C
CTBcin
Guest
I can’t believe some people actually believe that the Democrats and/or some shadowy organization managed to rig the election in Biden’s favor in a Republican-run state. A lot of conspiracy theorist nonsense going on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dan123
Guest
Especially in a state that historically, when their process has been challenged, has been for making it harder for certain groups that tend to lean more democratic, to vote. GA is a weird place to test your election stealing powers.I can’t believe some people actually believe that the Democrats and/or some shadowy organization managed to rig the election in Biden’s favor in a Republican-run state. A lot of conspiracy theorist nonsense going on.
1
1ke
Guest
Sidney Powell is now alleging state level Republicans and the CIA are involved.I can’t believe some people actually believe that the Democrats and/or some shadowy organization managed to rig the election in Biden’s favor in a Republican-run state. A lot of conspiracy theorist nonsense going on.
If this was a Tom Clancy novel it would have all one stars on Amazon for being so ridiculous.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
This is what I understand.
The Dems had over 300 lawsuits in the last year, one state after another, to destroy the safeguards put in place.
No signatures required.
No matching of signatures
postal dates on the mail in ballots extended past the election
Deadlines on mail in ballots extended yet in person voting stops at the end of election day.
The Dems oppose…
Voter ID
verifying signatures
proving citizenship
residency, that you are voting where you live.
eligibility
These are all safeguards in place to make a legal and fair election. WHY would a party go in force to remove these safeguards?
After all of this nonsense, do they make sure that the Republican observers can actually observe, as is the law? No. They force them out of the ballet counting room.
It is the law that both Dem and Republican observers observe, so there’s no cheating.
Then, they oppose any audits of the ballets.
So if anyone is going to make a claim for ‘what’s good for the country’ they should stand up for a fair and legal election and not support this kind of criminal conduct.
The Dems had over 300 lawsuits in the last year, one state after another, to destroy the safeguards put in place.
No signatures required.
No matching of signatures
postal dates on the mail in ballots extended past the election
Deadlines on mail in ballots extended yet in person voting stops at the end of election day.
The Dems oppose…
Voter ID
verifying signatures
proving citizenship
residency, that you are voting where you live.
eligibility
These are all safeguards in place to make a legal and fair election. WHY would a party go in force to remove these safeguards?
After all of this nonsense, do they make sure that the Republican observers can actually observe, as is the law? No. They force them out of the ballet counting room.
It is the law that both Dem and Republican observers observe, so there’s no cheating.
Then, they oppose any audits of the ballets.
So if anyone is going to make a claim for ‘what’s good for the country’ they should stand up for a fair and legal election and not support this kind of criminal conduct.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Allowing them to remain in the building is not the same as standing and observing an envelope opened. Save the mocking and sarcasm.
The Republican team had to get a court order to be allowed to see the ballots, and they still were made to stand a significant distance away. Why should the American people stand for this kind of nonsense?
The Republican team had to get a court order to be allowed to see the ballots, and they still were made to stand a significant distance away. Why should the American people stand for this kind of nonsense?
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Can you provide a source for cases where no signatures are required, or where signature matching isn’t occurring? I don’t need them all just curious where that occurred because above someone mentioned Lindsey Graham wanting to throw out the entire set of ballots if an area had too many signature irregularities.The Dems had over 300 lawsuits in the last year, one state after another, to destroy the safeguards put in place.
No signatures required.
No matching of signatures
postal dates on the mail in ballots extended past the election
Deadlines on mail in ballots extended yet in person voting stops at the end of election day.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
No Penny, you do not understand. These things you’ve listed are NOT TRUE.This is what I understand.
Also NOT TRUE as demonstrated by the lawsuits Trump lost when the judge asked them point blank if they had observers in the room and the lawyer had to answer truthfully. He responded “yes”. Case dismissed.After all of this nonsense, do they make sure that the Republican observers can actually observe, as is the law? No. They force them out of the ballet counting room.
This also is not true.Then, they oppose any audits of the ballets.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
This is not true.The Republican team had to get a court order to be allowed to see the ballots,
W
whatistrue
Guest
Yeah, she was removed from it recently. And Giuliani himself (if he isn’t part of the team, then who is?) has been in court several times and even said in open court that the case wasn’t about fraud. So if they now state that it isn’t fraud, then what is the issue? Or is there really nothing there at all? Based on how it was received by Judge Brann (Federal judge in District Courts in PA): “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened,” Brann added. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” .There’s a difference between private attorneys and Trump’s actual legal team. Technically speaking, even Sidney Powell is not a member of his legal team.
Kind of sums up the merits of the “stolen election” narrative to me.
K
Kei
Guest
I don’t think she ever was a part, technically speaking (though technicalities and all).Yeah, she was removed from it recently. And Giuliani himself (if he isn’t part of the team, then who is?) has been in court several times and even said in open court that the case wasn’t about fraud.
I don’t know the specific case you mean. I know there are various cases that allege various things. At least the case in PA of the court’s lack of authority to change election law seems a constitutional issue. I think there’s a claim of lack of “meaningful access” to ballot watchers, which is a different issue than straight-up fraud, though it is related in there it allows fraud to occur.
