Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
So, you haven't read the affidavits nor know if they actually ever filled them out?
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
So, you haven't read the affidavits nor know if they actually ever filled them out?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I didn't wait for the media to give me Navid K-N's affidavit nor the myriad of other public affidavits I've read and linked on this and other threads. Meanwhile, you posted the last paragraph of Navid K-N's affidavit then failed to answer any of the analysis I did on said affidavit. Keep applauding because that may be the level of depth of analysis you are comfortable at. I'll continue to hope and pray for more but then again I might have higher expectations of you than you have for yourself.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
My brother’s summary (he’s actually contested and got a new election):
My thought is that there are isolated cases of fraud in many elections, but mostly in local elections. The question isn't really if there are fraudulent cases - there are. The question is are there enough to change the results of an election. It is incumbent on the aggrieved or losing candidate to provide factual evidence that such is the case. So far, that threshold is nowhere close to having been met. Also consider that in the days immediately following the election, in an unprecedented move, AG Barr instructed the US Dept of Justice to actively investigate any potential fraudulent activity that may have illegally changed the outcome of the presidential election. With the vast resources of the federal government, to my knowledge, they have not uncovered anything noteworthy.
Trump: DOJ 'missing in action' on alleged election fraud
My thought is that there are isolated cases of fraud in many elections, but mostly in local elections. The question isn't really if there are fraudulent cases - there are. The question is are there enough to change the results of an election. It is incumbent on the aggrieved or losing candidate to provide factual evidence that such is the case. So far, that threshold is nowhere close to having been met. Also consider that in the days immediately following the election, in an unprecedented move, AG Barr instructed the US Dept of Justice to actively investigate any potential fraudulent activity that may have illegally changed the outcome of the presidential election. With the vast resources of the federal government, to my knowledge, they have not uncovered anything noteworthy.
Trump: DOJ 'missing in action' on alleged election fraud
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
My only dispute with your clarification is our aggies are aggies and not okie lite. They embrace it. Oklahoma State Shirt- Aggies | State shirts, Shirts, Long sleeve tshirt men
I mean joe exotic for some libertarian votes. So, who am into get in the way of that burn.
Another example of why TDS was so destructive. It made people think emotionally instead of using their brains as to what is behind the "moderate" door with Biden's name on it.
Biden Energy Policies Will Make Blue New Mexico See Red
Biden Energy Policies Will Make Blue New Mexico See Red
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
This lawsuit from the Trump Campaign asking to have ~200k absentee ballots thrown out in Wisconsin was anticipated.
The primary complaint is that state law codifies the reason for Absentee Ballot applications as "indefinite confinement" and some of those absentee voters (200K?) turned in their ballots in person at the polling station. Hilariously, the lead litigator for the Trump Campaign in WI, James Troupis, his wife and the Chairman of the Wisconsin State Republican Party all fall into this 200k and would have their votes tossed it they win.
I'm not a lawyer but any court is going to ask why they waited until now to bring the case when remedy will mean disenfranchising voters. From what I know, Gov. Evers lessened the restrictions on people claiming this status (due to Covid?) in March.
The primary complaint is that state law codifies the reason for Absentee Ballot applications as "indefinite confinement" and some of those absentee voters (200K?) turned in their ballots in person at the polling station. Hilariously, the lead litigator for the Trump Campaign in WI, James Troupis, his wife and the Chairman of the Wisconsin State Republican Party all fall into this 200k and would have their votes tossed it they win.
I'm not a lawyer but any court is going to ask why they waited until now to bring the case when remedy will mean disenfranchising voters. From what I know, Gov. Evers lessened the restrictions on people claiming this status (due to Covid?) in March.
Then why have any rules concerning votes? We can draw a line anywhere and say if a violation occurs we should ignore it because of disenfranchisement. It's anarchy. Some people just have to get their **** together and others unfortunately may have complications that can't be accommodated 100%. People self-disenfranchise every election. Jessie Jackson spoke of this when he ran for President.
Throwing out the law as written is for the legislature, not a judge. That right there is the core difference between the Left and the Right.
Or did I read you comment incorrectly?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Legislature makes the laws...Executive enforces them although we've learned that "translation" of the enforcement. Without knowing how the WI State Legislature defined "indefinite confinement" or if they defined it it's impossible to know whether the Governor overstepped their bounds.
