday actually believe it. Yet even if he "knew" this, what he knew was that the reason a majority might believe that is because of the fraud necessary to convince the public of such an absurdity. You're not doing a damned thing to indicate any inconsistency or inaccuracy in thinking. Instead, you're separating the outcome from that which led to it and pretending it means Trump's prediction was somehow false, when the outcome supports it satisfactorily.
"He cooked up the fraud allegations because he knew that he was vulnerable because he knew that he had failed to convince the majority of Americans that he deserved a second term."
Again, keep telling yourself this crap. The reality is that he was justified in his suspicions due to all that went before and that his ability to overcome all the bullshit the media brought forth would be extremely difficult if not impossible. It proved impossible. Worse, it's far more likely that enough people rejected Trump despite knowing he was the clearly superior choice because of their own deranged and unjustified dislike of the man. And that's incredibly bad for the nation that so many didn't love their fellow Americans more than they disliked Trump. You people are contemptible.
"I believe that Trump's lies about himself massively outweigh any lies the media may have told about him..."
This is just an incredibly stupid thing to say, given his self-marketing is no more or less true or false than most other politicians...just less polished.
"Media bias has been a part of American politics since before the founding."
It's more than mere bias. It's the fact that the leftist media you love has gone from having an opinion to willfully rejecting objectivity in reporting events. What they choose to report and what they choose to suppress takes media bias to a completely different and evil level. It is an intentional distortion meant to sway public opinion. For any news source to offer their opinion is one thing, as they all have editorial pages and commentators. But to suppress info or report only that which either makes their chosen look better or their rejected look worse borders on criminal given the consequences of doing so. We're suffering those consequences greatly now and I fear we haven't seen the worst of it...all due to petulant and irresponsible leftism in journalism.
I've done three posts listed leftist media lies. Dan tries to write them off as honest mistakes. But he's an idiot, too. And to insist sources like the Epoch Times are crap requires at least one post from you listing evidence in support of the charge. Until then, you're just aother chump for the leftist cause.
Also true and an example of the fraud perpetrated by the left referenced by Trump as being the only way he could lose the 2020 election.
This is just stupid. It means there would be enough fraud to prevent his reelection. That fraud doesn't necessarily mean a majority wouldn't recognize the truth...assuming the majority was paying attention. There could still be a majority yet the many forms of fraud perpetrated would also have manifested in false vote totals. Yet even if there were 80 million morons who truly thought Trump was inferior or so evil he needed to be replaced even if the replacement was a complete and utter idiot like Biden, that would require media malfeasance along with other methods to result in such a "turnout". I just can't believe there that many morons in America who would buy into that complete and utter lie.
So you believe that the Constitution gives the President the power to declare an election fraudulent before a single vote has been cast based on his determination of the level of media malfeasance. Then, if the election goes his way, he can accept the result but he can reject it if he loses. Moreover, there is no independent arbiter of his determination. No matter how many times the courts rule against him, he is free to ignore those decisions based on his determination that he should have won. On top of that, there is no Constitutional limit on the things he may do to overturn the results of that election. Could you point me to the clause in the Constitution that gives him this power? Which one of the Federalist Papers discusses it?
It's just a wild guess, but I'm betting that you won't be OK with Biden doing that.
This country has survived media lies, and it has even survived stolen elections, but it won't survive that kind of tyranny.
"So you believe that the Constitution gives the President the power to declare an election fraudulent before a single vote has been cast based on his determination of the level of media malfeasance."
I believe the Constitution gives any American the right to say whatever the hell he wants without some desperate lefty jackwagon insisting one needs Constitutional authority to do so.
"Then, if the election goes his way, he can accept the result but he can reject it if he loses."
Those of us who reject the results do so because of the blatant fraud and deception which led to the results we reject. If the election went our way, it would be the result of honest elections or fraud which did not interfere to the extent it actually did in this case.
"Moreover, there is no independent arbiter of his determination."
There's plenty of evidence the 2020 election was rife with fraud and interference by bad actors. And I don't know how one can find an "independent arbiter" who is an American, given it would require finding someone who is totally disinterested in the state of this nation. It would require someone from another country to step in and weigh all arguments and evidence for and against. Got anyone in mind?
"No matter how many times the courts rule against him, he is free to ignore those decisions based on his determination that he should have won."
As has been well established, there were scant few cases decided on the merits of the allegations of fraud and irregularity, and most did NOT go against him. So continued claims that "the courts ruled against him" are childish petulance and nothing more. And if we were to pretend ALL charges were weighed in courts of law and ALL resulted in rulings against him, that doesn't mean the rulings were just (not without seeing the cases and judging for ourselves) and properly decided. Still, even if they were, that does not require one to agree.
" On top of that, there is no Constitutional limit on the things he may do to overturn the results of that election. Could you point me to the clause in the Constitution that gives him this power? Which one of the Federalist Papers discusses it?"
I believe you erred in how you meant to type that, intending there ARE limits on the things he may do. In any case, it misses the point entirely of his attempts to hold up the Electoral count to investigate fraud charges. It would have been a simply thing to deny counting the slates from any state which acted contrary to the constitutions of those states, as was the case with those who altered their election procedures without the consent of their legislatures. Those slates should not have been counted. You would not accept losing a ballgame if the other team won by ignoring or changing the rules without having any authority to do so. This was the case with enough states which would have resulted in a different outcome. But leftist assholes don't care about anything but their own selfish agenda, and denying Trump was all that mattered regardless of how it was done.
It's just a wild guess, but I'm betting that you wouldn't have been OK with Trump doing that. You clearly are with his opponents doing that. Shame on you.
"This country has survived media lies, and it has even survived stolen elections, but it won't survive that kind of tyranny."
I would say it's far too early to tell if we'll survive this travesty, given how badly things are going and still heading as a result of the leftist theft of the 2020 election. Only a moron would pretend things are going well since Jan 20, 2021.
As has been well established, there were scant few cases decided on the merits of the allegations of fraud and irregularity, and most did NOT go against him.
It is true that most of the cases Trump and his surrogates filed were dismissed on procedural grounds, but that's because they filed so so many cases that were utter crap. For example, Trump tried to have every vote in Pennsylvania thrown out by a Federal District Court because some counties had given voters the opportunity to cure defective mail-in ballots. Despite making no allegation that any of the cured ballots were fraudulent, Trump sought to disenfranchise 6.8 million voters.
Another reason that many cases didn't get to the merits of Trump's fraud claims is that Trump didn't plead fraud in his court filings. Despite ranting about fraud in the media, Giuliani admitted to the judge in the Pennsylvania case that Trump's complaint wasn't alleging fraud. In court, Trump's lawyers focused on minor technical issues because there are consequences for lying in court.
So continued claims that "the courts ruled against him" are childish petulance and nothing more.
Under our system of government, courts decide these kinds of issues. That's the way it works. The childish petulance is coming from the Trumpers who cannot accept that simple fact.
It would have been a simply thing to deny counting the slates from any state which acted contrary to the constitutions of those states, as was the case with those who altered their election procedures without the consent of their legislatures. Those slates should not have been counted.
That is exactly the issue that Trump's surrogates lost on in the Supreme Court. States control their own elections and state courts determine whether votes cast within the state should be counted.
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/ballot-curing-chaos-looms-over-pennsylvania-midterms/
The above from a decidedly left-leaning source provides info regarding curing in Pennsylvania and the fact that it is likely it resulted in ineligible votes being counted. The most obvious problem was that of no date on the ballot. All states have some cutoff for when a ballot can be submitted and still be considered eligible. With no date, there is no way to determine if a ballot was received in time to be eligible, and thus no "curing" can be trusted with regard to the time of its submission. But this doesn't matter to those who didn't want Trump winning, and this has no bearing whether or not enough votes regarded as ineligible because of such a mistake would have made any difference. THAT isn't the point as much as the unwillingness to insist upon following the rules.
The article also suggests directives not flowing from the state legislature which has sole authority for setting election rules and procedures. Again, the Trump haters don't care so long as he loses. And the haters won't take the slightest time to review a damned thing if there's any chance it will change the outcome to that which standing laws would protect.
As to claims of fraud, the term is a general one which includes actual fraud as well as any other alternation which is outside the authority of state legislatures. Technical issues impacting ballot eligibility are important without any need to allege willful intent to defraud. This isn't a popularity contest. It's the election of candidates to high office which impacts the lives of everyone, as we've seen the destructive impact of Biden being elected and Dems in the majority in both Houses of Congress. (a 50/50 senate is a majority given the VP's vote). I've no doubt that if technical issues resulted in a Trump win, you'd soil your diapers if the result was allowed to stand without a serious review. Sad little such concern for the concerns of the candidate most likely to be screwed speaks volumes about your concern for the rule of law.
"Under our system of government, courts decide these kinds of issues. That's the way it works. The childish petulance is coming from the Trumpers who cannot accept that simple fact."
Under our system of government, courts are intended to adjudicate disputes. That's how courts are to decide issues...by actually hearing arguments and rendering a decision based on the evidence presented. Being dismissed on procedural grounds is the problem when lefty asshats say the courts tossed allegations. They weren't even hearing them if they dismiss on procedural grounds. It's childish to whine about actually doing so, not to complain when one's concerns are not seen as worth reviewing.
"That is exactly the issue that Trump's surrogates lost on in the Supreme Court. States control their own elections and state courts determine whether votes cast within the state should be counted."
You might want to cite the actual case, then. State legislatures control their state elections and state courts are to determine that votes were cast according to the election laws enacted by the legislatures. If not, the courts can't insist any such ballots should be counted. That they do and have is a problem you would not accept were it to work against you. As it worked in your favor, you're more than willing to ignore the injustice.
The above from a decidedly left-leaning source provides info regarding curing in Pennsylvania and the fact that it is likely it resulted in ineligible votes being counted.
I can't find anything in that article suggesting that ballot curing led to any ineligible votes being counted. Where do you see that?
The most obvious problem was that of no date on the ballot. All states have some cutoff for when a ballot can be submitted and still be considered eligible. With no date, there is no way to determine if a ballot was received in time to be eligible, and thus no "curing" can be trusted with regard to the time of its submission.
You are wrong. The date on the ballot indicates when the voter filled it out and mailed it, not when it was received by the county clerk's office. If a ballot arrives in the mail on the day after the election, it's too late regardless of the date that the voter wrote on it. That's why Pennsylvania courts have refused to disqualify mail-in ballots based on a missing date: it's meaningless.
If I understand the article correctly, Pennsylvania courts have ruled that a mail-in ballot without a date doesn't need to be cured in order to be counted, precisely because the date that the voter puts on the ballot is irrelevant.
As to claims of fraud, the term is a general one which includes actual fraud as well as any other alternation which is outside the authority of state legislatures. Technical issues impacting ballot eligibility are important without any need to allege willful intent to defraud.
You are wrong! Courts have never held that technical violations of election procedures constitute election fraud. (Nor have they ever held that media malfeasance constitutes election fraud.) Voting rights are protected by both state and federal constitutions and legislatures are not free to impose arbitrary rules.
That's why lawyers with actual experience in election law wouldn't take Trump's case. They knew that no court has ever set aside an election result based on the kind of technicalities that Trump was alleging.
The article also suggests directives not flowing from the state legislature which has sole authority for setting election rules and procedures.
Actually, states commonly delegate responsibility for implementing detailed rules and procedures to other agencies. In Illinois, the State Board of Elections is charged with administering elections. Moreover, individual counties also have considerable discretion in setting procedures. In some counties in Illinois, mail-in ballots can be dropped off at any polling site on election day. In the county in which I serve as an election judge, ballots have to be delivered to the county clerk.
I've no doubt that if technical issues resulted in a Trump win, you'd soil your diapers if the result was allowed to stand without a serious review.
You are wrong again. I don't favor disenfranchising voters over technicalities, even if means my candidate doesn't win.
Being dismissed on procedural grounds is the problem when lefty asshats say the courts tossed allegations. They weren't even hearing them if they dismiss on procedural grounds.
This is also wrong. In the Pennsylvania case, the court carefully considered all Trump's claims and determined that even if it assumed them all to be true, they would not form a valid legal basis for the relief sought. The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim.
State legislatures control their state elections and state courts are to determine that votes were cast according to the election laws enacted by the legislatures. If not, the courts can't insist any such ballots should be counted.
Actually they can. As noted above, voting rights are protected by by both the federal constitution and state constitutions. Any voting legislation is subject to judicial review.
"I can't find anything in that article suggesting that ballot curing led to any ineligible votes being counted. Where do you see that?"
How exactly can that be confirmed when the curing policy wasn't equally applied across the state? The disparities in application was the point of the suit by the GOP.
Also, the time frame for accepting ballots was altered.