Etc etc. It isn’t conducive to link this all up as just one case, it’s a litany of cases.
We will see what happens. I am suspending judgment until we get more conclusive results.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I don’t think she ever was a part, technically speaking
and
An interesting thing about this one is:
“The campaign claimed that she “is not a member of the Trump legal team,” even though the president and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had previously identified her as being on the team.”
I would say she was and now she isn’t and some are pretending she never was.
1
1ke
Guest
Quote, Donald Trump, Twitter on Nov 14:I don’t think she ever was a part, technically speaking (though technicalities and all).
I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!
US District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania: Donald J Trump for President et al VS. Kathy Boockvar et alI don’t know the specific case you mean.
Completely baseless and meritless, and dismissed with prejudice by federal judge Brann.
All of which have been dismissed.I know there are various cases that allege various things.
They did not change election law.At least the case in PA of the court’s lack of authority to change election law seems a constitutional issue.
Which has already been dismissed. Case lost.I think there’s a claim of lack of “meaningful access” to ballot watchers,
K
Kei
Guest
Like I said, technicalities (that she apparently agrees with).a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives !
Thanks for the case name, I will look into it.
They determined ballots arriving up to three days later could be counted, which was not determined by the legislature…“ballot counting law”, I guess?They did not change election law.
I believe there were multiple allegations. In Michigan, for instance, it was dismissed because the counting was already finished. In PA iirc they won the ability to be closer but it wasn’t being enforced, something like that. But cases are not simply “lost” but can go further through appeals.Which has already been dismissed. Case lost.
I think it’s a good idea to wait for the final results. If they have nothing and lose almost all their cases, through all the appeals and all, then that is one thing. If they end up having some important winners, then that is another.
If they end up showing no large fraud, then that could increase trust in the election process.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Actually, they can’t.I believe there were multiple allegations. In Michigan, for instance, it was dismissed because the counting was already finished. In PA iirc they won the ability to be closer but it wasn’t being enforced, something like that. But cases are not simply “lost” but can go further through appeals.
What is being alleged in press conferences and twitter rants is that the observers were not allowed close enough to inspect ballots and challenge them. Guess what? that’s because OBSERVERS cannot do that.
What they alleged in court was that they weren’t allowed to be close enough to observe “meaningfully” whatever that means, and they were allowed to move about 3 feet closer. Still not allowed to challenge ballots because observers can ONLY observe what the poll workers do, not challenge ballots.
Not according to the state supreme court, which cited another part of the elections law that deemed it allowable.They determined ballots arriving up to three days later could be counted, which was not determined by the legislature…“ballot counting law”, I guess?
Wait for what?I think it’s a good idea to wait for the final results
W
whatistrue
Guest
(bold mine)If they end up showing no large fraud, then that could increase trust in the election process.
That (no large fraud) has already been demonstrated multiple times, and the continued insistence on making baseless allegations is steadily weakening the electorate’s faith in the process, started because of one man’s monumental ego. Yes, one must have a very large ego to even try to become President of the United States, but this individual’s goes well beyond any previous President (Johnson, I believe, came closest in both ego and abrasiveness, but he at least had the self-awareness to know that he should not run for re-election in 1968).
1
1ke
Guest
They’ve already lost 34 cases.If they have nothing and lose almost all their cases,
They “won” one case, the one that allowed election watcher to move 3 feet closer to observe vote counting.
K
Kei
Guest
Either all the lawsuits to finish up to see if there’s anything there or the electors to elect the next president, whichever is first.Wait for what?
I believe they won one of those cases in a lower court, but this higher court goes against them. It’ll probably go to SCOTUS.Not according to the state supreme court, which cited another part of the elections law that deemed it allowable.
Presumably, it means to be close enough to see what is going on. I didn’t say anything about challenging ballots.What they alleged in court was that they weren’t allowed to be close enough to observe “meaningfully” whatever that means
1
1ke
Guest
It already did.It’ll probably go to SCOTUS.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, that’s the slight of hand Rudy and Co. are using. Rudy says their watchers aren’t close enough to challenge ballots when he is in press conferences in an intentional move to try to undermine confidence in the ballot counting process. He went so far as to say that this invalidates over 700K ballots in PA.Presumably, it means to be close enough to see what is going on. I didn’t say anything about challenging ballots.
He won’t say it in court, because he knows observers can’t challenge ballots.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
I don’t think that is true. Such a thing would indeed be very difficult to demonstrate. The closest is looking at all credible allegations of fraud and demonstrating these are false. There’s almost undoubtedly some fraud, because a lot of people with passionate views are involved. The question is if it is enough to change any results.That (no large fraud) has already been demonstrated multiple times,
I disagree with the idea you have to have a big ego to be president. You could also be selfless, and probably somewhere in-between. Usually presidents age pretty quickly, too. I am not saying the current or past presidents fit either of these molds, please understand…
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.