Is it immigration? Is it election reform? Is it keeping the US out of pointless foreign conflicts? Feel free to list more than three.
... would the pact be invalid if some of your friends were drunk off their asses when they voted and the majority ended up choosing a seniors cruise when half the group is married?
It seems like each ballot would have a unique identifier and that unique identifier would be recorded along with the vote information. Scanning the same ballot multiple times would result in duplicates that would be eliminated in the tabulation process.
Big tech and billionaires gave hundreds of millions of dollars to democrat cities to "help" with the election. These cities used this money to hire left wing activists as their election officials. This explains many of the facts we've observed:
- Enormous turnout numbers in just a few democrat run cities overturning election
- Election officials exhibiting democrat promotional materials
- Election officials hostile to republicans
- Election officials encouraging voters to vote democrat
- Election counting "mistakes" tending to favor democrats
Somewhat ironically, big tech/billionaires were able to write this off as a contribution of a 501c3. In other words, instead of providing outright support for the candidate they bought the people doing the counting and were even able to claim a charitable write-off!
What are the key statistic they should be reporting?
- Signature rejection rate
- Absentee/mail in vote percentage
- Number of affidavits alleging lack of poll watcher access
- These statistics in their most populous counties
- Others
Primary the RINOs. It's a lot easier to win the GOP primary (typically with a fraction of the number of voters) than it is to run third party in the general election.
Any elected official who violates a law they voted for, signed, or enacted by executive order shall be subject to incarceration in a state penitentiary for two days per violation. The elected official must be incarcerated in the general population and may not be granted any special provisions not ordinarily available to inmates. Additionally, the elected official is subject to ten times the maximum statutory penalty for violating said law or executive order.
This does not apply to elected officials who did not vote for, sign, or enact the law. This does not apply to elected officials that no longer hold any elected office at the time of the violation.
At the request of any state representative or senator, the state attorney general must issue a written statement indicating whether or not an elected official will be charged.
======
Many states have initiative processes that could enable such laws to be passed.
Philip DeFranco has over 6M subscribers and routinely gets close to a million views on his daily news show on YouTube. There have been rumors that the democrats would be using the same playbook used by the CIA to influence foreign elections which includes paying off key influencers. Not so long ago DeFranco had a more moderate tone and was actually occasionally lumped in with conservative voices. Subjectively speaking he seems much less sincere recently (when talking about the election) than he has been in the past talking about other topics in the past (mostly internet gossip).
Is it possible that DeFranco received payments in exchange for coming out against Trump?
Due to mishandling of the election and a lack of transparency, it may be impossible to determine who won. It may be sufficient for Trump to simply demonstrate that without the hanky-panky he might have won.
Does this seem plausible?
Who could have imagined the Republican party picking up record black, Hispanic, and gay support while retaining evangelical support. Republican voters from these groups all share the common bond of a love of liberty.
Watching the chicanery and sitting through the subsequent challenges will undoubtedly be difficult for many, but ultimately this may be the best for our country.
It will be impossible for the news media to ignore the questions of voting impropriety over the next several weeks. Although they will steadfastly insist that any irregularities and fraud are too small to be a concern, it will still bring focus to the issue and at a minimum make the point that elections are too important to even have appearance or question of impropriety.
Meanwhile the democrats advocate:
- Unsolicited mail in ballots
- No postmark required
- No signature or no matching signature required
- No voter id
- Continue counting ballots after the election
- Ballot harvesting
- Voting for illegal aliens
These are all things that clearly raise election integrity questions.
Never has their been greater contrasts between two candidates in our lifetimes.
China
- Trump: decouple, America first
- Biden: 47 years of offshoring
Unity
- Trump: shared future, 1776, platinum plan
- Biden: past injustice, blm, critical race theory, 1619
Peace
- Trump: end permanent war
- Biden: return to status quo
Covid
- Trump: open up, cure can't be worse than problem
- Biden: lock down, masks
Women
- Trump: protect spaces for biological women
- Biden: trans rights
Safety
- Trump: 2A, police, law & order
- Biden: unrest, defunding police, cashless bail, projects in suburbs
Speech
- Trump: political incorrectness
- Biden: cancel culture, censorship, media blackout
Government
- Trump: drain the swamp
- Biden: court packing, end filibuster, dc statehood, ballot harvesting, influence peddling
Energy
- Trump: energy independence
- Biden: climate change, renewables, rolling blackouts
Health care
- Trump: transparency, telemedicine, most favored nation, preexisting conditions
- Biden: government healthcare
Immigration
- Trump: the wall, end catch & release, merit, h1b reform
- Biden: open borders, amnesty, benefits for undocumented, h1b expansion
Economy
- Trump: record employment & stock market, deregulation, tariffs, tax cuts
- Biden: free college, higher taxes, green new deal, socialism
The VP debate was an absolute win for Pence and accomplished three very big things:
- Raised serious concerns about Biden destroying the federal government through court packing
- Debunked the "fine people" hoax on a national stage resulting in an accurate fact check by the BBC.
- Showed Kamala to not be particularly presidential.
On top of that, you have:
- the President recovering from Covid in mere days and now speaking about this plague from a position of experience;
- growing unrest amongst BLM/antifa now attacking suburban neighborhoods; and,
- increasing confusion over Biden's policies regarding the taxes, fracking, and the green new deal.
Biden based his campaign against Trump on racism and covid--and both of these attacks are utterly falling apart. At the same time, the primary attacks on Biden are crystalizing: court packing which will destabilize our government and put our democracy into unknown territory, destructive economic policies that will plunge the country into a depression, and growing unrest amongst BLM/antifa which Biden can't credibly be depended on to quell. You may not like Trump, but what scares you more: dubious claims of racism and mishandling of a pandemic that is essentially over; or, government instability, economic collapse, and civil unrest.
Removing section 230 protections is the nuclear option. Many of us are so frustrated with big tech we're ready to use it, but you should realize this will effectively destroy any tech company upon which it is used. Another option to consider is establishing a "Content Creator's Bill of Rights" which would set forth the privileges and obligations between a platform and the content creators that use that platform. This would probably be popular on both the left and right. Everyone is frustrated with how platforms treat content creators.
What would be in a Content Creator's Bill of Rights? Here are some ideas:
- Would only impact platforms with a certain number of content creators and a certain number of users
- Would distinguish between forums (such as thedonald.win), postings (such as this posting), comments (such as the comments that you would leave)
- Would distinguish between platform owners (e.g. reddit) , forum moderators (volunteer reddit moderators), content creators (people who post on reddit), commenters (people that comment on posted content), and content flaggers (people that flag content for removal, including copyright claims)
- Would require clear articulation of the rules regarding what content is not allowed
- Would require the content creator be notified of any discrimination that is not purely algorithmic (i.e. involves a human) applied to that content including deletion, shadow banning, demonetization, and the addition of labels such as "false news"
- Would require content discrimination notification to include a specific citation of the platform rule being violated and the specific aspect of the content violating that rule
- Would require platform provider to make content discrimination decisions publicly available in order to demonstrate that platform rules are being applied in an unbiased manner
- Would require platform provider to provide a clearly articulated appeals process
- Would provide a means of involving the judicial system if the appeals process failed to provide a satisfactory remedy for the parties involved
- Would provide special penalties for repeated bad faith efforts to flag content
Other ideas?
This is obviously a parody of the insane headlines produced by legacy media.