"You are wrong. The date on the ballot indicates when the voter filled it out and mailed it, not when it was received by the county clerk's office....etc."
My point referred to the election code which requires that date to be affixed by the voter. The lack of it makes it ineligible. The court, without authority and unanimity, ruled otherwise. They did so by playing semantic games. One might not like the rules, but one needs first to understand why the rule exists before whining about it and ignoring it with the help of sympathetic judges. I haven't researched the intent of the law when enacted, but no doubt you have if you think invalidating a ballot for improperly following the rules equates to disenfranchisement. I'm eager to hear your explanation and argument in opposition.
"You are wrong! Courts have never held that technical violations of election procedures constitute election fraud."
Ignoring those violations is, regardless of whether or not such an argument was presented and/or adjudicated. It's one thing to make a mistake. Intent to defraud isn't inherent in mistakes or it wouldn't be a mistake. But to override the law with regard to mistakes and to do so with no true authority (which would denote legislating from the bench) is a fraudulent act. The courts are supposed to be more knowledgeable, so their ruling isn't a mistake at all. Again, laws are enacted for reasons. If enough people regard the reasons to be shoddy or no longer applicable, they must first change the law.
"That's why lawyers with actual experience in election law wouldn't take Trump's case. They knew that no court has ever set aside an election result based on the kind of technicalities that Trump was alleging."
You're anally blowing smoke. Submit rejections by lawyers on those grounds. What cases in the past confirm this assertion?
"Actually, states commonly delegate responsibility for implementing detailed rules and procedures to other agencies."
Uh...that flows from legislative authority and does not rebut the comment to which this was a response. This also covers most of the rest of the paragraph in which the quote appeared. I will say I am not perfectly informed with the minutia of IL election laws and codes...particularly as it applies to mail-in ballots which are not absentee. Given the political history of Illinois, not to mention recent years, that info is essential in order for your anecdote to mean jack shit. Feel free to provide links to that which presents legislative alterations providing for non-absentee or excuse-free mail-in balloting. As a Dem -heavy state, I wouldn't argue against mail-in being allowed given the ease of fraud it provides. I just don't know if it was actually a legislative change to state election codes.
"You are wrong again. I don't favor disenfranchising voters over technicalities, even if means my candidate doesn't win."
Yeah...sure...totally believable.
The use of the term "technicality" requires definition as related to ballot validity. For the lefty, it's any example of a rule not being followed.
"In the Pennsylvania case, the court carefully considered all Trump's claims and determined that even if it assumed them all to be true, they would not form a valid legal basis for the relief sought."
This actually happened. They admitted the laws were not followed with regard to invalid ballots and ruled to count them anyway. Apparently you're good with such a court. Honest, law-abiding Americans prefer the courts abide the law, too.
"The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim."
A most subjective opinion. The court can blow off anything under that notion. Good thing this is over something lacking any serious and important significance...a national election. It's not like we've been totally screwed by having a moron replace Trump. Hell, no. Everything's been rainbows and unicorns.
"Actually they can. As noted above, voting rights are protected by by both the federal constitution and state constitutions. Any voting legislation is subject to judicial review."
This is moronic, as if is completely contradictory. You assume legislation is counter-constitutional. The problem, however, is whether the alterations to election procedures were constitutional. They weren't, unless you can cite the legislative action which resulted in changes to those procedures. Indeed, the article in my previous comment clearly states the lack of direction in state election law regarding ballot curing. The courts should not have ruled in favor of that for which there is no state-wide consistency...which was not in the least a "non"-cognizable claim. It's completely straightforward. What's more, the "technicalities" you find intolerable are also straightforward requirements that any voter of average intelligence should have no trouble following.
Once again, we're not talking about voting for your favorite member of the Backstreet Boys. Any rules which had already been on the books requires legislative action to overturn...not a court saying, "Oh, that's OK. Count it anyway."
I've presented some more insights into the Pennsylvania situation:
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/ballot-curing-chaos-looms-over-pennsylvania-midterms/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/how_to_challenge_the_pa_secretary_of_states_election_night_chicanery.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/an_insiders_view_of_pennsylvania_and_the_battle_for_our_republic.html
https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/22/something-rotten-in-pennsylvania/
One might not like the rules, but one needs first to understand why the rule exists before whining about it and ignoring it with the help of sympathetic judges.
Yes. One does need to understand why the rule exists, but you clearly don't. You that think that “with no date, there is no way to determine if a ballot was received in time to be eligible.” Apparently, you think that if a mailbag of ballots arrives on the day after the election, the county clerk wouldn't be able to determine that those ballots were too late without opening them all to see what date the voters had written on them. That's pretty silly even for a Trumper.
I've presented some more insights into the Pennsylvania situation:
Which one of those articles gave you the silly idea that the voter's signature determines when the ballot is received?
That's funny. You respond without actually citing why the rules exist, after daring to suggest I don't understand. I never said anything about why the rules exist...why the fence stands...only that you want to ignore them in order for your America-hating Dems to prevail over an beneficially effective president.
Which of my comments even hints at what you suggest?
It was the comment where you said, "[w]ith no date, there is no way to determine if a ballot was received in time to be eligible."
I was referring to post mark where the issue was related to the voter's posting. Sue me.
In the meantime, you've provided no evidence you know why the rule for voter dating their ballot is required. I simply follow the rules, by doing which, my ballot is eligible for counting. So simple even a Democrat should be able to understand it.
I was referring to post mark where the issue was related to the voter's posting.
Neither the article you cited nor the court cases it discussed were referring to the post mark that is put on by the post office. They were talking about the paperwork that the voter fills out.
Of course, if the post office failed to put a post mark on the envelope, then it wouldn't be the voter's fault and all, making it even more unjust to reject a ballot that was received within the required time.
You were clearly not referring to the post mark, but being a good Trumper, you pretend that you were talking about something else when you are caught saying something that is absolutely wrong.
Well if you need to hang your pointy hat on that sincere mistake on my part, you go right ahead. Anything to help you feel good about being a good lefty.
However, the subsequent links I provided did indeed mention postmark issues, and I had read all the links before initially choosing that one link you sorta read. It appears again with the others, because I had them all grouped together for easy posting if needed. Despite the history of you lefties not reading links, I continue to provide.
What's more, the issue of ballots counted despite missing postmarks isn't uncommon in other states. How it's handled differs, but generally is another rule which has been ignored for the 2020 election. So that I made mention of it in referencing that one link, I guess, is enough crucify me, but counting ballots which election law deigns invalid is cool. Got it.
Well if you need to hang your pointy hat on that sincere mistake on my part, you go right ahead. Anything to help you feel good about being a good lefty.
It isn't a question of a sincere mistake: it's a question of willful ignorance. You don't know anything about election law because you choose not to read anything besides wingnut propaganda.
However, the subsequent links I provided did indeed mention postmark issues, and I had read all the links before initially choosing that one link you sorta read.
I didn't sorta read it. I just read it. What's more is that I understood it, which you did not.
I also read the other three links, and they were every bit as worthless as I expected them to be. It is true, however, that one of them did include the word “postmark.” It was part of a laundry list of Republican complaints, which the article did not discuss in any detail.
Moreover, your comment doesn't make any sense with respect to postmarks either. The postmark doesn't determine when a ballot is received by election officials. It indicates when the post office processed the envelope. The election officials would still know when it was received based on when it was delivered to them. Under some states' laws, ballot eligibility depends on when the ballot is mailed (i.e., postmark) rather than when it was received, but not Pennsylvania.
So that I made mention of it in referencing that one link, I guess, is enough crucify me, but counting ballots which election law deigns invalid is cool.
Your willful ignorance of how election law works renders your conclusions about invalid ballots worthless.
"It isn't a question of a sincere mistake: it's a question of willful ignorance. You don't know anything about election law because you choose not to read anything besides wingnut propaganda."
I see. By your logic, a doctor who misdiagnoses an ailment is willfully ignorant as opposed to being sincerely mistaken. In the meantime, you're expecting me to believe that despite each state setting their own election laws and procedures, you're expert in all fifty of them down to the smallest detail, and never confuse one for another. Got it. You're a freakin' super hero.
By the way, I'm not a leftist. I don't read "wingnut propaganda".
"I didn't sorta read it. I just read it. What's more is that I understood it, which you did not."
Whatever you say, Skippy.
"I also read the other three links, and they were every bit as worthless as I expected them to be."
You mean, they were "every bit as worthless" as you want them to be. But then, you wish to insist your opinion of their value has any value of its own. If it makes you feel good to think so, you go right ahead. But your dismissal doesn't proven my links were worthless, but only that they didn't back up your position.
"Moreover, your comment doesn't make any sense with respect to postmarks either. The postmark doesn't determine when a ballot is received by election officials."
When "election officials" are accepting ballots after the postmark which would prove they were submitted on time doesn't exist, then there's a problem. Lack of a postmark was ignored in some areas, and very likely in Pennsylvania, too, despite the article not mentioning that particular problem.
But here's the real issue with you jokers: You think by finding a particular argument in a particular case is not laid out to your satisfaction, then by golly, all charges of fraud, irregularities and other malfeasance can be rejected as invalid. Despite there being no specific law/regulation related to curing ballots in error, there clearly was a problem with equal application across all districts. You don't seem to care because your slug won.
"The election officials would still know when it was received based on when it was delivered to them. Under some states' laws, ballot eligibility depends on when the ballot is mailed (i.e., postmark) rather than when it was received, but not Pennsylvania."
And a postmark is evidence of timely delivery. How can one be certain any were received on time without one. Trust the election officials who are potentially taking liberties? Stop pretending, Vinny. You don't care about election integrity. You only care Trump was denied a second term.
"Your willful ignorance of how election law works renders your conclusions about invalid ballots worthless."
Ignorance is far more acceptable than the willful deception of Trump-haters being involved with running elections. And that's the two options right there: you either are ignorant of what your party does to cheat, or you are good with knowing they'll cheat if they have to in order to win.
I see. By your logic, a doctor who misdiagnoses an ailment is willfully ignorant as opposed to being sincerely mistaken.
A lot depends on what efforts he made to inform himself. If he consulted standard references and the latest medical journals, I'm open to the possibility or a sincere mistake. If he based his diagnosis on last week's Gray's Anatomy, I'd go with willful ignorance.
In the meantime, you're expecting me to believe that despite each state setting their own election laws and procedures, you're expert in all fifty of them down to the smallest detail, and never confuse one for another. Got it. You're a freakin' super hero.
Of course I'm not expert on the election laws of all fifty states. (I've learned a bit about Illinois law from being an election judge, but I'm not an expert.) I simply read enough to understand the issues before I make comments. It's a matter of simple intellectual integrity, but I understand that you don't encounter that much in the sources you read, so maybe it seems to you like I'm claiming to be a super hero.
And a postmark is evidence of timely delivery. How can one be certain any were received on time without one.
You still don't understand how a postmark works. The post office puts a postmark on a letter when it (i.e., the post office) receives it. It shows when the letter was mailed, not when it was delivered. In Pennsylvania, the timeliness of a ballot is determined by the time that the election officials receive it, not by the time it was mailed. It doesn't matter when a ballot is postmarked in Pennsylvania if it is not delivered by election day. There may be some exception—e.g., for absentee ballots from military personnel stationed overseas—but I would have to do some research to be certain.
Trust the election officials who are potentially taking liberties? Stop pretending, Vinny. You don't care about election integrity. You only care Trump was denied a second term.
If I didn't care about election integrity, I wouldn't be an election judge. It's a sixteen hour day, and the pay sucks. Moreover, I live in a predominantly Republican county, so I'm used to seeing Democrats lose.
But here's the real issue with you jokers: You think by finding a particular argument in a particular case is not laid out to your satisfaction, then by golly, all charges of fraud, irregularities and other malfeasance can be rejected as invalid.
Don't be silly. It's not a question of a particular argument in a particular case. It's a question of consistently being wrong about basic facts. It's a question of arguments being consistently rejected by courts. It's a question of the election officials and law enforcement finding no evidence to back up Trump's claims. It's a question of objective evidence rather than the fevered dreams of Trumpers.
" If he based his diagnosis on last week's Gray's Anatomy, I'd go with willful ignorance."
You mean like the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, MSNBC...things like that? You like to denigrate the sources I use...as do all low intellect lefties, like Dan and his troll and countless lefties on online conversation threads...without actually demonstrating they're deserving. Typical. I guess when you have no real defense of the indefensible policies and politicians you support, that's the best we can expect of you.
"I simply read enough to understand the issues before I make comments. It's a matter of simple I simply read enough to understand the issues before I make comments. It's a matter of simple intellectual integrity, but I understand that you don't encounter that much in the sources you read, so maybe it seems to you like I'm claiming to be a super hero., but I understand that you don't encounter that much in the sources you read, so maybe it seems to you like I'm claiming to be a super hero."
