It would cost a great deal of money but if we can spent millions on Russian collusion, we can spent some money in one state audit.gam197:
Up thread you were incredulous that GA would be able to verify all those people, and here you present the exact mechanism they’re using as a novel idea.
Yes you can call your legislatures and request that an honest recount take place in Georgia or PA,. I do not think people are hopeless in a a questionable result in election.
It feels more like “74 million voters want to disqualify the election / disenfranchise the voters, and get some sort of do-over”…
I haven’t heard this one. Who’s making this claim? What evidence do they have? Do you have a link to share (ideally, not from some random guy’s Twitter account)?
If it’s just some guy saying “I heard from a FOAF that this happened”, then yeah… a shrug. If we’ve got a real, substantiated allegation, though? Yeah… some sort of explanation is reasonable!
Let’s face it: that’s the goal that folks are working toward.
Nope. Not what I’m saying. I’m not saying “ignore it because the consequences are too great.” Rather, I’m saying “put your cards on the table, and not just FOAF stories that have been spread through social media” and “if there’s no realistic goal – other than a delaying tactic for certification in the hopes of getting legislatures to nullify the will of the people who voted – then why keep picking at it?”
Yet another personal blog. YAWN.
So… your discombobulation is sufficient reason to launch a widespread probe? C’mon…
No, they wouldn’t… be realistic. Instead, if an audit came back “no fraud” or even “no fraud that affects the outcome”, they’d claim that it was a cover-up by “big media, big money, and big tech”, and just go on believing whatever narratives fit their already preconceived conclusions.
Funny, I haven’t read any of those on these forums who claim anything about opposition to Trump as being a criteria for disenfranchisement.
No, but you, yourself, have listed a criteria for voting should be sufficient loyalty to the nation. It’s a small step to link loyalty to a particular person, or party. We know it would be done. Accusations of disloyalty against the opposing party are as old as the nation itself.
So Big Media is not hiding or covering up any allegations at all? It is all “tin-foil-hattery?”
I didn’t list any criteria. I provided a guideline. That is a different matter.HarryStotle:
No, but you, yourself, have listed a criteria for voting should be sufficient loyalty to the nation. It’s a small step to link loyalty to a particular person, or party. We know it would be done. Accusations of disloyalty against the opposing party are as old as the nation itself.
I’m disappointed to see that you are linking me to the Democratic Party (of which I am not a member), and to attempts to disenfranchise conservative voters.
First, because it’s untrue. I support all eligible citizens voting. All, means all. I even support felons voting. I thought I was clear about that.
Second, because it is just distracting from the point of the thread.
gam197:
There is no right to vote under any qualifications spelled out in the Constitution.
The Fifteenth Amendment "does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three criteria which it does spell out as the reasons the government is not permitted to “abridge” a right to vote…
That is not to say there could not be other valid reasons if the states decided.
Except that it is leading Dems who are (as I showed in Post 420) the ones who are defining the criteria for disenfranchisement (from living in the USA altogether) based upon one’s loyalty to “the opposition party.”HarryStotle:
No, but you, yourself, have listed a criteria for voting should be sufficient loyalty to the nation. It’s a small step to link loyalty to a particular person, or party. We know it would be done. Accusations of disloyalty against the opposing party are as old as the nation itself.
Have any proof of it, or is it just your preconceived opinion?
Have they been going to FB alternatives? That’s the story I’ve been hearing (“they’re suppressing me! I’m going to Parler!!!”)
If the states can’t abridge the right to vote under certain reasons, there is a right to vote preexisting.
For some it is a fluid constitution, that is why this case of voter ballot laws needs to go to the Supreme Court and it will be decided. It is important that we get clarification on all these matters.HarryStotle:
If the states can’t abridge the right to vote under certain reasons, there is a right to vote preexisting.
I would bet you my house that the Supreme Court refuses to hear any of these cases.
Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?
The Hill even reported on it in 2016.HarryStotle:
Have any proof of it, or is it just your preconceived opinion?
I hope it does. I know there are many of these forums who think if it goes to the courts, then the courts will not vote fairly but really this is a separate issue and we need to be clear on what are the laws of the constitution on voting laws. They will tell us what these laws mean and that again will end any disputes. It will be over and yes, Trump supporters may lose but they will trust the court decision.gam197:
I would bet you my house that the Supreme Court refuses to hear any of these cases.
None of them so far have any merit