Ballot watchers not being allowed anywhere near the actual Ballot counting.
So you’re basing something on what people haven’t seen.
One party benefits from a higher voter turnout, while the other party is hurt by a higher voter turnout. One party sues, and implements policy intended to limit voter turnout, while the other party places a large focus on increasing voter registration and turnout.
1 Like
Can’t proved it happened, but can’t prove it didn’t happen.
My thought on this is that there seems to be a possibility that the USPS is being tampered with by a Trump appointee. I am not claiming it happened, just that it doesn’t seem to be completely unfounded (the appointee DeJoy is likely making a court appearance to explain himself in the near future).
Now in this case is it reasonable for the court to make a ruling that the law is invalid and that they should go by the date the mail was received by the USPS, and not the date it was delivered? To me that seems reasonable, and within the power of the courts to make a ruling like that, especially with the timeframe they were working with.
If there wasn’t any justification to make a change, I would disagree with the courts, but it seems justified in this circumstance.
Absolutely. I’ve said I’m fine if he wants a recount in all states.
What happened in Harris County wasn’t challenging results. It was challenging what seemed like high democratic turnout. And it didn’t get challenged even though they knew what the county was going to do. It got challenged when they realized turnout in a Dem area was high.
Demanding vote count stopping isn’t challenging results. It’s demanding vote counting stop.
Dems will have just as many lawyers to counter which is their right as well.
If Biden was telling people months before an election was rigged and saying we should stop counting votes then yes.
This shouldn’t be partisan. Not counting votes during an election isn’t a partisan issue. It should be the expectation from everyone…
Unless of course one of your leaders shows disdain for how our government system works when it doesn’t appear to be giving him what he wants. Trump gonna Trump and all that.
The only way for trump to get to 270 now…
Is to lose 50lbs.
4 Likes
Yes one party encourages turnout and voting, legally or other wise while resisting basic integrity measures like identity verification. The left pushes the boundaries of policy and ethics for votes and power as much as the right does. And it’s important to note that illegal participation robs others of their political power as much as denying people votes does.
And FTR the way the left pushes the “everyone should vote” narrative is idiotic. Many (maybe even most) adults in the US SHOULD NOT vote. Voting is a right, but it is also a very dangerous responsibility much like owning a gun. Electing the people who write our laws, enforce our laws, declare war, est is every bit as serious and deadly as a decision to own a weapon. It would be similar to the right pushing the notion that everyone should bear arms because it’s a constitutional right too. No. If you are responsible, have a decent understanding of civics, know policy basics, and understand the policy positions of the candidates, you should be encouraged to participate. If you are ignorant or an idiot YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE. This whole nonsense about getting 100% of the people to take on a responsibility many are incapable off is not only not the ethical stance, it’s an unethical one.
1 Like
Obviously only white land owning males should be allowed to vote. And only if their length times girth over angle of the shaft (aka YAW) divided by the mass over width is over a certain value.
Almost all of you are morons in here by the way.
If you read race into everything you might want to take some time for introspection.
FTR What I am talking about of encouraging ignorant idiots to vote is something I largely credit as the reason we’ve had Trump as a president.
1 Like
I was being facetious with that first bit. Obviously you don’t know about YAW and its importance.
I am in no position to say if voting should be restricted though.
Second part was totally serious. It’s a shit storm in here.
Thing is, idiots will vote regardless. Idiots on both sides. So why isnt the GOP pushing to get out the vote in the hope that their idiots will cancel out or outnumber the dems idiots? Its because most people in this country will vote democrat (as has been shown in the presidential popular vote since 2004, 2000 also went to Gore). Not to mention that the folks most likely to be informed voters- understand civics, history, and policy basics are college educated folks… the majority of whom vote democrat nowadays.
FWIW i also wish there was a way to vet voters in a non-discriminatory manner… but short of authoritarian measures IDK how it would be done. So, ill settle for getting as many people to vote as possible and hoping that the idiots on bothside cancel out and the leftover votes are from the people making informed decisions.
1 Like
The first sentence comes off as standard left talking points today unfortunately.
Also, I never mentioned restricting anything. Nor do I want restrictions.
So… Did Russia meddle in this election too?
1 Like
I’m actually not really certain of the total pop breakdown. It’s clear that voting patterns would change if the system was for a general popular vote. I don’t know what the total impact would be, but it wouldn’t be the same as today. People in non-close states would probably vote more, and people would probably be far less like to vote 3rd party. It would be interesting to see.
As for measures, I settle for not encouraging the idiots. But voting should be pushed like gun ownership. Encourage people to get educated/take classes, and teach them it is a deadly serious responsibility they should prepare for and that it is better to note vote that to ignorantly vote.
Here’s the press conference in its entirety.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?477843-1/clark-county-nevada-registrar-voters-news-conference
Your statement was derived from minutes 10:55 to 11:40, wherein he also declares that he feels safe and will not allow anyone to stop them.
He appears quite confident and in control of himself and his surroundings.
Yeah, this whole thing is basically worst case scenario. It would have been better for either to win decisively. As it is, it’s close enough to drag out into resentment, division, and of course violence. It’s a long shot, but imagine if Trump wins some law suits enough to change results so he wins states and the election. Cities would burn. We’d be on the legitimate edge of civil war.
You do know there is no declared winner, right? So nobody won or lost, yet.
1 Like
This is an idiotic break down. No one has won anything, yet. There is yet a long way to go. There are certainly transparency errors and plenty of votes yet to count.
1 Like
I’m getting minimalist early 90ies electro beat vibes.
1 Like