You assume you're understanding the issues. But if that were true, you wouldn't be a lefty, you wouldn't pretend the 2020 Biden win was legit and you wouldn't be pretending the Jan 6 committee has done the job they claimed they intended to do when they put together their panel of Trump-haters. That's not a manifestation of "intellectual integrity", simple or otherwise, though it does suggest simple-mindedness. And you again presume to denigrate my sources in the usual manner as described above and pretend you're not a legend in your own mind.
"You still don't understand how a postmark works."
You don't understand why a postmark matters in this case. For a mail-in to be valid, it must arrive by a certain date. In order for it to have any chance of doing so, it must be postmarked by a certain date as well. If it is not postmarked, but is counted, how can observers know it was actually accepted by your vaunted and pure-as-the-driven-snow election officials by the date and time mandated as the cutoff? You expect that the mere fact a ballot is in possession of said officials, then it must have arrived in time to be counted. A postmark would suggest that to be the case. The absence of one can't suggest anything.
Ballots traditionally known as "absentee ballots" are also supposed to be mailed by a certain date in order to be counted. When a ballot is counted is dictated by dates set to announce the results. If I mail my military ballot an hour before the time expires, it appears you would have it counted if the postmark showed it couldn't have been mailed in time to make it by the mandated expiration.
The fact you don't care about when a ballot is mailed suggests you're not the "law and order" election judge you claim to be, but just some guy who takes the gig in order to posture as an election know-it-all.
"It's not a question of a particular argument in a particular case. It's a question of consistently being wrong about basic facts."
As if you've ever proven that's a routine situation. You're struggling to prove it now, thinking a mistaken comment about postmarks is typical of me. You're a loon.
"It's a question of arguments being consistently rejected by courts."
Which hasn't happened. They have to be heard in order to be rejected. The cases rejected on technicalities is not the same as rejecting the arguments the case would present. Stop with this bald-faced lie about the courts rejecting claims.
"It's a question of the election officials and law enforcement finding no evidence to back up Trump's claims."
It's a question of who is looking and what it would mean if they actually did a solid job of finding. Which "election officials and law enforcement"? Officials suspected of being a part of the problem? Law enforcement like Bill Barr who did very little? This is another example of what for you passes as "integrity" and it is incredibly unimpressive.
"It's a question of objective evidence rather than the fevered dreams of Trumpers."
There's plenty of objective evidence, but you lying lefties expect that only dead guys voting and lefties voting twice are all that constitutes fraud in that election. THAT is an example of fevered dreams...that only such is all there was.
You've got nothing, Vinny. Nothing but the typical lefties bullshit. "Integrity". Right.
If I didn't know better, I might think that your blog is some sort of false flag operation by Antifa to make Trumpers look bad by spewing vitriol and making ridiculous arguments. Unfortunately, I know too many Trumpers personally who believe the exact same crap.
You mean like the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, MSNBC...things like that?
I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, and I rarely listen to NPR. I do read the New York Times and the Economist. On occasion, I also read articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post. I don't take any of them as gospel, and I cross check sources regularly.
You assume you're understanding the issues.
It's not a question of assumption. It's a matter of doing the due diligence that gives me the best chance of understanding an issue. It means trying to find multiple perspectives on the issue. It also means using sources that give some evidence of trying to be objective by doing things like covering both sides of an issue and correcting mistakes.
What I'm not going to do is to give any weight to a source that rants about fake news and Trump haters whenever it is confronted with facts and evidence that contradict its preferred narrative.
You don't understand why a postmark matters in this case. For a mail-in to be valid, it must arrive by a certain date. In order for it to have any chance of doing so, it must be postmarked by a certain date as well. If it is not postmarked, but is counted, how can observers know it was actually accepted by your vaunted and pure-as-the-driven-snow election officials by the date and time mandated as the cutoff? You expect that the mere fact a ballot is in possession of said officials, then it must have arrived in time to be counted. A postmark would suggest that to be the case. The absence of one can't suggest anything.
Unfortunately, all the postmark would tell observers is that the the ballot could have arrived by the deadline. It wouldn't tell them whether it actually did. A postmark might indicate that a ballot was mailed a week before the election, but it could still be delivered after the deadline. You still need to rely on the election officials determination of when they received it. It is true that it's impossible for a ballot postmarked after election day to be received by election day, but I've never heard any allegation that such ballots were being counted anywhere.
By the way, I don't think that election officials are pure as the driven snow. Why do you think that postal workers are? If I cannot rely on election officials to accurately report the time they received a ballot, why should I trust the Post Office to accurately report when it received it?
If I mail my military ballot an hour before the time expires, it appears you would have it counted if the postmark showed it couldn't have been mailed in time to make it by the mandated expiration.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Assuming a state in which timeliness is determined by the postmark (not Pennsylvania) rather than receipt by election officials , your military ballot would be counted if the postmark showed that it had been mailed an hour before the deadline and it wouldn't be counted if the postmark didn't show that.
By the way, I did enough research to determine that Pennsylvania doesn't make an exception for military personnel stationed overseas. Florida, on the other hand, requires mail-in ballots to be received by 7:00pm on election day (like Pennsylvania), but it makes an exception for ballots mailed from an overseas address (military or not). Ballots mailed from overseas addresses are valid in Florida if received up to ten days after election day if they are postmarked by election day.
The fact you don't care about when a ballot is mailed suggests you're not the "law and order" election judge you claim to be, but just some guy who takes the gig in order to posture as an election know-it-all.
I care about when a ballot is mailed. I just think that it is a reasonably safe inference that a ballot must have been mailed sometime before it was received. If a ballot is received on time, I don't need to check a postmark to conclude that it was mailed on time.
"If I didn't know better, I might think that your blog is some sort of false flag operation by Antifa to make Trumpers look bad by spewing vitriol and making ridiculous arguments."
Fortunately for me, I don't give particular value to the opinions of leftists about my arguments simply because they don't like them. This is important when the complaints about my arguments are whiny and lame. Now, a good, compelling counter argument is always appreciated, if only a leftist could provide one.
"Unfortunately, I know too many Trumpers personally who believe the exact same crap."
"Trumpers"...a term used by lefties in a derogatory manner in lieu of a legitimate argument against Trump, his policies or the positions of those who appreciated his good work as president. Always easier for lefties to demonize than to present a good argument.
"I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, and I rarely listen to NPR. I do read the New York Times and the Economist."
That's funny. You say that like there's a difference.
"It's not a question of assumption. It's a matter of doing the due diligence that gives me the best chance of understanding an issue."
Again...you assume the result of your efforts is understanding simply because you exerted the effort.
"It also means using sources that give some evidence of trying to be objective by doing things like covering both sides of an issue and correcting mistakes."
You just described my sources but earlier called them "wingnut".
"What I'm not going to do is to give any weight to a source that rants about fake news and Trump haters whenever it is confronted with facts and evidence that contradict its preferred narrative."
Kind of an empty, moot point given I don't use such sources. I'm still waiting for facts and evidence from lefties like you. Got any?
"Unfortunately, all the postmark would tell observers is that the the ballot could have arrived by the deadline."
Just like a handwritten date on a ballot envelope, it's one more standard which suggests eligibility. Call it "checks and balances". Can't have that, now can we? How foolish to expect that standards are established and followed in a process of selecting those who will run the greatest nation on earth. What the hell am I thinking?
"By the way, I don't think that election officials are pure as the driven snow. Why do you think that postal workers are?"
I don't. Thanks for asking.
"If I cannot rely on election officials to accurately report the time they received a ballot, why should I trust the Post Office to accurately report when it received it?"
I don't know. I also don't know why you'd "rely" on election officials in the first place. They're supposed to be monitored by people from each party to ensure they're acting as they ought to act.
"I have no idea what you are talking about here."
I apologize for not being more clear. The time limit I referred to was the time by which a ballot must be received to be counted and the military ballot mailed an hour before that. It was a scenario meant to illustrate a specific problem which a postmark would make clear. However, such legit absentee ballots have different rules for eligibility because they necessarily deal with those who can't make it to the polling place on election day. Thus, naturally their ballots would be received at a later date. Yet, there's a limit for that as well. In more general terms, the postmark would indicate whether or not it was mailed in time to make the "received on time" deadline.
"If a ballot is received on time, I don't need to check a postmark to conclude that it was mailed on time."
If you're one tasked with receiving mailed in ballots and you are a man of honor and integrity, then there's no problem. If you're one who is checking the person tasked with receiving mailed-in ballots, how do you determine his honor and integrity beyond just his word the ballot in his hand was received on time?
Kind of an empty, moot point given I don't use such sources.
You keep telling yourself that, but I looked at the article on American Thinker about the most recent Jan 6th hearing. There is no discussion of any of the evidence showing Trump's attempts to subvert the election, but it does dismiss the committee members as "Trump-haters." You won't watch the hearings to see what evidence is presented, and you don't have to worry about your favorite source exposing you to any.
Your openness to evidence and arguments would be more convincing if you didn't have your hands over your ears and your eyes closed.
Kind of an empty, moot point given lefties who believe evidence was presented showing Trump's attempts to subvert the election never actually provide a compelling example of that alleged evidence. I'm more than open to evidence if the left would actually present any, and I'm far more open than lefties are when they are shown as not actually having any.
In the meantime, there's been all manner of evidence and arguments which better prove the election had already been "subverted" with which the left and Trump-haters refuse to contend. Take about hands over eyes and ears, you people practice that response on so many issues and the stolen election evidence is just another example.
I'm more than open to evidence if the left would actually present any, and I'm far more open than lefties are when they are shown as not actually having any.
Nonsense. You won't watch the hearings where evidence is being presented and American Thinker won't tell you about the evidence. You have hermetically sealed yourself from seeing evidence that doesn't support your narrative.
That's hilarious! You think American Thinker won't report actual evidence revealed at your circus, but I can't lefties who insist actual evidence was revealed to provide any examples of that evidence. YOU certainly haven't.
If you are interested in the evidence, watch the hearings. If you wish to wallow in ignorance, stick with American Thinker.
I'm not going to waste my time finding links for you.
Lefties like you insist compelling evidence indicating Trump tried to subvert the election in some unlawful manner. Yet, when asked, you fail to provide. I'm not asking for a link. I'm asking for evidence you claim was presented which qualifies. Should be easy to do if it actually existed. And if your response is in any way accurate to what actually was presented during the one-sided Stalinist hearings you find so compelling, I can then take that info and do my own research.
But your suggestion there's some fault with my sources for not regarding as "evidence" that which you and the rest of the Trump-haters regard as "sealing the deal" is absurd and intellectually lazy. Once again, you presume you succeed in gaining understanding, but your comments here belie that presumption quite firmly.
Yeah...I'm interested in evidence. To expect me to wade through viewings of the entire collection of kangaroo court hearings in hopes of actually finding what smug lefties like you insist exist is not something I'm prepared to do. So while I've taken time to provide links in support of my position, it's too much to expect you do take a bit of yours in support of your position. That's just great and a wonderful, though especially typical dodge. You clearly haven't the stones and you certainly don't have the smarts to denigrate a site like American Thinker.
I'm asking for evidence you claim was presented which qualifies. Should be easy to do if it actually existed. And if your response is in any way accurate to what actually was presented during the one-sided Stalinist hearings you find so compelling, I can then take that info and do my own research.
I'm familiar with your idea of research. Whatever evidence I cite, you will find some wingnut site like American Thinker that will tell you one of several things: (1) the Evidence isn't trustworthy because it comes from a Trump-hater (defined as anyone who doesn't espouse the big lie); (2) Trump did whatever he is alleged to have done, but Democrats are nitpicking because it's no big deal; (3) Trump did whatever he is alleged to have done, but Democrats have done worse things so they have no right to complain about what Trump did.
So what you're really saying is, you're full of shit and didn't watch the hearings, either, so you're just going to parrot leftist talking points about "Orange Man Bad". Got it.
Could've saved us both a lot of time if you had just admitted it from the jump.
Nice dodge attempt, though.
Oh, and another thing...this "wing nut" crap you puke every time a quality site like American Thinker is provided is just you doing what you just projected onto me. You lefties! Never anything new. In other words, I can easily turn it around and be more honest and factual in saying what I might present would be dismissed due to coming from a "wing nut" site. You lefties do that shit all the time.
In any case, I've never operated in any of the three ways you describe in your last comment.
Oh, and another thing...this "wing nut" crap you puke every time a quality site like American Thinker is provided is just you doing what you just projected onto me.
For someone who spews as much vitriol about Democrats as you do, you're a bit of a snowflake about terms like "wingnut" and "Trumper," aren't you?
