Calling the States
-
@bachophile said in Calling the States:
How can there be a massive conspiracy in four states involving hundreds of vote counters and not one scrap of evidence?
I am not addressing conspiracy I am addressing the right for timely results. It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
You were warned.
-
@George-K
"That's because it was a data entry error in Shiawassee County and in the Michigan tabulations. I watched it happen. It temporarily took Trump's lead from 270k down to 70k. They fixed it pretty quickly and it was only on Decision Desk HQ that the error occurred (that's the site your screenshot is from) because it happened when they imported results from the various county websites in Michigan." link -
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
Which state are we talking about? Is @Loki in Pennsylvania?
-
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
-
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
Scotus? You tell me.
Lol. I’m not clear anymore either. But regardless who’s fault it is we have the right to know right away. If Florida can do it anyone can. Of course if it’s too close to call you have recounts.
-
Who the fuck is Rogan O'Handley?
He seem to know a lot about cheating in elections. Maybe they should lock that twat up.
-
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
Maybe the Supreme Court will find him guilty. Do you think he's considered that?
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
Maybe the Supreme Court will find him guilty. Do you think he's considered that?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Calling the States:
Maybe the Supreme Court
Can Donald Trump Litigate His Way to Victory via the Supreme Court? Not Likely
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118159
I’ve been saying consistently that the only way the 2020 presidential election ends up being decided by the courts is if there is a dispute in a state that is central to an electoral college victory and that the dispute in that state is so close (or there is such a massive failure in the election) that the election is within the margin of litigation.
As of this moment (though things can change) it does not appear that either condition will be met. It does not seem that Pennsylvania will be crucial to a Biden electoral college victory and so any litigation over ballots there would not matter.
Even if it came down to Pennsylvania, it would have to be so close that there would be something to litigate over. If it is tens of thousands of votes separating the candidates (as currently in the Michigan totals), it is virtually impossible that a recount or litigation could change an outcome.
Of course, if it does come down to a state like PA and it comes down to ballots arriving between Nov. 3 and 6, the Republicans can go back to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get those thrown out. For reasons I’ve explained, the reliance interest of the voters makes this very unlikely (and the Supreme Court passed up two chances to act on this).
The other lawsuits in PA don’t seem to present much hope for flipping a lot of votes; they involve what appears to be a relatively small number of provisional ballots.
So could the election be litigated to a conclusion? Sure. But it’s not likely unless there is significant tightening in both the electoral college projections and the absolute margin in a key state.
-
'Twas just a joke. I didn't actually think the Supreme Court can put him on trial.
-
Pennsylvania aside, I would agree that the election and voting stops on Election Day.
The counting stops when you finish counting. That’s something I assume all would agree with.
As for Pa, strong believers in states rights should support that the state has the right to accept votes until nov 6 if it so decides. The state Supreme Court supported it. And that was upheld by SCOTUS including the opinion of the Chief Justice.
Don’t see the problem
@bachophile said in Calling the States:
Pennsylvania aside, I would agree that the election and voting stops on Election Day.
The counting stops when you finish counting. That’s something I assume all would agree with.
As for Pa, strong believers in states rights should support that the state has the right to accept votes until nov 6 if it so decides. The state Supreme Court supported it. And that was upheld by SCOTUS including the opinion of the Chief Justice.
Don’t see the problem
This is a federal election, not a state election. I'm the most pro-state's rights person on this board. I'm also the person who has promoted the sanctity of the vote, more than any other.
My position has been consistent for twenty years.
- Dems engage in election fraud, mostly in big cities, but sometimes on a statewide level. I was born and raised in a state that routinely had dead people vote. Often.
To prevent any type of election fraud, you show up with ID in hand, sign your name and vote. This ain't rocket surgery. Exceptions can be made for military, embassy personnel and accomodations can be made for early and absentee voting, as long as it is done in person, with ID and signature.
- Mail-in votes should not be allowed. See point number one. But if they are allowed, the ballot must be marked appropriately, the signature must match, an audit trail must accompany the ballot and the envelope it was received in, and the mail-in ballot should be received by the end of election day, no matter where it was mailed from.
-
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
Maybe the Supreme Court will find him guilty. Do you think he's considered that?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Calling the States:
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
Maybe the Supreme Court will find him guilty. Do you think he's considered that?
Hope you have a weapon and ammunition for it.
-
So, this is how humour dies. Without rapturous applause. Or, let's face it, any kind of applause.