You don't see the hypocrisy R leaders voting this way then claiming it's illegal? I think your hypocrisy meter might be broken. It seems to only pull to the left.
Sure it's hypocritical. Republicans are hypocritical every day. But they're not acting like totalitarian socialists. They're not using the same level sanctimony, virtue signaling and political correctness as do the Liberals. It's a matter of personal taste. I'm not a fan of the old white guys on the right. I'm not a fan of the religious zealots on the right. But they don't make my skin crawl. You know who does.
Not you of course.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Dominion ownership is hard to pin down due to an almost endless stream of shell corporations (why would they do that if they are above board?)
But one thing we do know is the CCP recently put $400M into them (apparently this past October)
Why would China do that? What did China want? What exactly were they buying?
One thing for certain, that is a lot more money being into our election than what Russia spent on FB ads - and look what happened because of that?
But one thing we do know is the CCP recently put $400M into them (apparently this past October)
Why would China do that? What did China want? What exactly were they buying?
One thing for certain, that is a lot more money being into our election than what Russia spent on FB ads - and look what happened because of that?
I cannot help but to wonder if the Trump campaign would have done far better with the post-election media to have highlighted the numerous irregularities as opposed to embracing the 'fraud' label. There is not a person with a functioning brain cell who can deny there were not numerous instances of irregularities in jurisdictions all across the nation.
Fixing the reasons for those various irregularities should be a primary concern for ALL voters, no matter WHAT their political persuasion might be.
Fixing the reasons for those various irregularities should be a primary concern for ALL voters, no matter WHAT their political persuasion might be.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
The hypocrisy of the Pennsylvania gambit is staggering.
-We want the election decided on election day!
-No, we won't allow you to pre-canvass or even count votes early!
[politicians to people pre-election] Absentee voting is a mess and wide open for fraud (even though me, my purchased wife, and much of my staff vote absentee)...so, you should vote in person...even if you got an absentee ballot to "test the system".
-[knowing that these votes are HEAVILY Democratic - 3 to 1] See Fraud!
-For the protection of our Republic we have to ignore the will of 7,000,000 people.
Haha! A liberal decrying supposed hypocrisy!
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
This is a microcosm of why Trump lost the election. While the health officials of the administration are pleading with Americans to be safe, distance and yes to not gather in large amounts the White House is holding 25 holiday parties with invite lists of >50 people. Trump would have cruised to victory if he had taken the Pandemic seriously. At least we know that it still doesn't matter to him. He's consistent to the end.
YearOfTheSteer
500+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
As of Nov. 16th the US voter participation turnout hit 66.7% for 2020. That is the biggest turnout since 1900. I'm thankful for Donald Trump reminding everyone how important it is to vote. He drove a 6.5% jump in voter turnout over 2016...during a pandemic. That's arguably his most impressive accomplishment.
Now...let's chat about why Texas ranked #45 in voter participation?
@OUBubba What happened to OK? Dead last at #50?
Now...let's chat about why Texas ranked #45 in voter participation?
@OUBubba What happened to OK? Dead last at #50?
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
We suck. We had no meaningful national races that were in doubt. We are a trump loving outfit.As of Nov. 16th the US voter participation turnout hit 66.7% for 2020. That is the biggest turnout since 1900. I'm thankful for Donald Trump reminding everyone how important it is to vote.
Now...let's chat about why Texas ranked #45 in voter participation?
@OUBubba What happened to OK? Dead last at #50?
OUBubba, we're glad that you can recognize facts!
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I think it's part of the brainwashing that comes from seeing "hornfans" on my paypal.OUBubba, we're glad that you can recognize facts!
Well, that and both Texas and Oklahoma are States that tend not to allow dead people to vote in large numbers. For some reason, that can impact voter turnouts...
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
70% of all registered voters in Wisconsin reside in 2 counties: Milwaukee and Dane (home of Madison).
And you just illustrated perfectly why an electoral college was created...
The masses do not desire to be dictated to by the few.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Good law review article on powers in a contested election
The VP has certain powers, such as not counting electors from a contested state.
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
See also
The VP has certain powers, such as not counting electors from a contested state.
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
Suppose, because of a cyberattack or otherwise, it is determined
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15, that a state has failed to appoint any electors
and therefore has not valid electoral votes to count. How is that state to
be considered in the calculation of whether any candidate has won a
“majority” of electoral votes, as required by the Twelfth Amendment?