In the meantime, there's been all manner of evidence and arguments which better prove the election had already been "subverted" with which the left and Trump-haters refuse to contend.
One of the things I found most revealing in the last hearing was the juxtaposition of Trump's advisers testifying that they told him that various fraud claims (e.g., Dominion machines changing votes, the suitcases full of ballots, the massive ballot dumps) were meritless and Trump repeating those exact claims at rallies.
Like any good cult leader, Trump maintains control of his followers by convincing them not listen to anyone outside the cult and not to read materials not approved by the cult. You are convinced that the fraud charges haven't been addressed because your cult's leaders tell you that they haven't been addressed. American Thinker tells you that you don't need to know what evidence was presented at the hearings and you are happy to stick your head in the sand.
"One of the things I found most revealing in the last hearing was the juxtaposition of Trump's advisers testifying that they told him that various fraud claims (e.g., Dominion machines changing votes, the suitcases full of ballots, the massive ballot dumps) were meritless and Trump repeating those exact claims at rallies."
So this is your idea of "evidence" from the hearings? You believe that Trump's advisors are now omnipotent because they "testified" they regarded fraud claims meritless? Somehow their opinions are more valid simply because they conflict with Trump's? Wow! That's a deal breaker for sure!!
"Like any good cult leader, Trump maintains control of his followers by convincing them not listen to anyone outside the cult and not to read materials not approved by the cult."
That's quite an assumption. You seem to believe that the claims of YOUR cult aren't fully and comprehensibly considered by the sources I prefer. How convenient for you. I'm convinced fraud charges haven't been fully addressed simply because they haven't or hacks like you would provide more than just your constant parroting of "60+ cases have been thrown out" as if that means the merits have been adjudicated. Talk about a "cult follower"!! American Thinker provides more detailed info than anything you've presented thus far (which is nothing) and it isn't the sole source I use. You need to believe that my sources are no better than dishonest lefties unwilling to call out center-right figures or policies. You really need to actually read them for a change as if you're an honest person seeking honest reporting.
"For someone who spews as much vitriol about Democrats as you do, you're a bit of a snowflake about terms like "wingnut" and "Trumper," aren't you?"
It's not what you call me, Lefty...it's why. You use those terms to disparage in lieu of actual, intelligent arguments and compelling evidence. Refer to American Thinker as "wing nut" and you don't have to consider the things they report, but are free to simply write it all off as worthless. Typical leftist crap. Talk about "head in the sand"!!!
So this is your idea of "evidence" from the hearings? You believe that Trump's advisors are now omnipotent because they "testified" they regarded fraud claims meritless? Somehow their opinions are more valid simply because they conflict with Trump's? Wow!
Trump's opinion is worthless because, having decided that the election was fraudulent before it was even held, he clearly did not investigate the fraud claims himself. Instead, he tasked his advisors with looking into the wild allegations he was hearing from nut jobs like Sydney Powell. These advisors told him that they found no evidence to support the claims, but Trump repeated them anyway.
You seem to believe that the claims of YOUR cult aren't fully and comprehensibly considered by the sources I prefer. How convenient for you. You really need to actually read them for a change as if you're an honest person seeking honest reporting.
I've read several articles about the January 6th hearings on American Thinker. I've yet to see one of them address the evidence implicating, rather than simply bashing Democrats.
It's not what you call me, Lefty...it's why. You use those terms to disparage in lieu of actual, intelligent arguments and compelling evidence.
Really? And you imagine that you are making intelligent, evidence-based arguments when you use phrases like “desperate lefty jackwagon”? Perhaps you should be looking at the beam in your own eye. On the other hand, this does help explain your delusion that Trump was subject to extraordinary abuse.
"Trump's opinion is worthless because, having decided that the election was fraudulent before it was even held, he clearly did not investigate the fraud claims himself."
Oh...I see...you expect that Trump don a deerstalker, grab a magnifying glass and get to it. Absurd. You and other lefty jackwagons insist Trump "planned" to say the election was fraudulent before it was held without acknowledging the four years of jackwagon lies intended to unseat him on the false grounds his 2016 was "illegitimate". Funny how only you assholes can dictate when an election is a fraud, but not the actual victims of fraudulent behavior. So typical.
"Instead, he tasked his advisors with looking into the wild allegations he was hearing from nut jobs like Sydney Powell. These advisors told him that they found no evidence to support the claims, but Trump repeated them anyway."
What some advisors say in conflict with other advisors is to your kind simply a matter of those advisors you can use to push your narrative:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/03/houses-jan-6-committee-fails-to-make-case-against-trump/
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/17/jan-6-committee-ignores-clear-evidence-of-mass-illegal-voting-systematically-broken-election-laws/
"I've read several articles about the January 6th hearings on American Thinker."
Sure you have.
"I've yet to see one of them address the evidence implicating, rather than simply bashing Democrats."
What "evidence"?????? You keep insisting it exists. Let's see some of it. ANY of it!
"And you imagine that you are making intelligent, evidence-based arguments when you use phrases like “desperate lefty jackwagon”?"
Since it's you who is obliged to provide evidence, "jackwagon" is a mild term for use toward those who won't while insisting evidence exists. How can I be expected to make any argument with regard to evidence when you won't provide? Yet, I have provided plenty with regard to reasons supporting the premise the election was stolen, as I have yet again above. So while you claim those like AT (as if that's the only source I reference) fails to satisfy your demand to address "evidence" you can't provide, none of you, including the clowns on the Jan 6 kangaroo court, EVER address any of the many and varied claims of fraud, irregularity and unconstitutional alterations of election laws and procedures. In the meantime, my comment stands as firmly as before...you use "wing nut" in lieu of an actual argument. I use my choice of words along with "making intelligent, evidence-based arguments". If you're having trouble understanding, just let me know and I'll be happy to use smaller words.
Yet, I have provided plenty with regard to reasons supporting the premise the election was stolen, as I have yet again above.
Did you even read those articles, or did you just read the headlines? Neither of them support the premise that the election was stolen.
The Daily Signal article concedes that Trump's fraud claims are “still unproven.” The point of the article is that the author doesn't believe that the Committee has established a case against Trump for seditious conspiracy because the evidence doesn't prove that Trump knew that the big lie was a big lie. The article doesn't argue that the election was stolen nor does it provide any evidence of election fraud.
One thing I enjoyed about the Daily Signal article is that it cites articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times that discussed the difficulties in proving that Trump knowingly tried to overturn the election. That is the kind of thing that legitimate journalists do.
The Federalist article does complain about illegal votes, but the only irregularity it cites is the claim that 35,000 Georgians voted in the wrong county. There can be no doubt that some people did this, but people do this in every election in every state. Unfortunately, unless someone has personal knowledge that the voter has moved out of the county, there is no way for an election judge to stop someone from voting if their voter's registration and ID show that they are voting at the correct polling place. If such conduct were a reason to throw out election results, there would never be any valid elections.
"Did you even read those articles, or did you just read the headlines? Neither of them support the premise that the election was stolen."
You're not dealing with Dan Trabue here, Vinny. Of course I read the articles I post as I do the articles lefties post. But I wasn't making the case that both articles are seeking to support the same premise. The first I posted to show how even lefties know charges against Trump are crap and unlikely to be proven. The second, however, does provide evidence of election "irregularities" which, unless you can show does not provide that which is possible, if not likely other states, demonstrates there is evidence which is ignored...even by some on the right. This evidence can indeed show the potential for a stolen election (and by "stolen", this simply means it was denied the rightful winner, either intentionally...true in enough cases...or intentionally by failures to monitor as all election officials are required to do).
"One thing I enjoyed about the Daily Signal article is that it cites articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times that discussed the difficulties in proving that Trump knowingly tried to overturn the election. That is the kind of thing that legitimate journalists do."
Yeah...I was as shocked to see it from the Post and Times as you were.
"The Federalist article does complain about illegal votes, but the only irregularity it cites is the claim that 35,000 Georgians voted in the wrong county."
Why would expect an article focusing on one problem should report on others?
"There can be no doubt that some people did this, but people do this in every election in every state."
And if the election laws in other states are as they are in Georgia's regarding this issue, then the ballots of those who voted in the same way are also invalid and should not be counted.
"Unfortunately, unless someone has personal knowledge that the voter has moved out of the county, there is no way for an election judge to stop someone from voting if their voter's registration and ID show that they are voting at the correct polling place."
And yet, the Trump team seems to have found this with little effort. More importantly, as is the right of Trump, the problem was brought to the attention of Georgia's Sec of State and fo whatever reason, nothing was done to address it. This is another example of what I've been saying with regard to a multitude of claims regarding the validity of election results. Because it led to Trump being denied, you're perfectly good with that which belies your claim of caring for honest elections.
"If such conduct were a reason to throw out election results, there would never be any valid elections."
Because of these invalid ballots being counted, Georgia didn't have a valid election. See how this works? There were more invalid votes just based on this one problem than there were Biden votes over Trump votes. Trump won Georgia. You don't care. If he won Georgia...as he plainly did based on this one problem..., how many other states did he win due to similar issues. You don't care. You only care that Trump isn't president and your party gets to f**k the American people. You must be so proud.
If he won Georgia...as he plainly did based on this one problem..., how many other states did he win due to similar issues.
Don't be ridiculous. By what logic do you subtract all of these votes from Biden's total and none from Trump's? Given how close Georgia was, it is logical to assume that the wrong-county votes would have been close, too. There is no reason to think that the results would have changed. In fact, the wrong-county votes were mostly cast in person, which would suggest that they might have favored Trump.
Well, Vinny...you seem to be finally stumbling into the truth of things. You're fine with just leaving things alone, on the presumption that investigating would result in no change in outcome. But what better way to shut down "election deniers" than to find the truth, which is what "election deniers" seek? Were there to have been honest investigations of all claims, most Trump supporters would be cool (relatively speaking) to find Biden won honestly. It's all most "election deniers" were seeking. Trump-haters like you aren't as concerned with election integrity as you are with denying Trump his well deserved second term for reasons you can't even articulate even if you had any. And you have to ignore all that false shit which occurred throughout his presidency to unseat him...to impeach him...to pretend "election deniers" had no basis for mistrusting, while also ignoring the stark, in-your-face realities of the run-up to the election which added to that mistrust. Lefties have a long and storied history of cheating in elections, and they're also keen on protesting those they lost (as was the case in every GOP win going back to GHW Bush, if not Reagan before him.
So spare me your misplaced and unjustified condescension. It's all smokescreen and you indict yourself for engaging in it.
You didn't answer my question. How would finding that some people voted in the wrong county constitute evidence that Trump won?
First, if you actually read the article closely...like someone looking to understand the truth of the situation...you'd see that this particular issue alone dictated...according to Georgia law...a new election should take place. That's just based on the fact they uncovered about 35,000 of these ineligible ballots...enough to trigger the new election.
However, out of that 35,000, without examining each of them, it is impossible to know with certainty that there were more than the margin of Biden's victory (less than 12,000 votes) among that 35,000 ineligible votes. And again, this particular issue was one of many uncovered which should have invalidated the Georgia election prompting a "do over". Had they done their duty in light of these problems, would the result still have been a Biden winning of Georgia? Sure. But that's the problem. "Trumpers" simply insisted Trump loses honestly. You Bidenites simply don't care if Biden wins honestly or not, so long as he wins and Biden loses.
This is all consistent with what my position has been all along, and has been the position of most who know the election was stolen. Prove the outcome after removing all invalid, ineligible, illegal votes and we'll still be suffering now, but at least not robbed in order to achieve that lofty goal of yours.
First, if you actually read the article closely...like someone looking to understand the truth of the situation...you'd see that this particular issue alone dictated...according to Georgia law...a new election should take place. That's just based on the fact they uncovered about 35,000 of these ineligible ballots...enough to trigger the new election.
I see that some wingnut lawyer claims that Georgia law requires a new election, but I don't see that he cites any statutes or precedents to establish that proposition.
In doing further research myself, I found that there are several important points that the Federalist conveniently omits (as it usually does):
First: The fact that people change their address with the post office doesn't prove that they have changed their residence for voting purposes. It is perfectly legal to have one's mail sent to an address other than one's voting residence:e.g., people who own more than one home or college students away at school often often do this. More evidence would be required to prove each individual voter's intent to establish a new residence.
Second: No state has ever tried to rerun a presidential election, and it is not clear under Federal law whether or when it would be permissible to do so. No court would even consider ordering such a thing based on the evidence presented.
Third: As we learned this week, Trump knew that he was claiming a phony number of fraudulent in Georgia because John Eastman warned him that they were phony.
"Trumpers" simply insisted Trump loses honestly.
