Biden Takes Georgia; Violence on Horizon

[Gadianton]

Who knows how many more given they don't require signature matches anymore. If we can catch and make an example of just a few of these fraudsters, it may not change 2020 but it will sure change 2022 and 2024.

If the Democrats are so good at systematic fraud across many states, why stop at merely getting the votes needed to win? Why not save the brainy fraud for the votes they need, but then sew in not a few fraudulent votes for Trump. Mail in ballots under the name of known republican voters who vote in person. There's a great narrative here, given that Trump explicitly told his base to vote twice. Then, the Republican's efforts to uncover the fraud result in their own guys getting charged first. The Republicans will publicize what must be a Democratic plot, and then in the next election, Republican voters will be scared to vote; and so that's going to be great for their turnout.

[Res Ipsa]

Electoral fraud is a very rare thing

No it isn't. It's just hard to catch and prove it, especially when places like Philadelphia wouldn't allow partisan observers as required by law. This election had more fraud given the law being relaxed on mail in voting due to Covid.

We already know several dead people voted. Who knows how many more given they don't require signature matches anymore. If we can catch and make an example of just a few of these fraudsters, it may not change 2020 but it will sure change 2022 and 2024.

Trump knows his efforts won't change 2020. He's spending money to go after the fraud for the benefit of his constituents and the conservative agenda. The left better find a way to stop him because without voter fraud they're going to have hard time winning given how bad their policies are for too many Americans.

It’s difficult to find anything that is true in what you wrote Ajax. What you wrote about Philadelphia is a flat out lie; while it’s possible that someone died in the interval between mailing a ballot and Election Day, the only actual fraud I’ve seen proven was a republic who filled out and mailed his dead mother’s ballot. The accusations of dead people voting asked by the GOP consist almost entirely of misidentification or false accusations. My state, which has voted by mail since the mid-2000s always checks signatures. I haven’t looked at the laws for all 50 states, but I can’t think of a state of the top of my head that doesn’t verify signatures for mail in ballots.

Your naïvété about your hero is almost cute. He’s raising money like a fiend off this, and the rubes he’s been fleecing for years keep shelling out more. He says it’s for the lawsuits — until you read the fine print.

It’s painful to watch somebody continue to swallow the same crap he’s been feeding you for years. Wouldn’t you, like, rather eat some pizza or something?

[subgenius]

I agree, and its funny that it has taken 48 months for some of you guys to realize as much.
On another note: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order on Nov. 6 requiring Pennsylvania to segregate ballots that arrived after election day on Nov. 3.
doesn't seem like a passive act from a the Supreme Court willing to defer, does it?

Actually, the PA Supreme Court had already ordered those ballots to be segregated, and the ballots were already being segregated. The rulings in both courts simply preserved the future ability to litigate those ballots.

What you left out is the relief that the Supreme Court failed to grant — that the ballots not even be counted until their legality had been ruled on. That would have been contrary to PA law, which requires election contests to be filed after the votes are certified. So, it sounds very much like a Supreme Court that, quite properly in this instance, deferred to PA law when it comes to voting procedures.

Keep in mind that the conservatives on the Court think “activist” judges are bad. Unlike some politicians who give only lip service to states’ rights, that concept is at the core of their judicial philosophy. Lindsay Graham can spin like a weathervane in a tornado, but these Justices are acutely aware of precedent and the fact their names on Ann opinion are permanent.

I agree with your notions here, but the point is that the Supreme Court did not take a knee, or punt, on the matter. I think Roberts has signaled to more possibilities than you initially supposed.

[Gunnar]

[Replying to Gunnar] I can understand. He and I, I think, start from a fundamental point of agreement. There are fundamental and serious problems with our political and economic system that have nothing to do with Republican v Democrat. Many of our current political disputes function as distractions from those problems. It’s like I was saying to Sub in a different thread, there are a bunch of rich guys making back by pitting Americans against each other, all the while using that distraction to expropriate the wealth and destroy the middle class. It’s not a matter of Democrats as good guys and Republicans as bad guys or Vice verse — they’re all bad guys.

So, I understand his argument, say, that the Russia investigation was a waste of time. All that effort should have been directed toward our real problems like healthcare and abuses by corporations. I get it. I don’t know how he identifies politically, but his positions are common among a certain contingent of the hard left. It’s similar to Bernie Sanders emphasis on economic or class justice. Fix that now, and other problems will go away or be easier to fix.