The amendment states: “the person having the greatest number of votes
for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of electors appointed.” Normally, the number necessary
for a majority is 270 because 538 is the total number of electors
nationally. But if a state chose not to participate, then presumably its
number would be subtracted from the denominator of 538. Is the same
true if the state wanted to participate but was prevented from doing so
because of a cyberattack? What if the state thought it appointed electors,
but there was a dispute about this appointment, with the consequence that
Congress refused to count any electoral votes from the state? Is this latter
situation the same as a cyberattack that prevents appointment, or different
for purposes of calculating the Twelfth Amendment denominator? In
other words, is this denominator issue a unitary one, or is it instead
variable depending on the particular circumstances that causes problems
with the appointment of a state’s electors? And, relatedly, what if the
Senate and House diverge on how to handle this issue; is there a
mechanism for determining an answer in the event of a bicameral
divergence on this point?
E. Completion or Incompletion of the Electoral Count?
Given that 3 U.S.C. § 15 requires the counting process to consider one
state at a time in alphabetical order, what happens if Congress appears to
be stuck on a particular state (before any candidate has reached an
indisputable majority of all electoral votes in the count)? Does the vice
president of the United States, as President of the Senate and thus
presiding officer over the special electoral count procedure under the
Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15, have constitutional or statutory
authority to insist upon completion of the count in a timely manner
(before noon on January 20), if the two chambers of Congress otherwise
would remain mired in a dispute over a particular state?
There are various provisions of the Electoral Count Act that endeavor
to move the count along, so that it does not become stuck or bogged
down. 3 U.S.C. § 15 itself provides: “When the two Houses have voted,
they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then
announce the decision of the questions submitted.” This provision seems
to authorize the vice president to make some definitive pronouncements
in light of disagreement between the two chambers. But the extent of the
vice president’s authority is unclear in this regard. And the very next (and
last) sentence of 3 U.S.C. § 15 arguably cuts against permitting the vice
president to take up the next state if there are unresolved matters
concerning the state under immediate consideration: “No votes or papers
from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously
made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally
disposed of.”
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15, that a state has failed to appoint any electors
and therefore has not valid electoral votes to count. How is that state to
be considered in the calculation of whether any candidate has won a
“majority” of electoral votes, as required by the Twelfth Amendment?
The amendment states: “the person having the greatest number of votes
for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of electors appointed.” Normally, the number necessary
for a majority is 270 because 538 is the total number of electors
nationally. But if a state chose not to participate, then presumably its
number would be subtracted from the denominator of 538. Is the same
true if the state wanted to participate but was prevented from doing so
because of a cyberattack? What if the state thought it appointed electors,
but there was a dispute about this appointment, with the consequence that
Congress refused to count any electoral votes from the state? Is this latter
situation the same as a cyberattack that prevents appointment, or different
for purposes of calculating the Twelfth Amendment denominator? In
other words, is this denominator issue a unitary one, or is it instead
variable depending on the particular circumstances that causes problems
with the appointment of a state’s electors? And, relatedly, what if the
Senate and House diverge on how to handle this issue; is there a
mechanism for determining an answer in the event of a bicameral
divergence on this point?
E. Completion or Incompletion of the Electoral Count?
Given that 3 U.S.C. § 15 requires the counting process to consider one
state at a time in alphabetical order, what happens if Congress appears to
be stuck on a particular state (before any candidate has reached an
indisputable majority of all electoral votes in the count)? Does the vice
president of the United States, as President of the Senate and thus
presiding officer over the special electoral count procedure under the
Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15, have constitutional or statutory
authority to insist upon completion of the count in a timely manner
(before noon on January 20), if the two chambers of Congress otherwise
would remain mired in a dispute over a particular state?
There are various provisions of the Electoral Count Act that endeavor
to move the count along, so that it does not become stuck or bogged
down. 3 U.S.C. § 15 itself provides: “When the two Houses have voted,
they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then
announce the decision of the questions submitted.” This provision seems
to authorize the vice president to make some definitive pronouncements
in light of disagreement between the two chambers. But the extent of the
vice president’s authority is unclear in this regard. And the very next (and
last) sentence of 3 U.S.C. § 15 arguably cuts against permitting the vice
president to take up the next state if there are unresolved matters
concerning the state under immediate consideration: “No votes or papers
from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously
made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally
disposed of.”
See also
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
