Election: Rigged OR NOT?
When you try to find evidence on the internet today, it is very hard to prove the election was rigged.
Yet there are those who are very convinced.
To isolate the difficulty: the pandemic enabled the rigging of the election by allowing and encouraging mail-in voting.
Maybe next time around we will insist on in-person/polls and the showing of driver's licenses.Maybe next time you can look at the research that has shown mail-in voting to be a very secure method of voting for over twenty years now in the states.
So are you saying that you're against giving people a safe way to vote during a pandemic? That you want to put their lives in danger if they want to exercise their Constitutional rights? That's sort of an inhumane stance if you ask me.
And then maybe you can explain how there was fraud when the paper ballots matched up with the machine vote tallies in all the swing states, since they all had a verifiable paper trail.
There are those that are convinced because they believe the lies spewed by a known liar who was on the losing end of the election. The same lies he spewed in 2016 when he claimed that fraud caused him to lose the popular vote. And when he formed a commission to investigate those claims, they found that there was no fraud. So it was proven by his own people that he lied about there being fraud that caused him to lose the popular vote. And yet, even in the face of that historical precedent, 75% of the GOP still believes this idiot.Historic mail in voting procedure is different than what we had in this election.
I regard the refusal to investigate with a lot of suspicion. I also regard the way the left ignores the specific problems and the testimony of American citizens and chastise any who question, as if they are treasonous as indicative of a fear to delve into the evidence.And yet, that paper trail exists of those ballots with mail-in voting.
I regard the refusal to accept rulings on those claims by members of the judiciary ample claim for treasonous behavior. When you fail to abide by the decision of the courts, you've pretty much stopped believing in democracy.Rule by the majority, as with a pure democracy, is exactly why we do not have a pure democracy.
We, The U(United) S(Tates) of A(merica), have a democratic REPUBLIC and a constitution which provides checks and balances to the formation/domination of unjust factions.
"Historic mail in voting procedure is different than what we had in this election."
Not where I live, and I don't believe other states made changes except those allowed by the pandemic. Mail-in voting has always been done the same way except for a couple of times when courts have struck down certain laws. I explained this in another reply.
This comment would have been flagged as false by any social media platform who cared about honesty. Thankfully for you, you're hiding out here.
Many states have struck down the showing of IDs as discriminatory the same as they struck down paying a poll tax to vote. After laws requiring the showing of a photo ID in order to vote in person or for mail-in ballots passed by the state legislature in Arkansas were struck down twice by courts, in 2018 an amendment was added to the state's Constitution requiring a photo ID in either case.
We voted by mail for the first time this year due to covid. When we received our mail-in ballots, the instructions were clear if a person was a new or irregular voter but they were confusing to regular voters as to whether the person should submit a photo ID or an affidavit. It actually said we could submit an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID, and that would be checked against our voter records. So we signed affidavits and didn't send photos.
After the election was over and counted, we received notification that our ballots were marked "provisional" and our voter qualifications were authenticated after the election. We were assured that our votes were counted.
I think this is a standard process in most states. How much room for fraud is there when an election is conducted this carefully? BTW, Arkansas is a Red state, and we voted Blue. So I fail to see why people can't understand how careful the process is. Their ignorance is an insult to our democratic republic. They need to get off their duffs and get an education in the government process.People believe the strangest things without evidence.
But if you want to prove something before court, you do need evidence.
"innocent until proven guilty". Isn't that build in the American society? Or is an accusation enough nowadays?
There was no evidence for fraud, so case closed. Except for people who believe justice can be done without evidence.Peter, after your analysis of this issue, you can see that when you get to the root is that what conservatives have been whining about but will not admit is that their only acceptable and legitimate outcome is the one where Trump wins.
So, I wish that the Right would dispense with the smoke and mirrors that there is actually a sound and reasonable argument that they put forth in regards to this matter.The sad thing is they won't. As they will build the next election campaign on this lie. They will treasure this lie 4 years long. Let it simmer and grow.
It's a tactic Hitler (Yes that name again) used as well. To spread the lie that Germany had almost won the 1e WW, but that it was the jews and the left who pulled the plug out of the war and signed the surrender. Also called the "Stab-in-the-back myth". The same is happening here.
A lie is carefully created to attack the democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_mythAre we all condemned as humans to continue to make the same mistakes? Trump and his Trumper dweebs are more than happy to blame their neighbors for their problems instead of being discerning enough to look at "who is behind the curtain", AKA Adolf Hitler. Republicans loath the principles behind government, seeing it in itself as a threat as if somehow 325 million people can function without one.
So, why now? This is about racial, social economic disparities and resentment. It all started with the idea of "vote fraud" dredged up basically in counties that are heavily populated by people of color in critical swing states. The fact that the usual GOP suppression tactics failed combined with overwhelming turnout created anger and frustration on the "other side" over a reality that they dare not mention nor be candid about."AKA Adolf Hitler"
Really? You too Cred? Hitler, Nazis, Goring, Ribbentrop, Hemmler, Auschwitz. Nothing else needs to be said, right?
With references like that your argument is bulletproof, right? Bullshit. With references like that your argument demonstrates that it is too weak to stand on its own.
You made a wrong turn. Your choir room is two doors down on the left.
GAThere has not been any period of time in American History where any President could have one think about the Third Reich and its abuses. Number 45 is it. Maybe, the fact that you cannot see this makes you the odd man out? So, how about you stop being an apologist for Trump, his regime and his followers?
So, I have a bone or two to pick with you.