Bullshit. The Trumper cult takes its marching orders from Trump, and he decided before the election that it would be impossible for him to lose absent fraud. No evidence could ever convince Trumpers that Biden won honestly because no evidence could ever convince Trump.
This is all consistent with what my position has been all along, and has been the position of most who know the election was stolen.
Anyone who claims to “know the election was stolen” is deluding himself. No fraud has ever been proven. Election irregularities don't constitute theft. All your cult has is your snowflake leader's self-pity that people were meaner to him than they've ever been to anyone else.
"I see that some wingnut lawyer claims that Georgia law requires a new election, but I don't see that he cites any statutes or precedents to establish that proposition."
Ah...there it is again! That term you like to use when you have no legit rebuttal or rebuke to a fact presented. "He's a wingnut!!" ...so you can pretend he's worthy of your outright dismissive attitude. But then you go one better in your desperation: the article nor the lawyer provides that which you presume must be provided in order to take his claim seriously. That's hilarious!
"In doing further research myself, I found that there are several important points that the Federalist conveniently omits (as it usually does)"
So you need to tell yourself! More hilarity!
"First: The fact that people change their address with the post office doesn't prove that they have changed their residence for voting purposes."
Acknowledged in the piece below and for which they accounted. You'd have to insist that the majority of those ballots were of this nature in order to pretend it doesn't matter. And keep in mind, the voting out of residence issue is but one of many problems brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new-evidence-indicates-enough-illegal-votes-in-georgia-to-tip-2020-results/
"Second: No state has ever tried to rerun a presidential election, and it is not clear under Federal law whether or when it would be permissible to do so. No court would even consider ordering such a thing based on the evidence presented."
Clearly you're talking out your ass. It's been tried, considered under Federal law and evidently is a matter of Constitutional interpretation.
https://ballotpedia.org/Can_a_redo_be_held_for_a_presidential_election%3F_(2020)
"Third: As we learned this week, Trump knew that he was claiming a phony number of fraudulent in Georgia because John Eastman warned him that they were phony."
What you and your head lice learned this week would be better considered had you provided a link...you know...in the spirit of citing "any statutes or precedents to establish that proposition." A video clip might be nice. Try as I might, I've found nothing which speaks to what "you've learned this week". And given who's "taught" you (the Jan 6 committee clowns), such a link is essential in order to conclude a single thing.
"Bullshit. The Trumper cult takes its marching orders from Trump..."
Naw...that's just what you deranged Trump-haters like to tell yourselves about better people. It's as if it's a marching order handed down from your lefty overlords.
"...and he decided before the election that it would be impossible for him to lose absent fraud."
It's always been a most logical and reasonable conclusion...an assumption at which he arrived after the constant suggestion his 2016 win was illegitimate and all the attempts to unseat him...by saying he wasn't mentally or physically fit, by trying twice to impeach him, by constantly suggesting "the walls are closing in", by continually suggesting his arrest was right around the corner. Then weigh all that derangement against his record as president which saw great improvements in the overall state of the nation over his bumbling predecessor, often accomplishing things his detractors warned couldn't be accomplished or couldn't be accomplished at great costs which never materialized.
And now it's clear he was right all along. He didn't lose legitimately.
"No evidence could ever convince Trumpers that Biden won honestly because no evidence could ever convince Trump."
No such evidence exists.
"Anyone who claims to “know the election was stolen” is deluding himself."
So you desperately need to keep telling yourself.
"No fraud has ever been proven. Election irregularities don't constitute theft."
That depends on what you mean by "irregularities" and how they came about. Worse, when those irregularities aren't investigated and addressed...as was the case with the Georgia issue above...the result is a stolen election.
But you don't care, because it's all about defeating Trump (or whomever the GOP politician might be) and gaining and maintaining Dem power. Integrity...election or otherwise...is not a leftist trait.
https://congress-georgia.org/politics/dekalb-county-gop-chair-georgia-law-was-violated-november-2020-election-and-results-should/
Clearly you're talking out your ass. It's been tried, considered under Federal law and evidently is a matter of Constitutional interpretation.
If I am talking out of my ass, why did you cite an article that supports exactly what I said? "No state or county has ever held a presidential redo election. Whether they can is an open question."
This was your claim:
"Second: No state has ever tried to rerun a presidential election, and it is not clear under Federal law whether or when it would be permissible to do so. No court would even consider ordering such a thing based on the evidence presented."
The link I provided refuted that. States did indeed try to rerun an election, even if they failed in the attempt. Courts would consider such a thing if the evidence was actually considered. In 2020, there were scant few examples of that actually happening, whether the intention was to rerun an election or not. In the Georgia case, foot dragging put the issue beyond the point when actual judicial consideration could take place...another complaint regarding how that was handled. These types of details disregarded means you're talking out your ass.
That term you like to use when you have no legit rebuttal or rebuke to a fact presented. "He's a wingnut!!" ...so you can pretend he's worthy of your outright dismissive attitude.
More Trumper snowflake whining. You dismiss mainstream sources all the time on the grounds that they are Trump-haters, but somehow I'm out of line for doubting your wingnut propaganda.
You'd have to insist that the majority of those ballots were of this nature in order to pretend it doesn't matter.
I don't have to insist on anything. The burden is on the challenging party to prove the illegal votes.
In this case, the wingnut lawyer purports to prove that votes were cast in the wrong county based on the voter subsequently changing his voting address. In other words, at the same time he proves that a voter cast his ballot in the wrong county, he is also proving that the voter would have the right to vote in a redo.
If these were local races where voters outside the relevant jurisdiction cast ballots, I can see why a court might order a redo in which those voters would not be allowed to cast ballots. In this case, however, the redo would include all the voters that were proven to have voted in the wrong county. The pool of voters in the redo would be exactly the same as the pool in the original election. Why would any court order Georgia to spend millions of dollars to redo an election just so all the same voters could vote the same way?
And keep in mind, the voting out of residence issue is but one of many problems brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.
I am aware that Trump made many other bullshit claims as well, such as 10,315 dead people and 2,560 felons voting in Fulton County. And who can forget the phony claims about suitcases full of ballots and Biden ballots being scanned multiple times.
It's always been a most logical and reasonable conclusion...an assumption at which he arrived after the constant suggestion his 2016 win was illegitimate and all the attempts to unseat him...by saying he wasn't mentally or physically fit, by trying twice to impeach him, by constantly suggesting "the walls are closing in", by continually suggesting his arrest was right around the corner.
Wahhh. Wahhh. Wahhh. Everyone was so mean to Trump that he couldn't help but try to undermine the Constitution and subvert democracy. I am sure that is a great comfort to the January 6th rioters who are facing prison terms because they bought Trump's bullshit, not to mention the woman who lost her life.
Try as I might, I've found nothing which speaks to what "you've learned this week".
So none of your wingnut websites reported the fact that a Federal judge in California ordered Eastman to turn over emails that showed that Trump knew that he was putting phony numbers in a phony lawsuit? That comes as no surprise to me.
The link I provided refuted that. States did indeed try to rerun an election, even if they failed in the attempt. Courts would consider such a thing if the evidence was actually considered.
The link you provided indicates that there were a couple of cases in which litigants asked a judge to order a presidential election redone, and those requests were denied. In neither case did a state take any action to run a redo election.
"More Trumper snowflake whining. You dismiss mainstream sources all the time on the grounds that they are Trump-haters, but somehow I'm out of line for doubting your wingnut propaganda."
More hilarity. You criticize me as a whiner for pointing out again the reality of why you use such terms. Fine. Knock yourself out. It won't change the facts.
In the meantime, you pretend I dismiss lefty sources because they're leftist rather than on the lack of merit of their reports and arguments. That's some nice lefty projection!
"I don't have to insist on anything. The burden is on the challenging party to prove the illegal votes."
You're weaseling. The point made was simply the ballots were invalid but counted anyway. They were invalid because of how the law is written. If the law provides for some mitigating factors not already expressed in the articles describing the claim, then present it. Otherwise, you're talking out your ass. The rest of your response is just speculation in hopes the outcome would be the same. But a redo wasn't necessarily the point of the Trump team in bringing up the invalid ballots, but simply that they, like any other invalid ballot, should not be counted. If a redo is then ordered, your outcome might indeed come to pass. But that has nothing to do with simply removing the invalid ballots from the final count. Said another way, that's two separate issues. I don't believe a redo was sought, but only mentioned as that which enough discrepancies can provoke.
But let's say a redo took place. With info regarding Hunter's laptop, those allowed to vote again under their proper address might not vote for Biden. So there's that. But you keep trying to defend your corrupt party. It's what you do.
"I am aware that Trump made many other bullshit claims as well..."
You offer this comment in response to that which pointed to the fact that those "bullshit claims" were not of the type brought to bear with the residency problem. I thought you said you read my links. More importantly, hacks like you insist all focus be on the least important claims so that you don't have to acknowledge and concede all the others facts which attest to the fraudulent nature of the election.
"Wahhh. Wahhh. Wahhh. Everyone was so mean to Trump that he couldn't help but try to undermine the Constitution and subvert democracy."
And here again we see that your claims of devotion to integrity are a fraud. You're willing to dismiss all the bullshit your kind tried to pull since he came down the escalator so that you can pretend about Trump so much that was never true and isn't now. Where you need to believe in your black hearts that he was trying to undermine the Constitution, he was actually fighting against the unAmerican ploys of your party and their media hacks. But you do you, Vinny.
" I am sure that is a great comfort to the January 6th rioters who are facing prison terms because they bought Trump's bullshit, not to mention the woman who lost her life."
While low intellect frauds like you dance to the tune your Dem overlords play, you project onto the other side the notion they don't think for themselves. Typical. Few need Trump to tell them how corrupt the election was. It was painfully obvious without knowing every way in which that corruption manifested. And now, because of that corruption, the nation is now subject to even worse forms of it as well as to the effects of the result of that election chicanery. "Undermine the Constitution and subvert democracy." That's laugh, Vinny.
"So none of your wingnut websites reported the fact that a Federal judge in California ordered Eastman to turn over emails that showed that Trump knew that he was putting phony numbers in a phony lawsuit?"
No. But aside from my "wingnut websites" reporting on the last nonsense this hack judge perpetrated earlier in the year, none of the stalwart lefty sites provided any details, either. While joyfully reporting that this asshat ordered emails to be given up, there's little in the way of actual facts being reported detailing just why this guy can assert "Trump knew" simply because Eastman questioned a few minor aspects of Trump's overall claims. It seems just another lefty attempt to scrape the barrel and hope it's enough to convince morons like you that "Orange Man Bad". I'm guessing my "wingnut websites" are waiting for those details before determining if there's anything noteworthy. I have found that this judge has a history of goofiness. But then, he's a leftist, so....
"The link you provided indicates that there were a couple of cases in which litigants asked a judge to order a presidential election redone, and those requests were denied. In neither case did a state take any action to run a redo election."
Of course they did or a judicial response would not have come about. You're hanging your pointy hat on the fact that action didn't take place to say action couldn't have taken place had the judicial response been different. Nice try. (Not really)
More importantly, hacks like you insist all focus be on the least important claims so that you don't have to acknowledge and concede all the others facts which attest to the fraudulent nature of the election.
Really? You think that intentionally miscounting votes in Biden's favor is the least important claim while legally eligible voters casting their ballots in the wrong county is the most important claim? Is that the claim that inspired the Trump cult to storm the Capitol and attack the police?
But that has nothing to do with simply removing the invalid ballots from the final count.
You do realize that it isn't possible to identify specific ballots that were cast in the wrong county, don't you? Those wonderful sources of yours explained at least that much to you, didn't they?
"You think that intentionally miscounting votes in Biden's favor is the least important claim while legally eligible voters casting their ballots in the wrong county is the most important claim?"
Oh, no, Vinny! I get that only miscounting votes in Biden's favor is preferred by your type, while residency issues can't be regarded as invalid ballots if they detract from Biden's total. You don't seem to get that our side isn't going to whine about such ballots detracting from Trump, except that the voter was an idiot for not paying closer attention to the clear and unambiguous details about the proper casting of their ballots. Unlike you whiners, we believe if a rule or law is impractical or unjust, we'll work through legal means to change it so that the problems from their existence no longer occur. You jackwagons should try that sometime.
"Is that the claim that inspired the Trump cult to storm the Capitol and attack the police?"
No, liar. The claim is that the totality of fraud and irregularity was dismissed as unworthy of review and that lack of concern for voter integrity resulted in the true winner being denied. Got it now?
"You do realize that it isn't possible to identify specific ballots that were cast in the wrong county, don't you?"
You do realize that it was discovered with plenty of time to address the concern but instead Raffensperger's people did nothing about it within that limited time frame, don't you? Those lying sources of your no doubt chose not to include that important detail, didn't they?