Our point of departure, I think, is that I think he’s fallen into a trap of pathological both-siderism. Because he sees both sides as equally corrupt and harmful, he concentrated on pointing out problems with the left (which is a little more popular here) and downplay any arguable danger from the right. In addition, he latches on to conspiracy theories that support claims of corruption which, in my opinion, are unnecessary to support his case, represent terrible reasoning, and actually discredit the fundamentals that I think we share common ground on.

I’m afraid this both sideristic blindness, which I commonly see in a section of the left, prevents folks from seeing that both parties supporting a corrupt system for not mean they are equally “bad” at all times. And I think these folks blind themselves to the danger of a populist movement led by a cult like figure who attacks the institutions that bind this country together. I can both consider Trump a serious threat to the stability of the country and recognize that Hillary Clinton is part of our problems, and would not do what needs to be done.

Now, I may have Dr. E. completely wrong and if he thinks the effort worthwhile, he can straighten me out. But I don’t think the answers are clear cut here and he could very well turn out to be right. And I do agree with him that the judicial will, as it has, throw out all the [vulgarity] Trump is throwing at them. But, at the same time, I think Trumps efforts to undermine the foundations of our country should be called out, and it is a serious mistake to present what’s going on as business as usual.

But I’m just one guy, and I could be wrong.

Thank you for that, RI. I agree pretty much with what you said here, and it is pretty much the way I already understand the situation. I don't think that all the Democratic elites (especially those who are numbered among the wealthiest one percent) are entirely blameless and unselfish. They are just not nearly as bad or as brazen as the current crop of Republican elites, especially the Trump supporters and enablers.

[Res Ipsa]

Sub, you’re over interpreting a court stepping to preserve evidence as indicating the Court is inclined to act on the merits. It’s an understandable mistake. It’s almost a no brainier for a court to order evidence preserved before ruling on the merits of a dispute. It’s just common sense.

There are about 10K ballots in dispute. Unless throwing those votes out changes the result of the election, the case is moot. The Trump campaign knows that, which I think is why they filed their kitchen sink lawsuit in Federal Court last week. They need to figure out how to get rid of five times that number of votes before the Court will even review the 10K. So, the kitchen sink.

Look, I’m not saying it’s impossible for the Supreme Court to change the results of an election by throwing out ballots that they have no reason to believe were not validly cast by eligible American voters by overruling a State Supreme Court’s interpretation of its own constitution. But it would be very out of character, especially for Justices that believe in States Rights and that judges should not be activists.

[Gunnar]

Electoral fraud is a very rare thing

No it isn't. It's just hard to catch and prove it, especially when places like Philadelphia wouldn't allow partisan observers as required by law. This election had more fraud given the law being relaxed on mail in voting due to Covid.

We already know several dead people voted. Who knows how many more given they don't require signature matches anymore. If we can catch and make an example of just a few of these fraudsters, it may not change 2020 but it will sure change 2022 and 2024.

Trump knows his efforts won't change 2020. He's spending money to go after the fraud for the benefit of his constituents and the conservative agenda. The left better find a way to stop him because without voter fraud they're going to have hard time winning given how bad their policies are for too many Americans.

The only reason it is so hard to catch and prove it is that it is so rare. What is really rare is being able to get away with voter fraud without getting caught at it. Your accusations are entirely baseless and unsupported by credible evidence. The 2020 election was the ‘most secure in American history’
. Even Trump appointed officials acknowledge that fact, including the Department of Homeland Security. Even the flat earth theory has more compelling evidence in its favor. Do you also accept the flat earth theory, Ajax?

[canpakes]

How does the context, which i blatantly linked in my post, exclude the Democrats in 2020 election?

Rather, how is your implication panning out, regardless of your attempt to conflate the concerns expressed by Warren and Team Trump?

ETA: your ‘blatant link’ has not ever functioned. You should look into that. ; )

[Moksha]

Trump seems like a cornered animal right now, and cornered animals always lash out. He still has power, being the intellectual and moral head of the Republican party.

[canpakes]

It’s painful to watch somebody continue to swallow the same crap he’s been feeding you for years. Wouldn’t you, like, rather eat some pizza or something?

No, because it would come from a pizza parlor that hosts a Democratic pedophile sex ring from the basement that it doesn’t have.

[Jersey Girl]

Do these folks protesting in D.C. think that if Trump doesn't concede that he can somehow hang on to the Presidency?