P
phil3
Guest
plus he helped to bring peace to the middle east
Trump Massive Rally in Washington DC (Nov. 14th) (Tens of Thousands Gather)
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
1 million new voters since 2016 . These figures are well published.
B
billsherman
Guest
I see that you have no evidence that any of these newly registered voters are fraudulent.
I think it is unseemly that you prefer these people would just have not registered.
If people don’t vote for your party, the party should convince them to change their minds - not rage that they had the temerity to vote in the first place.
G
gam197
Guest
gam197:
I see that you have no evidence that any of these newly registered voters are fraudulent.
I think it is unseemly that you prefer these people would just have not registered.
If people don’t vote for your party, the party should convince them to change their minds - not rage that they had the temerity to vote in the first place.
Stacey Abrams is proud of those number and much has been published about the 1 million new voters since 2016. I simply question the Voter Registration part of the License Renewal form and the opt-out section.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
She should be proud of that!
How much more representative would our government be if everyone voted. You don’t appear to agree. That is tragic.
S
superhancpetram
Guest
I am only sorry that I live almost 2,000 miles away and could not be there to support our president.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It is interesting, though, that all the evidence to definitively prove the case for fraud is in the hands of those - Secretaries of State, election officials and so forth - who can merely stand back and place the entire burden on others to prove (dare them really) that fraud occurred.gam197:
I see that you have no evidence that any of these newly registered voters are fraudulent.
Absent full access to those records it is well nigh impossible to prove fraud. The best that can be done at this juncture is to establish a compelling case that fraud may have occurred so that the courts will open the records to the necessary scrutiny.
Absent that, it is left for those who have witnessed what they believe to be fraud to take their complaints to the electoral boards for remedy. If those electoral boards or officials have actually committed fraud it would appear that they wouldn’t just 'fess up, would they?
This was why the Michigan judge dismissed the case brought by observers. His reasoning was that they had not properly taken their complaints first to the electoral officers in charge of the election. So those who may have committed the fraud are the ones to adjudicate whether fraud occurred? Hmmm…
That is why at this point in time fraud could well have happened but would be very difficult to prove since the evidence hasn’t been made available and it is largely in the hands of those who may be responsible for it.
The better remedy would be complete transparency and openness in the process - make the system as fraud-proof as possible so that it cannot occur.
The requirements for signature matching, non-partisan observers in sufficient numbers, strong chain of custody requirements and clearly defined times, procedures and cutoffs for voting should be built into every state system. That didn’t happen in many states.
For those who are interested in the legal status of cases pending and a deep dive into elections and fraud generally, you might be interested in this…
The first 29 minutes concern historical cases of fraud and how the Constitution was set up to limit the possibility. After the 29 min timestamp the current election is discussed at length including several cases adjudicated in the courts.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Right let’s make it so easy to vote that it becomes effortless to do so. Let’s make sure the industrious and thoughtful voters who work hard to educate themselves and demonstrate their commitment to the country by at least putting in the effort to get their shoes on and go stand in line for a few minutes don’t have all the say in how the country is run. (Oh my,gam197:
She should be proud of that!
How much more representative would our government be if everyone voted. You don’t appear to agree. That is tragic.
running sounds so difficult.)No, no. Let’s make it so easy that we will send ballots out so that everyone - even those who wouldn’t get off the couch or make a request for a ballot - still get them anyway. Maybe even two or five in case some get misplaced.
In addition, let’s send out teams of ballot harvesters to collect the votes and maybe even help fill in the ballots or just fill the ballots in for them. Heck, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience anyone. Oh, and we can bring the ballots back for counting, too.
In fact, for months before election day, we will fill the media streams with partisan pundits who will tell (in very condescending and expert sounding voices) those (who can’t be bothered to do their own research on candidates) which candidates are the “chosen” ones who will be glorious for the nation and which candidates will destroy it and kill everyone off. Political candidates are binary like that even though gender definitely is not.
We will even have the pollsters out in full force for weeks telling everyone who they will vote for before they actually do so they won’t forget - just to make sure no one is confused - with 97% accuracy.
Yup, let’s make it so easy to vote that even those who are asleep could do it - or even the dead
.Well done, Stacey! Oh, and congratulations on winning the gubernatorial race in 2016!
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
You do know that there are such things as subpoenas? And disclosure? That courts (and even some non-court governmental organisations) can require those officials to provide information that is needed in order to figure out whether fraud has taken place?billsherman:
It is interesting, though, that all the evidence to definitively prove the case for fraud is in the hands of those - Secretaries of State, election officials and so forth - who can merely stand back and place the entire burden on others to prove (dare them really) that fraud occurred.gam197:
I see that you have no evidence that any of these newly registered voters are fraudulent.
Absent full access to those records it is well nigh impossible to prove fraud. The best that can be done at this juncture is to establish a compelling case that fraud may have occurred so that the courts will open the records to the necessary scrutiny.
Absent that, it is left for those who have witnessed what they believe to be fraud to take their complaints to the electoral boards for remedy. If those electoral boards or officials have actually committed fraud it would appear that they wouldn’t just 'fess up, would they?
This was why the Michigan judge dismissed the case brought by observers. His reasoning was that they had not properly taken their complaints first to the electoral officers in charge of the election. So those who may have committed the fraud are the ones to adjudicate whether fraud occurred? Hmmm…
That is why at this point in time fraud could well have happened but would be very difficult to prove since the evidence hasn’t been made available and it is largely in the hands of those who may be responsible for it.