Indeed, that's the long and short of it. You people focus on any insignificant thing on the pretense they actually mitigate the reality of the larger issue. And now, because of the fraud, lies and criminality of your kind, we have nation suffering like few have seen in their lifetimes. You go ahead and keep pretending Trump's the bad guy. That's what you liars do because you have no real argument for having denied him a second term.
I get that only miscounting votes in Biden's favor is preferred by your type, while residency issues can't be regarded as invalid ballots if they detract from Biden's total.
I care about the intentional miscounting of votes because that constitutes genuine election fraud. Routine glitches that don't favor either side are insignificant by comparison. As an election judge, I think I have an appreciation for what a massive undertaking a presidential election is. Frankly, I was surprised with how few genuine problems the Trump campaign was able to identify.
You don't seem to get that our side isn't going to whine about such ballots detracting from Trump, except that the voter was an idiot for not paying closer attention to the clear and unambiguous details about the proper casting of their ballots.
I suspect that most voters who cast their ballots in the wrong county didn't consult the election statutes before casting their ballots. Having read the statute, I can tell you that it is full of legalese that very few people would consider clear or unambiguous.
Unlike you whiners, we believe if a rule or law is impractical or unjust, we'll work through legal means to change it so that the problems from their existence no longer occur.
Legal means like appointing fake electors, pressuring the vice-president to violate his oath to defend the Constitution, slandering any Republican who refused to go along with the Big Lie, calling out a mob to storm the Capitol?
The claim is that the totality of fraud and irregularity was dismissed as unworthy of review and that lack of concern for voter integrity resulted in the true winner being denied. Got it now?
Except you just said that actual fraud claims are the least important. You had to say this because the “totality” of actual fraud is essentially zip. Of course, the totality of irregularity is too trivial to justify overturning an election. All you've got is the delusion that Trump was somehow disproportionately maltreated by his opponents, which you believe only because your wingnut sources don't report any fact that undermines that narrative.
You do realize that it was discovered with plenty of time to address the concern but instead Raffensperger's people did nothing about it within that limited time frame, don't you?
As usual, you don't understand how the process works. In America, we have secret ballots that don't identify the voter. If election officials didn't discover a wrong-county voter before he placed his ballot in the ballot box, there is no way to figure out which ballot was his. The notion that Raffensperger could have removed any wrong-county ballots from the totals is a fantasy.
That's what you liars do because you have no real argument for having denied him a second term.
I have the only argument that matters: Trump lost the election. His criminal conduct since his loss has confirmed the wisdom of everyone who voted against him.
"I care about the intentional miscounting of votes..."
Bullshit. If this was true, you'd not be pretending Biden won fairly.
"As an election judge, I think I have an appreciation for what a massive undertaking a presidential election is."
As if anyone of even below-average intelligence would fail to know that. Good gosh!
"Frankly, I was surprised with how few genuine problems the Trump campaign was able to identify."
Frankly, I'm not the least bit surprised you'd pretend you took time to investigate any problem identified by Trump and others. But then, all lefties and Trump-haters dismissed so much as lacking merit...not because they did, but because you needed to pretend they did.
"I suspect that most voters who cast their ballots in the wrong county didn't consult the election statutes before casting their ballots. Having read the statute, I can tell you that it is full of legalese that very few people would consider clear or unambiguous."
This is nonsensical. Why do we have precincts and specific polling places for casting our votes? How can anyone not know those are defined by our place of residence? That they are intended for attending to the policies affecting the most local area? That is, if I move to another state, the affairs of my former state are no longer my direct concern. There's nothing mysterious about this.
Then of course your beliefs about your own intelligence are completely irrelevant. Just because the statute is tough for you to navigate doesn't mean it is for anyone else, or that for those who find it so, it won't occur to them to simply ask a more knowledgeable person. It's not like Election Day is unknown prior to moving. Having just moved, I'm aware of my obligations because I made myself aware...sort of like one living with a government of, by and for the people is supposed to do. But you go ahead and keep making excuses to cover the fraud.
Regardless, the ballots were found to be invalid in time to do something about it and "election officials" are duty bound to resolve the issue in whatever manner the law provides...including not counting the ballots.
"Legal means like appointing fake electors, pressuring the vice-president to violate his oath to defend the Constitution, slandering any Republican who refused to go along with the Big Lie, calling out a mob to storm the Capitol?"
Wow. And you dare throw around the term "wing nut"!
---Fake electors...those electors chosen as a result of a corrupted election process as was seen in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and elsewhere. But as regards the "Trump plan", there was nothing "fake" about the slate of electors prepared in the event of a recount or confirmation of a fraudulent election. Here's a leftist explanation for what went down and why there was nothing "fake" about it:
https://medium.lessig.org/alternative-slates-are-voting-what-this-means-54ed19634f16
---I believe the "pressure" was to have Pence refuse to count the Electoral votes of the contested states. He's not Constitutionally mandated to count any of them. There's been lots of discussion as to what the Constitution mandates with regard to who counts the Electoral votes, but it seems well within a defense of the Constitution to refuse to count those votes generated by an corrupted and thus unConstitutional state election. This notion that Pence would be pressured to do something untoward is just more leftist bullshit meant to indict Trump as having engaged in something criminal or unConstitutional.
---The real "Big Lie" is that the claims Trump actually won is a "Big Lie". Lefties love coming up with terms which are not true or factual or truthfully leveled in order to provoke a defensive response with which they can further their goals. We've seen in with any manner of leftist catch-phrases, such as the current "threat to our democracy", or the perennial favorite "racist!!!". The "Big Lie" is just one of these and the "Big Liars"...Democrats...use the term to indict as liars those who do no worse than they've done in past elections, including 2016. Republicans who fall for that crap deserve worse than slander, but calling them out for such crap is hardly an example of it.
---NO ONE called out anyone to storm the Capitol. That is, no one named "Donald J. Trump" or anyone on the same stage. We have seen plants do so, and nothing has happened to any of them.
"Except you just said that actual fraud claims are the least important."
My actual words quoted along with the date and time I supposedly said it would've been quite helpful here. I went back to the 17th and didn't find anything like this. So I'm going to say I never said any such thing.
"You had to say this because the “totality” of actual fraud is essentially zip."
Ah...it seems you don't understand what "totality" implies in the context I use it. It refers to ALL the various means and methods which your kind perpetrated to corrupt the process. That includes all means from the basic dead guy voting to the pressuring of "Big Tech" to suppress info which might have altered opinions of voters and all in between. "Zip" is the exact opposite of reality.
"All you've got is the delusion that Trump was somehow disproportionately maltreated by his opponents, which you believe only because your wingnut sources don't report any fact that undermines that narrative."
You gotta be kidding me! Just in news reporting alone, there were more stories negative toward Trump than positive, and this in spite of his great record of achievement on behalf of the American people your kind only pretends to love. And this was no different in the behavior of your political overlords towards him, either. So many blatantly false accusations and allegations it's amazing to find there were no honorable Democrats angry those they elected were wasting the peoples' time and money to push! What an indictment on the character of the typical leftist!! To regard us as delusional is the true delusion. But then, projection is what you people do.
"As usual, you don't understand how the process works."
Yes I do. But YOU don't understand, or aren't honest enough to accept, that all was done within time necessary to address the problem and Georgia chose not to. That's all there is to it.
"I have the only argument that matters: Trump lost the election. His criminal conduct since his loss has confirmed the wisdom of everyone who voted against him."
That's not an argument. It's an assertion never proven against the evidence which strongly suggests the contrary. Him making every effort to rectify the crime committed by your people is not in itself criminal, nor did he break any law in his attempts. Rather than wisdom, it confirmed the low character of everyone who dismissed outright any and every claim of fraud or irregularity simply for lack of a legitimate reason to deny him a second term. In short, you're a liar.
How can anyone not know those are defined by our place of residence? That they are intended for attending to the policies affecting the most local area? That is, if I move to another state, the affairs of my former state are no longer my direct concern. There's nothing mysterious about this.
That's not what we're talking about here, though, is it? We're talking about a national election rather than a local one, and we're talking about people who moved intrastate rather than interstate. In a national election (or a statewide one for that matter), a vote in one Georgia county has the exact same effect on the outcome as a vote in any other Georgia county.
On top of that, it's perfectly legal for a person in Georgia to vote in their former county of residence (even in local races) if they moved less than thirty days before the election. I suspect that many of the wrong-county voters were simply mistaken about the period of time they were allowed to vote in their former county after moving, perhaps thinking they had sixty days or ninety days.
Then of course your beliefs about your own intelligence are completely irrelevant. Just because the statute is tough for you to navigate doesn't mean it is for anyone else . . . .
I graduated 8th out of my law school class of 225, so I'm confident that I can judge the complexity of statutory language. An example of the legalese in the Georgia statute is that it doesn't say “less than thirty days prior to the election”: instead it reads “after the fifth Monday prior to a primary or election.”
. . . or that for those who find it so, it won't occur to them to simply ask a more knowledgeable person.
The problem of course is that many people who think they are knowledgeable about election law actually don't know what the hell they are talking about. Unfortunately, such people's confidence that they are knowledgeable tends to vary inversely with their actual knowledge, e.g., someone who is absolutely convinced that postmarks are used to determine when a ballot is delivered rather than when it is mailed.
Regardless, the ballots were found to be invalid in time to do something about it and "election officials" are duty bound to resolve the issue in whatever manner the law provides...including not counting the ballots.
No ballots were ever found to be invalid because—as I pointed out before (and you seemed to understand at the time)—changing a mailing address is not proof that a person's residence has changed for voting purposes. Assuming arguendo that a subsequent change of voter registration does constitutes sufficient proof that a person intended a change of residence when he changed his mailing address, the number of cases so established six months after the election was still less than Biden's margin of victory. That is hardly in time.
Yes I do. But YOU don't understand, or aren't honest enough to accept, that all was done within time necessary to address the problem and Georgia chose not to. That's all there is to it.
I explained why a wrong-county ballot cannot be identified and removed from the totals after it has been cast. Your response amounts to nothing more than “Oh yeah? Can so.” I would be fascinated to know how and when you think Georgia could have addressed the problem.
And you dare throw around the term "wing nut"!
Your pearl clutching notwithstanding, yes, I do dare.
My actual words quoted along with the date and time I supposedly said it would've been quite helpful here. I went back to the 17th and didn't find anything like this. So I'm going to say I never said any such thing.
On October 24, 2022 at 6:32 AM, I pointed out some of Trump's false allegations of actual fraud in Georgia, including the number of dead people who voted, the number of felons who voted, Biden ballots being scanned multiple times, and suitcases of ballots being pulled out from under tables. You responded on October 24, 2022 at 6:24 PM by saying, “hacks like you insist all focus be on the least important claims.”
Like Il Duce of your cult, you have figured out the simplest way to respond to having the foolishness of the things you've said pointed out: you pretend that you never said them.
"That's not what we're talking about here, though, is it? We're talking about a national election rather than a local one, and we're talking about people who moved intrastate rather than interstate. In a national election (or a statewide one for that matter), a vote in one Georgia county has the exact same effect on the outcome as a vote in any other Georgia county."
The point I was addressing refers to a state issue. "National" elections are still local elections primarily. That is to say, we don't use a popular vote for president, but president isn't the only election on the ballot. Local candidates are as well and voting out of district for those of one's prior location is a person voting for those not of his concern. I could phrase it better, but it wouldn't matter to you. You simply want Trump to lose so all votes, valid or otherwise, which accomplish that goal must be counted as valid. Where I now live, Nancy Mace is the rep who would get my vote. That's because she's running for rep of my district. If I move to the northern part of the state, I'd be in another district and Mace would not be a candidate there, nor would I be eligible to vote for her based on when I moved. When I moved would either qualify me or disqualify me to vote for Mace. If the latter, my entire ballot would likewise be invalid. It's not hard to understand for those who care about election integrity.
"I suspect that many of the wrong-county voters were simply mistaken about the period of time they were allowed to vote in their former county after moving, perhaps thinking they had sixty days or ninety days."
Yet just as you whine about knowing intentions, you believe intentions matter here when finding such a person voted contrary to established election law. Get real. If you screw up your opportunity to make your choice known, you lose. Again, if you can't speak to why a law, rule or regulation...or fence...is in place, you can't dismiss it. You must abide it. If you don't, for whatever reason, you lose. Adults know this.
"I graduated 8th out of my law school class of 225, so I'm confident that I can judge the complexity of statutory language. "
Sure you can. But what if you can't? You have two choices: Make your best guess and hope you're right, or ask someone who's 7th or better in their law school class and can understand it.
