T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Would you mind supporting this claim with evidence? Or would you prefer to leave it baseless?
By what authority did five major US States simultaneously stop counting votes?
- Status
P
phil3
Guest
There are witness, poll watcher that say they were removed from the process.
The last four years trump has been treated as trash. These people made baseless claims to why trump should have been removed.
Now we have a president elect that a laptop shows him receiving payoffs. HIs son using his dads name for profit.
It going to be a fun 4 years… two new states added to the union, 6 Supreme Court justices, 25 states to leave the union.
The last four years trump has been treated as trash. These people made baseless claims to why trump should have been removed.
Now we have a president elect that a laptop shows him receiving payoffs. HIs son using his dads name for profit.
It going to be a fun 4 years… two new states added to the union, 6 Supreme Court justices, 25 states to leave the union.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is easily explained by Trump’s opposition to mail in ballots, leading to this somewhat expanded option mostly by Democrats. In cities like Atlanta and Philadelphia, where there was already more Democrats than Republicans, that change was even more obvious. It may seem odd when the Democratic mail in vote was added to the Republican leaning day of the election if you do not know how Trump chose to skew voting preferences.
P
phil3
Guest
A mail in ballot needs to have post mark to be a mail in ballot
B
Balto1
Guest
But the House was meant to give proportional power to the people. Fix the House and the electoral college still wouldn’t be proportional but most of the problems with it would go away.
D
Dovekin
Guest
That is not actually true. Drop boxes that bypassed the Postal System were common, and people could usually drop them off at election offices. A substantial number of “mail in ballots” were not mailed, so maybe early ballots would be a better designation.
P
phil3
Guest
Any way to cheat
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Only the left is corrupt? The right has no corruption as well, in the courts, the legislature, the executive? Let’s be reasonable: corruption and hypocrisy are widespread on both sides of the aisle. Yet despite all its flaws, it’s the greatest country on earth, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Do you agree?
S
sallybutler
Guest
What state do you live in? in my state the only “ballot” number was the precinct number. And the stack for my precinct all had the same number.
J
JanR
Guest
I agree! Just think of the persecution that could result if it were known who voted for whom or what. Instant targeting! No thanks! Our votes are secret for that very reason – to protect US, and to protect the integrity of elections. People wouldn’t vote if they were afraid of being found out and penalized in some way.Victoria33:
So you want to do away with the secret ballot? I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. So long as the voter is identified properly before being issues a ballot, and there are safeguards in place to show that a mail-in or drop-off ballot was filled in by the actual voter, there should be no way to tie a specific ballot, once cast, to a person.
As it is, there’s so much intolerance today that it’s no longer safe to express which candidate one favors, even in casual conversation.
P
phil3
Guest
All I know and remember is there was a number on the paper and he entered it into the voting machine.
I will say this, I had already decided if trump won or lost, it was my last vote for anyone running for the Presidency
I will say this, I had already decided if trump won or lost, it was my last vote for anyone running for the Presidency
Last edited:
L
lemongrass80
Guest
What is your basis for that assertion? Or are you just making things up on the fly?
L
lemongrass80
Guest
And if they had counted mail in first, it would have been Biden with the huge lead that whittled away as day of votes were counted. There is nothing suspicious about that. Mail in was discouraged by trump and encouraged by Biden. Mail in is counted last. How are people not understanding this.
J
JanR
Guest
In all fairness, I do have a question about the allegations that Republican poll watchers were illegally prevented from monitoring the counts:
Were these people who were prevented meaningful access official poll watchers, or only from Mr. Trump’s campaign?
If they were barring official poll watchers from doing their job, that was blatantly against the law. Nearly every state has laws mandating that poll watchers from both parties can be present to evaluate the ballots that are being counted, to ensure against irregularities and fraud. They HAVE to allow them.
But, I’m not sure if those laws include a candidate’s campaign people, unless they are also official poll watchers.
Is anyone in Mr. Trump’s campaign an official poll watcher? If so, he or she has every right to be allowed meaningful access. If not, then our president may not have a legitimate case.
One guest on FOX was asked that very question, and he quickly said “everyone,” then hurriedly moved on. I got the impression he was eager to gloss over that question with that single word. It was more the way he answered than the answer itself. He said it fast, as though he hoped it wouldn’t be pursued further, then immediately steered the conversation off of that particular question. It worked, as the host didn’t continue to pursue it.
These little nuances can and often do mean something.
His response was itself inaccurate, in that “Everyone” would include Democrats as well as Republicans. His answer was faulty. The allegation is that Republican watchers are being denied meaningful access.