The better remedy would be complete transparency and openness in the process - make the system as fraud-proof as possible so that it cannot occur.
The requirements for signature matching, non-partisan observers in sufficient numbers, strong chain of custody requirements and clearly defined times, procedures and cutoffs for voting should be built into every state system. That didn’t happen in many states.
For those who are interested in the legal status of cases pending and a deep dive into elections and fraud generally, you might be interested in this…
The first 29 minutes concern historical cases of fraud and how the Constitution was set up to limit the possibility. After the 29 min timestamp the current election is discussed at length including several cases adjudicated in the courts.
Last edited:
O
Odilon
Guest
This is the kind of thing that only happens to Democrats. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution even though we all know she violated the espionage laws. Former top FBI and CIA officials still walk free despite the fact that we all know they spied on the opposition candidate and lied on legal documents called warrants.
O
Odilon
Guest
The Constitution and the rule of law has failed us because people won’t act and the media is engaged in the largest cover-up by not reporting the truth. Joe Biden is guilty of malfeasance as the VP and is now almost the POTUS. Corruption is alive and well in the USA.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Stay in school, kids. Reading comprehension is a real thing. The form does not say what @gam197 claims it says. At all…
P
pnewton
Guest
As a rule, I might make a point like this once, then drop it. The good thing about conversations like this is that there is a record of it. Re-hashing has no purpose as the previous posts are there to read. Unlike a lot of social media that where each passing on adds a further twist from the truth, this one is static. So, we can simply link the posts, or block quote, bow out, and move on.
This is something that we need not forget. All elections in the United States are, by their nature, have temporal limits. The only positions that serve for life are Supreme Court justices which are therefore not elected. The AG’s office has always investigated allegations of chicanery after the election for this very purpose. For a while, there is little political pressure either way to find fraud.
D
Dan123
Guest
The thing is Georgia has been sued over it’s practices related to voter registration several times, and it has consistently been that they place unnecessary hurdles to registration, or make it unduly difficult to resolve discreprencies. E.g. if SSA has your name as Joe Smith, Jr and your birth certificate just says Joe Smith, well your names don’t match so we won’t approve that until you jump through a bunch of hoops. So every time people who actually work to keep elections fair look at GA’s system and find an issue, it’s in the other direction. Which makes it particularly odd for someone to suggest that DDS bypasses the elections office and just adds people to the list of registered voters. It’s not just that there’s no proof, there’s no merit. It’s as I said above like assuming that if a non-citizen mails in a voter registration form that they’re therefore registered to vote, thinking no one will check the data.
P
pnewton
Guest
I was trying to look and see what lawsuits against Georgia had happened before something was needed to make the incumbent a winner. What I found was the opposite of the narrative shown in these law suits. There have been suits, suits that failed, to make voter registration easier. Of all states to face the accusation of over-registration, Georgia is the last place I would pick.
I do not know enough about Stacey Abrams to know if I like her as a politician, but what she pulled off was incredible. After losing these suits, she lead a push that registered a million voters. That is an amazing feat, one that demonstrates that there were voters who had been left out in the cold, and maybe those suits had merit. What does that say about the choice of candidate that can only win if they can keep enough of the wrong type of people from voting?
I do not know enough about Stacey Abrams to know if I like her as a politician, but what she pulled off was incredible. After losing these suits, she lead a push that registered a million voters. That is an amazing feat, one that demonstrates that there were voters who had been left out in the cold, and maybe those suits had merit. What does that say about the choice of candidate that can only win if they can keep enough of the wrong type of people from voting?
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Lines in Georgia were up to ten hours. Lowering the effort would be appreciated.
I had a relatively quick wait of just over an hour.
More than 10-hour wait and long lines as early voting starts in Georgia
Georgia, where at least two counties had problems with electronic pollbooks, is latest state to see extremely long lines on first day of in person voting
www.theguardian.com
A
Allie1
Guest
You’re making generalizations.
I would like to point out that those of us who voted early and by mail does not mean we are not educated, industrious, and thougtful voters.
My husband and I voted early and by mail. We still spent at least 1.5 hours researching every candidate and initiative on our ballot.
What we did not do was stand in a long line during a pandemic. People seem to forget this fact. We are in a pandemic. Many of us who chose to vote by mail, made that choice because of the pandemic. That was most definitely my number one reason for not voting in person this year. When I drove to the election office to turn in our ballots. The line of early voters was outside and lined up around the outside perimeter of the building.
I’m not standing in line with those people
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think the changes the post office made caused some to fear that their mail in ballot might not make it to its destination. These perceptions may have been magnified by stories on postal workers that were not performing their duties. Going in person has some risk and reward considerations. As some people have been generally unhappy with how Trump has handled COVID-19, they may also feel their Vote not getting counted could have the effect of increasing their COVID-19 risk in the future.
A
Allie1
Guest
I think you’re right. That was also my reason for actually going down to the election office drop box and turning in our ballots in person.
I don’t know if my fears about the post office in my community were logical or not. I think that a lot of the rhetoric about the post office did spook me.
Historically speaking I have never had a problem with the post office.
For example, for my state taxes, my state accepts my return on line. But for payment I have to print off a voucher and turn it in via mail. Year, after year, after year, I have printed off this very important form and mailed it via the post office. I have never had one single problem doing that.
I still wonder why the post office felt it was necessary to make changes to their system before the election. It definitely caused a great loss of confidence among the general public.
- Status