"An example of the legalese in the Georgia statute is that it doesn't say “less than thirty days prior to the election”: instead it reads “after the fifth Monday prior to a primary or election.” "
Providing the statute in it's entirety (with a link, for example) would provide context necessary to respond. As this doesn't, I won't.
"The problem of course is that many people who think they are knowledgeable about election law actually don't know what the hell they are talking about."
That's a sad story. But keep at it, Vinny. Maybe someday...
"Unfortunately, such people's confidence that they are knowledgeable tends to vary inversely with their actual knowledge, e.g., someone who is absolutely convinced that postmarks are used to determine when a ballot is delivered rather than when it is mailed."
"Delivered" is the same as "mailed". I'm guessing you mean "received". But then, unfortunately, some people's confidence that they are knowledgeable tends to vary inversely with their political leanings. In my case, I've never had any problems casting a valid ballot. I must be a genius.
"No ballots were ever found to be invalid because—as I pointed out before (and you seemed to understand at the time)—changing a mailing address is not proof that a person's residence has changed for voting purposes."
You've clearly never familiarized yourself with the issue. Come back once you have.
"Your pearl clutching notwithstanding, yes, I do dare. "
Because lefties project.
"Like Il Duce of your cult, you have figured out the simplest way to respond to having the foolishness of the things you've said pointed out: you pretend that you never said them."
A result of your sifting, Vinny. I don't pretend anything. I simply am not up to constantly going through all the comments to find the context which reflects what you're not saying in the clear manner one might expect from someone 8th in his class of 225 in law school. And what was that result? You did what you should have done in the first place. And now that you have, it's clear you pulled it out of context. You also exposed your Freudian slip from under your skirt. "False" allegations of actual fraud. Seems contradictory at the least, or an admission of actual fraud which you at the same time label "false". So you'll have to clear that up for me. I'm not a lawyer.
More importantly, none of it changes a thing or points to any inconsistency on my part. What I term the least important claims are such because it's always said that "even if we find dead people voting..." (a paraphrase) "...it wouldn't be enough to overturn the election." So, we who care set that aside as the least important conceding the point may be true. (Not that anyone's really looking for those kinds of fraudulent votes really hard.) The focus is better directed toward that which is more compelling, like the Georgia situation with which you haven't really familiarized yourself, the several cases of states altering their election procedures without legislative authority, FBI pressure on media sites to suppress info which resulted in as much as 17% of people voting for a guy they wouldn't have supported had that info been allowed to have widespread broadcasting, and other such more election corrupting actions. No. You hacks want all attention on the least important forms of fraud, because those forms are least likely to make a difference if accounted for.
Like Il Duce, Putin, el-Sisi or Maduro of your cult, winning is all that matters.
"Delivered" is the same as "mailed". I'm guessing you mean "received". But then, unfortunately, some people's confidence that they are knowledgeable tends to vary inversely with their political leanings. In my case, I've never had any problems casting a valid ballot. I must be a genius.
No. “Delivered” is not the same as “mailed.” “Delivered” refers to the point at which the post office delivers mail to the recipient. “Delivered” and “received” don't mean the same thing, but they occur at the same time: when the post office “delivers” the mail to the recipient, the recipient “receives” it. “Mailed” can be applied to the entire process of sending a letter, but when we are talking about postmarks, “mailed” refers to the time the post office takes custody of the letter from the sender.
You also exposed your Freudian slip from under your skirt. "False" allegations of actual fraud. Seems contradictory at the least, or an admission of actual fraud which you at the same time label "false". So you'll have to clear that up for me. I'm not a lawyer.
I should have seen that one coming, given your confusion about what words mean.
By “actual fraud,” I was referring to actions that would really constitute fraud if they really occurred. By false allegation, I was referring to a false claim about what happened. By “false allegation of actual fraud,” I was referring to a false claim about what happened, which, if it had happened, would have been fraud. For example, if Dominion voting machines had switched votes from Trump to Biden, that would have constituted actual election fraud. Because it didn't, it was a false allegation of actual fraud.
You've clearly never familiarized yourself with the issue. Come back once you have.
I notice that you declined my invitation to explain “how and when you think Georgia could have addressed the problem” of wrong-county voters. I take it that means that you've finally figured out how wrong you were when you claimed “that it was discovered with plenty of time to address the concern.”
Providing the statute in it's entirety (with a link, for example) would provide context necessary to respond. As this doesn't, I won't.
Look it up yourself. I found it from that Federalist link you provided. It is amusing that you can't be bothered to look up anything on your own, but you think I'm the one who needs to familiarize myself with the issues.
It's amusing you're reduced to semantics and minutia in lieu of acknowledging the reality of the overall point. It doesn't matter if postmarks were the issue with the dating of ballots found by the Trump team to be invalid. But you choose to waste time on that insignificant and irrelevant error of mine as if you think you're scoring points. You're not. "Delivered", "received", "mailed"...doesn't matter. What matters is that the law requires the ballots and their envelopes to be filled out in a particular way in order to regard them as valid ballots.
Residency is another issue. The Trump team according to the several links I provided indicate ballots in an amount surpassing Biden's win in that state were not in line with election law. Doesn't matter if you like the law. All that matters is that they should not have been counted. Like typical lefties are wont to do, the false claim that Trump pressured Raffensperger to "find"...as in cheat...invalid votes persists despite the facts clearly demonstrating otherwise. That's the main point of bringing up this incident, as well as to provide more evidence that swing states had enough failures in protecting election integrity to possibly have made a difference. This case also shows the unwillingness to do the heavy lifting to assure the public Trump's claims were without merit. That is, they did nothing in that regard.
"I should have seen that one coming, given your confusion about what words mean."
You're funny...in a pathetically desperate way.
"By “actual fraud,” I was referring to..." a means by which you can pretend reality is not what it is. Claims are false only when proven to be. So little was ever done to achieve that outcome. Yet, lefty jackwagons hang their hat on the assurances of those who are at the very least part of the problem.
It should be noted that with the long and storied history of Democratic cheating in elections, Dem voters and supporters don't seem to give a flying rat's ass about altering that perception. Were it the GOP with that reputation, I would be adamant about those I support making sure there's no doubt about the legitimacy of their victories. If I won legitimately, why would I not allow all claims to be adjudicated? What have I to hide if I'm honest and my win is beyond doubt? We're not seeing this to any degree by you and yours. All we see is "Orange Man Bad" with all the immaturity that expression implies.
"I notice that you declined my invitation to explain “how and when you think Georgia could have addressed the problem” of wrong-county voters."
I notice you're more than pleased they didn't try. Typical. But imagine this scenario: A man enters a polling station with a wheelbarrow loaded with ballots and dumps them among those cast by everyone else. He's seen and polling place officials rush to examine the ballots he just dumped. They find all the ballots filled out in his handwriting, all are for the exact same candidates, all have the same address and all names on the ballots are dead people. How and when do you think Georgia could have addressed this problem? I don't need to know the details of how Georgia deals with any issue of this sort. I would just need to know they do. But I'll try to return to this question when time allows.
"Look it up yourself. I found it from that Federalist link you provided. It is amusing that you can't be bothered to look up anything on your own, but you think I'm the one who needs to familiarize myself with the issues."
That's a funny charge coming from one who claims to care about integrity. You say you found it in the link I provided and then suggest I don't look up anything on my own. You're a moron. I provide for my claims, you provide for yours. That's how it works.
It doesn't matter if postmarks were the issue with the dating of ballots found by the Trump team to be invalid. But you choose to waste time on that insignificant and irrelevant error of mine as if you think you're scoring points.
You said that I should “speak to why a law, rule or regulation...is in place,” but when it's clear that you don't understand the mechanics of the process, you insist that it doesn't matter why the rule is there.
But imagine this scenario: A man enters a polling station with a wheelbarrow loaded with ballots and dumps them among those cast by everyone else. He's seen and polling place officials rush to examine the ballots he just dumped. They find all the ballots filled out in his handwriting, all are for the exact same candidates, all have the same address and all names on the ballots are dead people.
Why should I imagine such a ridiculous scenario? We're not talking about a situation that is remotely like that. We're talking about voters who show up at a polling place where they are registered to vote and have probably voted in the past. These voters have the required identification. Unless an election judge has personal knowledge that a voter moved more than thirty days before the election, there is no reason to question his right to vote and no basis to challenge his ballot. If it is later discovered that the voter had moved more than thirty days before the election, there is no way to identify his ballot and remove it from the totals.
All that matters is that they should not have been counted.
Once again, how do you propose that this would have been accomplished given that there is no way to tell which ballots were cast in the wrong county? If you actually believed that this issue actually affected election integrity, you would be advocating some system by which to prevent or deter wrong-county voting in the future. All you care about is the fact that your guy didn't win last time.
"You said that I should “speak to why a law, rule or regulation...is in place,” but when it's clear that you don't understand the mechanics of the process, you insist that it doesn't matter why the rule is there."
What I said was so clear, even someone ranked only the 8th out of 225 in his law school should've understood (BTW, did Benjamin Crump go to the same law school as you, and what's your win/loss record in court?)...if you wish to whine about a law, rule or regulation, you should first seek to understand why it was enacted in the first place. Doing so might clear things up. It's not always easy. It took me quite a while to find out why it's so tough to purchase and own a fully automatic weapon. (Spoiler alert: the law was based on exactly the same crappy arguments now used to ban semi-autos and other firearms.)
As to the second part, that too should have been easy to understand: It's not whether or not I understand "the mechanics of the process". It only matters that while a law is in place, one is required to abide it. I know that's tough to grasp for one below #7 in one's class, especially one who's a lefty, but that's the reality of the situation.
"Why should I imagine such a ridiculous scenario?"
Because it clearly illustrates the point. Pick any law, rule or regulation. Does it make any sense there's no consequence for acting in conflict with any...that there would be no process for dealing with such things? But more than your question being intelligent or not (it isn't), a better question would be why should I have bothered to create such an analogy at all? My links clearly indicate the problem was discovered before the election results were certified. They also indicate more detail than you've been honest enough to admit.
"Once again, how do you propose that this would have been accomplished given that there is no way to tell which ballots were cast in the wrong county?"
Once again, the links indicate they knew enough to know a serious problem existed. But no proposal matters if those in authority choose not to implement them as seems was the case in this matter. The real issue is that YOU don't care these issues might once again arise so long as your asshat lefties win every time. I doubt you can present a coherent excuse for not supporting Trump in the first place (assuming you didn't), so all you have is to crap on every legitimate concern about the integrity of the election which resulted in his denial of a second term. The result is the true threat to our Republic now manifesting itself, and you continue with these half-assed attempts to pretend nothing was amiss. 8th in your class? Must have been 225 really stupid students.
As to the second part, that too should have been easy to understand: It's not whether or not I understand "the mechanics of the process". It only matters that while a law is in place, one is required to abide it. I know that's tough to grasp for one below #7 in one's class, especially one who's a lefty, but that's the reality of the situation.
So you figure that legislatures have absolute authority to create any voting rules whatsoever regardless of the purpose they serve? If a legislature passed a law requiring absentee ballots to be signed with purple ink and dated with green ink, you would be fine with disqualifying any ballot that was signed and dated in blue or black ink because all that matters is that a law is a law.
Luckily, in America we have a system of checks and balances: legislatures enact laws, but courts interpret and apply them. Legislatures know that arbitrary voting rules may be struck down or interpreted narrowly in order to disqualify the fewest number of votes possible.
Pick any law, rule or regulation. Does it make any sense there's no consequence for acting in conflict with any...that there would be no process for dealing with such things?
The consequence is always going to depend on the realities of the situation. As there is no way to identify wrong-county ballots after they have been cast, the consequence cannot be not counting those ballots nor can it be deleting them from the totals after they have been counted. The only possible consequences after the wrong-county votes have been cast are rerunning the election and prosecuting the wrong-county voters. A forward looking option would be devising a better system of tracking residence changes in order to disqualify those ballots before they are cast.
But more than your question being intelligent or not (it isn't), a better question would be why should I have bothered to create such an analogy at all?
I already know the answer to that question: because you're so used to the crappy arguments of apologists and wingnuts that you don't know the difference between a good analogy and a bad one.
My links clearly indicate the problem was discovered before the election results were certified.
Actually, it's a problem that been long known and understood. In every election in every state in the country, there are always people who move but still vote at their old polling place because they didn't get around to updating their voter's registration.
As with any problem, you have to weigh extent of the problem and the harm it causes against the cost of eliminating it. Of course your wingnut sources want you to believe that this problem is unique to Georgia and this election, and that it uniquely impacted Trump.
The real issue is that YOU don't care these issues might once again arise so long as your asshat lefties win every time.
It's not a question of whether wrong-county voting might arise again. I know it will because it happens in every election. What I don't know is whether there is any practical means of eliminating it. I also don't know that either side gains an advantage as the result of it.