I’m very much in favor of Mr. Trump being re-elected, as most of you know. But, if finer points of law like this are being ignored, that’s a problem. It’s probably why the election commission in one of the states filed an appeal against a judge’s order to allow sixty members from both parties to be able to watch the count, providing they stayed six feet away, and behind a barrier (as per COVID).
They may be fearing that if campaign people are allowed in lieu of or in addition to official poll watchers, that some ballots might get wrongfully rejected. Whether or not there’s any basis for that suspicion I can’t say. But that’s probably why they appealed the decision.
It was interesting to note that one guest reported that after the judge issued that order allowing ballots to be monitored from six feet away, the election people simply moved their entire staff and machinery further away from the barrier so the watchers STILL couldn’t see anything!
That would have constituted a roundabout way of defying the judge’s order. Keep the barrier that originally was only six feet away, but just move the whole process across the room so that accessibility would still be denied. If that really happened, as the guest on FOX news reported, it was a dirty trick, and should have been punished. Last I heard, it’s illegal to violate a judge’s order, either directly or indirectly, and such action may be punishable by automatic jail time.
Mr. Trump’s campaign needs to be totally transparent on ALL of these details. He should advise his people to address them more fully and more clearly.
Were these people who were prevented meaningful access official poll watchers, or only from Mr. Trump’s campaign?
If they were barring official poll watchers from doing their job, that was blatantly against the law. Nearly every state has laws mandating that poll watchers from both parties can be present to evaluate the ballots that are being counted, to ensure against irregularities and fraud. They HAVE to allow them.
But, I’m not sure if those laws include a candidate’s campaign people, unless they are also official poll watchers.
Is anyone in Mr. Trump’s campaign an official poll watcher? If so, he or she has every right to be allowed meaningful access. If not, then our president may not have a legitimate case.
One guest on FOX was asked that very question, and he quickly said “everyone,” then hurriedly moved on. I got the impression he was eager to gloss over that question with that single word. It was more the way he answered than the answer itself. He said it fast, as though he hoped it wouldn’t be pursued further, then immediately steered the conversation off of that particular question. It worked, as the host didn’t continue to pursue it.
These little nuances can and often do mean something.
His response was itself inaccurate, in that “Everyone” would include Democrats as well as Republicans. His answer was faulty. The allegation is that Republican watchers are being denied meaningful access.
I’m very much in favor of Mr. Trump being re-elected, as most of you know. But, if finer points of law like this are being ignored, that’s a problem. It’s probably why the election commission in one of the states filed an appeal against a judge’s order to allow sixty members from both parties to be able to watch the count, providing they stayed six feet away, and behind a barrier (as per COVID).
They may be fearing that if campaign people are allowed in lieu of or in addition to official poll watchers, that some ballots might get wrongfully rejected. Whether or not there’s any basis for that suspicion I can’t say. But that’s probably why they appealed the decision.
It was interesting to note that one guest reported that after the judge issued that order allowing ballots to be monitored from six feet away, the election people simply moved their entire staff and machinery further away from the barrier so the watchers STILL couldn’t see anything!
That would have constituted a roundabout way of defying the judge’s order. Keep the barrier that originally was only six feet away, but just move the whole process across the room so that accessibility would still be denied. If that really happened, as the guest on FOX news reported, it was a dirty trick, and should have been punished. Last I heard, it’s illegal to violate a judge’s order, either directly or indirectly, and such action may be punishable by automatic jail time.
Mr. Trump’s campaign needs to be totally transparent on ALL of these details. He should advise his people to address them more fully and more clearly.
P
phil3
Guest
Right now each member represent 735,000 people. When the population of the USA hits 500,000,000 each member will represent 1.14 million. Not only should there be a bottom limit of 35,000 we need to set an upper limit around 200,000. I would also have senators selected by state legislatures.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
phil3 . . .
I disagree phil3. The cheat-ballots were already printed. (My opinion.)
D
Dovekin
Guest
Except in Wyoming, Vermont and DC. The population in these is less than 650,000, so they are over represented. 650k would be a more equitable divisor than 735k. California would get an additional 11 representatives, but most states would not change much.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
JanR . . .
There are probably MANY witnesses to corruption and graft publicly posting.
Twitter etc. is working furiously to jettison such credible posts as soon as they can (my opinion).
Yes. At least that is all I have come across. I am going to begin a thread on one eyewitness account.
There are probably MANY witnesses to corruption and graft publicly posting.
Twitter etc. is working furiously to jettison such credible posts as soon as they can (my opinion).
Last edited:
J
JanR
Guest
Which is why I don’t use Twitter and shall never use Twitter.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Okay, that provides as much substantiation as any other rumor. Got it!
- Status