3
warkyd 3 points ago +3 / -0

There is evidence, it's why the GOP had to get the order locally then get it repeated by the SCOP then repeated by Alito again. It isn't just that it wasn't being followed, the issue is that officials who just sit in an office made no attempt to verify it was being followed, while claiming it was.

3
warkyd 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's just shadowbanning now.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

Would love to. But the process has us 1-2 states away from losing. So if the process could be this fine tuned, why allow it to get so far behind in the first place?

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state

For Wisconsin and Michigan I got them off state run .gov websites, but I've clicked so many the last two days trying to sift through the nonsense it'd be impossible to find again.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

And then we're still left with only one of two remedies. SCOTUS takes no action for whatever reason. SCOTUS rules new election.

If they can show that corrupted ballots exceed one candidates lead over the other, they could throw those out then require a recount. But that would happen before SCOTUS, possibly. Trump's people are going to be looking for registrations and other info to invalidate those ballots and that's state level issues.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

Too many things don't add up.
https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324375754814218240 Having the application received and approved and shipped out and received and filled and mailed back and received by the polling station in one day tells me someone in the elections commission did that on the down low.

2
warkyd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Two judicial options:

  1. SCOTUS throws out several hundred thousand votes giving PA and the election to Trump

What do you think the immediate reaction to this would be from Democrats? That reaction is enough to make Roberts flip and hide behind some jackass sense of need to protect the establishment, trust in the process, blah blah blah. I lean the way of saying Kavanaugh and Barrett would join Roberts, and make some half-assed ruling about no proof of fraud during the time observers were not present. So judicial restraint requires them not to toss the ballots.

And keeping in mind that districts and counties tend to vote predictably for one party or the other, what do you think would occur once it is established that getting your poll watcher barred or even just obstructed means those votes get tossed? Almost absolute anarchy every election.

  1. SCOTUS rules new presidential election, if that is even possible for POTUS.

That will require absolute proof of widespread fuckery. The easiest most glaring proof of that, in my mind, is in Michigan. Essential Fleccas has a dead person who applied for a mail-in ballot, had the application processed and approved, the ballot was mailed out, filled out, and return by mail all in the same day. The fastest you can have a piece of mail delivered is next day, and that was delivered twice in one day. That was done by someone somewhere in the elections commission organization. So that calls into question the whole thing in Michigan because part of the EC is participating in the fuckery. In Pennsylvania, there's clear proof of dead people voting, among other things, the question will be whether or not that suggests a need to revote even if you can't prove the vote difference falls within the margin of fraud.

The up side is that Pennsylvania couldn't conceivably do mail-in voting due to constitutionally mandated inauguration day. But to further poop on your cereal, ACB could have prevented a large portion of the problem. https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/amy-coney-barrett-doesnt-participate-in-pennsylvania-republicans-challenge/ She bowed to pressure and said she didn't have a few hours to read the brief. Her first act was to stab Trump in the back, and I can guarantee that someone told Trump she wouldn't rule that way before he nominated her.

2
warkyd 2 points ago +2 / -0

None are done by DHS. Every ballot is done by the state that is going to count it.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

The federal government doesn't order the paper for the states, and it is infinitely easier for the state to find the "approved" manufacturer and order more even if the name was some kind of secret.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are they willing to go on the record? I can anonymously claim Biden directed me to create the 500,000 mail-in ballots and the Pennsylvania AG assisted all day long, unless I'm on record it means nothing.

2
warkyd 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've got my whip in my dung... I mean spare bedroom.

2
warkyd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mueller couldn't find his own report to read it before testifying.

5
warkyd 5 points ago +6 / -1

It's to reduce the amount of people contesting the ballot, not for time sake. That's not even a thing. How long it takes to scan impacts a sum total of nothing.

6
warkyd 6 points ago +9 / -3

The one that didn't happen. The one that had the magical watermark order that broke the constitution by having the federal government print the ballots for the states.

0
warkyd 0 points ago +1 / -1

You can't get ballots that appear legitimate throw out by a court. I can guarantee that won't happen. The only remedy is to get a new election.

0
warkyd 0 points ago +1 / -1

It really isn't reasonable. Possible fraud isn't going to be enough to get a new election. If they can show enough dead people voted, ballots were destroyed, or fraudulent ballots were used in some of these states, that might get some form of judicial remedy. Otherwise prepare for bad news. The courts are not going to toss out hundreds of ballots because poll watchers were not there if those ballots appear legit upon scrutiny.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +2 / -1

You want the courts to be reasonable?
Judge Sullivan, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals would like to have a word with you about beachfront property for sale in Iowa.

1
warkyd 1 point ago +2 / -1

Wisconsin had a turn out rate of 93% and Michigan had a turnout rate of 95% and climbing. Not fracking possible, especially when the rest of the country is just shy of 70%.

2
warkyd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because if they did it in an orderly manner, the results would be been similar to Florida and Ohio.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›