"So you figure that legislatures have absolute authority to create any voting rules whatsoever regardless of the purpose they serve?"
I think the Supreme Court has ruled more than once regarding the plenary power of state legislatures to craft voting rules as they see fit. I'm pretty sure "plenary power" means they have absolute authority. As to what purpose a given rule might have, I'm still trying to find the purpose behind how outer ballot envelopes are filled out by the voter. What I do know about that is the PA Supreme Court ruled they must be filled out properly in order to be counted as valid ballots.
"If a legislature passed a law requiring absentee ballots to be signed with purple ink and dated with green ink, you would be fine with disqualifying any ballot that was signed and dated in blue or black ink because all that matters is that a law is a law."
It's not a question if one is "fine" or "not fine" with any given voting rule. The instructions are fairly easy to understand and in most cases one is warned of the consequences of failure to comply with the instructions. You don't like the rule? Lobby your state reps to alter the law more to your liking. If you're "liking" has merit, you might be a hero in the Republic of Illinois.
In any case, that's the thing about "the rule of law". One is expected to abide regardless of what the law says and the purpose behind that. Consult with the 7 people who scored better than you at your law school for more details.
"Luckily, in America we have a system of checks and balances: legislatures enact laws, but courts interpret and apply them. Legislatures know that arbitrary voting rules may be struck down or interpreted narrowly in order to disqualify the fewest number of votes possible."
But there's that issue of plenary power granted state legislatures by the US Constitution. If properly dating an envelope or voting where one lives is "arbitrary", I think you'll need to make your case to the legislature and not the Supreme Court. Again, PA's State Supreme Court is unlikely to agree with you. But you live in a shithole state with the Shithead Party running things, so there's no telling what nonsense you can get them to pass.
"The consequence is always going to depend on the realities of the situation."
An incredibly irrelevant statement in response to my comment. The consequence for voting in conflict with residency requirements or not properly filling out a ballot or ballot envelope is clear.
"As there is no way to identify wrong-county ballots after they have been cast..."
There clearly is given the fact the Trump team found thousands of them before the election results were certified. Maybe you weren't paying attention when I noted that more than once.
"...the consequence cannot be not counting those ballots nor can it be deleting them from the totals after they have been counted."
Why? ...aside from the fact that Biden wouldn't have won Georgia?
"The only possible consequences after the wrong-county votes have been cast are rerunning the election and prosecuting the wrong-county voters."
Says you. They could have simply not counted all the ballots found to have been cast improperly. I see no reason to prosecute anyone, especially since it would be difficult to determine who intended to vote in conflict with the law and who did so unintentionally. "Mistakes" are not worthy of prosecution, but they are worthy of rejecting the ballot.
"A forward looking option would be devising a better system of tracking residence changes in order to disqualify those ballots before they are cast."
You mean "counted"...not "cast". The latter requires psychic ability on the part of election officials.
In any case, come up with a plan to prevent residency issues and bring it to your representatives in the legislature. I'm sure they'll be happy to enact a good idea...especially if they can claim it as their own. OR, run for office and do it yourself.
"I already know the answer to that question: because you're so used to the crappy arguments of apologists and wingnuts that you don't know the difference between a good analogy and a bad one."
That's funny. You say that as if you've actually identified a crappy argument from the conservative side.
"Actually, it's a problem that been long known and understood. In every election in every state in the country, there are always people who move but still vote at their old polling place because they didn't get around to updating their voter's registration."
If doing so is in conflict with existing state election law, then the ballots should be rejected as invalid. That's how the rule of law works, #8 in your class. What's more, there are other failures in enforcing state election law, like purging voter rolls. Dems don't much care for the rule of law and abiding laws. That's why they don't belong in office, but only serve to demonstrate what stupidity looks like so it's easier to avoid come election time.
"As with any problem, you have to weigh extent of the problem and the harm it causes against the cost of eliminating it."
Spoken like a true lefty jackwagon. What cost would there be to eliminating the problems you see existing? First, it would mean eliminating a law. The problem enters when the law is not followed or enforced. Honest, intelligent and mature people know the cost of eliminating a problem always results in benefits far outweighing the problem.
"Of course your wingnut sources want you to believe that this problem is unique to Georgia and this election, and that it uniquely impacted Trump."
But I don't get my news and info from the sources you use. As such, none from which I seek info every suggested any election irregularity is unique to anywhere it isn't. Georgia's residency issue is not at all unique to Georgia. What is is the fact that the Trump team identified the scope of it...which indeed is unique...and nothing was done to resolve it...which isn't.
"It's not a question of whether wrong-county voting might arise again. I know it will because it happens in every election."
It's one of those things about which lefty jackwagons don't care until they find out it might go against them. History has proven THAT with incredible regularity!
"What I don't know is whether there is any practical means of eliminating it."
Not so long as human error exists. But it can be mitigated by those who care (conservatives) and those who pretend to care (lefty jackwagons of any center-left party) by taking pains to make constituents aware. Unlike lefty jackwagons, conservatives aren't concerned that valid ballots total in the wrong direction because they're valid (we care because such means there are more stupid people voting than is good for the nation). But the current remedy is sound and can also serve to encourage people to pay freaking attention about a most important civic duty.
"I also don't know that either side gains an advantage as the result of it."
Clearly President Softserve did, and historically, cheating, irregularities and lax enforcement has more often than not gave lefty assholes the advantage. In this case, it absolutely does given conservatives are far more likely to go to the polls on election day, so their ballots are less likely to be improperly cast as is more likely with mail-ins. So there's that...which is why you lefties demand all mail-ins be counted regardless of how they're filled out.
Which is another example of the left being the true threat to the Republic.
Says you. They could have simply not counted all the ballots found to have been cast improperly. I see no reason to prosecute anyone, especially since it would be difficult to determine who intended to vote in conflict with the law and who did so unintentionally. "Mistakes" are not worthy of prosecution, but they are worthy of rejecting the ballot.
It is exhausting trying to keep up with all the things you don't understand. Let me try to explain the concept of a secret ballot. As I am not an election judge in Georgia, I'll use the procedure in Illinois as an example.
A voter enters the polling place and tells an election judge that he wishes to cast a ballot. The judge asks the voter his name and address. The judge then verifies that the voter is registered to vote and hands him a ballot application that bears the voter's name and address. The voter verifies the accuracy of the information and signs the application. The judge then verifies that the signature matches the signature the voter provided when he registered to vote. If it does, the judge initials the application and hands it back to the voter, who takes it to a second election judge. The second judge puts the application on a spindle and hands the voter a ballot. The voter takes the ballot to a voting booth and marks the little boxes next to the names of his chosen candidates. The voter than takes the ballot and deposits it in the ballot box.
See if you can follow this next part: The ballot that the second judge hands the voter does not bear any information that identifies the voter because it is a SECRET ballot. No one is allowed to know which candidates the voter chose. If one hundred people vote at that polling place, at the end of day, the election judge who hands out the ballots will have one hundred applications on his spindle and there will be one hundred ballots in the ballot box. The applications will identify the one hundred people who voted, but not who they voted for because it is a SECRET ballot. There is nothing on any of the one hundred ballots that matches it to a specific application because it is a SECRET ballot.
Suppose, at the end of the night, a third judge happens to look through the applications and notices one for his neighbor who moved to the next county long enough before the election that he should have changed his voter's registration. That judge would know that the person voted in the wrong county, but he would not be able to identify which of the one hundred ballots the person cast. This is because it is a SECRET ballot. It is impossible to remove the wrong-county voter's ballot from the ballot box because it is a SECRET ballot. If the judge spotted the former neighbor while he was walking from the polling booth to the ballot box, he could stop him from casting his ballot by depositing it in the ballot box, but once the ballot has been cast, there is no way to identify it and remove it from the ballot box.
I don't know whether the procedure is exactly the same in Georgia, but I do know that Georgia has SECRET ballots. It is possible to determine who voted and to check post office records to see which voters changed their addresses prior to the election, but it is not possible to identify the specific ballots of voters who did so because it is a SECRET ballot. It is not possible to remove those voters' votes from the totals because it is not possible to determine who they voted for because it is a SECRET ballot.
Even if a voter were found to have cast an improper ballot—and I would remind you that changing an address with the post office is not sufficient to prove that—it is not simple to not count that ballot: it is impossible to not count that ballot because it is impossible to identify that ballot because it is a SECRET ballot.
Thanks for your condescension. It's always amusing when a moron tries to portray himself as intellectually superior.
So by your lengthy and unnecessary essay, you indicate the remedy was to throw out the entire Georgia election. That means fewer Electoral votes for your comatose presidential choice. And keep in mind the residency issue was just one of about thirty complaints lodged by the Trump team which were not investigated. How much worse could it have been than just the residency issue indicated?
BTW, I found this article which presents reasons for the law:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/19/georgia-voting-official-makes-excuses-for-residents-who-illegally-voted-in-2020/
You'll note it also presented that an easier explanation of the law was provided for lefties troubled by "legalese".
More importantly, you'll no doubt continue in your attempts to rationalize the fraud and irregularities which resulted in Trump's unjust denial of a second term. For me, I'm quite bored with those attempts expecting nothing better from you. Just admit you don't care about the rule of law, election integrity or anything else which makes it harder for your party to win legitimately. Or don't. Neither alters the truth anyway.
Thanks for your condescension. It's always amusing when a moron tries to portray himself as intellectually superior.
I find it amusing to be called a “moron” by someone who lacks the intellectual curiosity and integrity that might lead him to actually inform himself about the election process before insisting that it was fraudulent.
BTW, I found this article which presents reasons for the law:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/19/georgia-voting-official-makes-excuses-for-residents-who-illegally-voted-in-2020/
As your wingnut sources can't be bothered explaining how postmarks and secret ballots work (because their purpose is stoking outrage rather than informing), I see no reason to assume that they can relied upon to accurately explain the reasons behind any other election laws or regulations.
Nevertheless, the reason your wingnut article gives—“[e]ach county has unique issues facing residents, whether it be taxes or which local or state officials will represent them”—doesn't actually apply to a presidential race, does it?
"I find it amusing to be called a “moron” by someone who lacks the intellectual curiosity and integrity that might lead him to actually inform himself about the election process before insisting that it was fraudulent."
I find it amusing a moron whines about being called a moron by someone who has actually acknowledges all the various means by which the 2020 election is rightfully regarded as fraudulent, while this same moron supports the people who regarded the 2016 election as fraudulent without anything akin to actual evidence as is so plentiful for 2020...regardless of whether or not existing evidence is enough to overturn the result. You dismiss the vast body of evidence which exists, choosing instead to focus on minutia of little importance. But then, desperation does that, doesn't it?
"As your wingnut sources can't be bothered explaining how postmarks and secret ballots work (because their purpose is stoking outrage rather than informing), I see no reason to assume that they can relied upon to accurately explain the reasons behind any other election laws or regulations."
That's funny. Tell me another.
"Nevertheless, the reason your wingnut article gives—“[e]ach county has unique issues facing residents, whether it be taxes or which local or state officials will represent them”—doesn't actually apply to a presidential race, does it?"
Right, because only the presidential choices were on the 2020 ballot. Sure, Vinny.
I find it amusing a moron whines about being called a moron by someone who has actually acknowledges all the various means by which the 2020 election is rightfully regarded as fraudulent . . . .
The 2020 election is only rightfully regarded as fraudulent in the sense that gullible dupes have the right to believe any foolish lie they wish to believe. Nevertheless, the 2020 election is not rightly regarded as fraudulent because such a belief does not comport with objective reality.
. . .while this same moron supports the people who regarded the 2016 election as fraudulent without anything akin to actual evidence as is so plentiful for 2020.
I don't support anyone who filed frivolous lawsuits in an attempt overturn the results of the 2016 election. I don't support anyone who refused to accept the rulings of the courts when those frivolous lawsuits were rejected. I don't support anyone who thwarted the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in the history of the United States. I don't support anyone who attacked the Capitol in an effort to prevent the certification of the 2016 election. I don't support anyone who tried to appoint fake electors in 2016. I don't support anyone who pressured state officials to find votes to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
I don't regard the 2016 election as fraudulent, and I do not support anyone's claim that it was.
You dismiss the vast body of evidence which exists, choosing instead to focus on minutia of little importance.
Felons voting is minutia of little importance? Dead people voting is minutia of little importance? Voting machines systematically changing votes is minutia of little importance? Counting votes for a particular candidate multiple times is minutia of little importance? Producing suitcases full of fraudulent votes is minutia of little imports?
There is no “vast body of evidence.” It's your ignorance of the process that is vast.
Right, because only the presidential choices were on the 2020 ballot.
No. That's just the only result you want to overturn.
Post a Comment