You tell me that Biden and the Democratic majority need to kumbaya with the the Republicans. These Republicans, that at the highest levels of government denied the outcome of the November election. A party that invented elaborate conspiracy theories to cover up anti-democratic autocratic belief systems. A party that had members of the esteemed congressional body that more than likely were involved in an act of insurrection, and it is nothing less than that. This is the same party that says that we should be willing to work with them and reasonably expect that would actually help with the Biden agenda? Hardly, there is every reason to distrust them at this point.
So, No, emphatically NO.
But, really, McConnel does remind me a bit of Joseph Goebbels.From Trump supporter to Trump apologist. That sounds like a promotion.
I have previously said the gist and tone of your post-election comments are clearly a stance of if you ain't with me, you are against me. And that still seems to be the case. You seem so hell-bent on revenge and punishment that nothing else matters.
Whether you like it or not, the Biden presidency has to find a way to reach out to the other half of America to be successful.
I don't think a position of 'My way or the highway' will get that done.
GAIt not about revenge GA, but cooperation. After all this fawning of Trump and the treachery of the Republicans as of late, I simply don't trust them to be honest brokers in seriously seeking compromise with Democrats
LOL Looking at Bidens enormous list of EO's, can you honestly say that Biden, or the Democrat party, are " brokers in seriously seeking compromise with" Republicans? Can you even honestly say that you are willing to compromise with Republican goals?
Biden has been president for 11 days. He is lawfully using EOs to overturn Trump's damaging policies (I know you don't see it that way, but the majority of Americans agree with Democratic policies). I'm not a fan of EOs but let's drop this pretense that it matters more when one President does it than another.
Didn't say, or imply, that it means more when one does it than another.
I just noted that Biden has made more EO's, in a shorter period of time, than any president in history, and that's not a good beginning towards "cooperation" or "compromising" when his opponents have no voice in the matter. We have a congress, rather than a king, for a very good reason.
Nor will I agree that his EO's are legal; Biden does not have the authority to violate laws any more than Obama did, yet here he is, refusing to follow the laws on immigration or allow others to do so. Just as Obama did with the creation of the DACA subclass of Americans. Biden has also refused to spend the money Congress authorized (for the wall)...just as Trump did when he didn't give the money Congress authorized to the Ukraine, and what an uproar that caused! The only difference there is that Trump only delayed it while Biden will refuse forever to spend it and in fact will spend it on what Congress did NOT authorize. Again, EO's such as these are neither legal nor made in the spirit of compromise or cooperation.Since you are so knowledge about the legalities of Biden's actuons, perhaps you know what will be done to hold him accountable?
Actually, Congress did not authorize money 'for the wall.' It was assigned to barrier systems, which gives Biden the flexibility to use it for technology, lighting, roads, or replacing existing fencing.
And your claim that Biden had refused to spend the money Congress authorized is false, as noted by the actual EO where it is noted about a dozen times such as 'providing for the expenditure of any funds that the Congress expressly appropriated for wall construction, consistent with their appropriated purpose.'
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … struction/I don't see anything in that proclamation about spending the funds for ANY kind of wall, whether technology, lighting, roads, repairs or anything else. Only that the money shall be spent somewhere else. Nothing whatsoever that we shall spend the money to prevent illegal border crossings.
I DO see where construction was stopped with the idea of creating a "comprehensive and humane immigration system" which means, as near as I can tell, open borders.
Although not included in this EO, I also note that Biden will now stop deportations, that illegal aliens residing in our country in violation of our laws, shall now remain here, still in violation of our laws. By doing so he is violating those same laws by refusing to perform his sworn duty to enforce them.
According to the news reports, all wall construction has stopped, and without regard to contractual requirements - this is in direct conflict with his decree that contractual obligations shall be met, and leaves contractors high and dry...unless we are to pay them for doing nothing.
And all this is done in the spirit of compromise as he works to bring the country together. Riiiight!
I really don't care much about Republicans and their obstructive ways at this point. Biden and the Democrats won the election. They have every right to pursue their agenda, just as Trump and the Rightwingers pursued theirs. This is not just another GOP administration.
Trump signed plenty of EOs, wilderness, do you think that I really care if conservatives are upset about the amount of EOs Biden needs to sign to un-Trump America?
It is kinda of lame to complain about Biden and Obama using EOs, while excusing Trump? I have no choice but to ignore that line of reasoning.
Are we all condemned as humans to continue to make the same mistakes?
Looks like it.
This is about racial, social economic disparities and resentment. - Yep.
In the end, it's about the 1% against the 99%. Who has gained the most?
What was the first thing the Republicans/Trump did when they came to power? Not building the wall as promised. But to give tax benefits to the super-rich.
Creating a crisis is the best thing for the rich. As they can buy stuff cheap and sell it when the recession is over. And Trump was a master in creating a crisis. Day in day out provoking with Tweets, to keep us and the headlines busy.
A crisis keeps people busy and so they don't think about the huge gap between the 1% and the 99%. But make "pitty arguments" about foreigners and racial justice, women's rights etc. (never about money, the real issue.)
Trump bought his presidency, that's something to think about. Not with skill, but with money you buy the most powerful job in the world! So you can make laws that benefit people with tons of dollars and keep a system that benefits the rich. It's hard to break this system. And to be honest I don't think it will. Not Obama, nor Biden will or can break this profitable "democracy". (and the US is not the only country that works this way, most countries do, sadly enough.)
Tax the rich. (OMG, don't curse...)
What has Trump paid in tax and contributed to society... What did Jeff Bezos pay, or Mark Zuckerberg...?
take care.Deleted
It looks that he has good intentions. And the change of the portrait on the $20 note from a slave owner to the black woman Harriet Tubman who was a slave herself and took part in the rescues of hundreds of enslaved people is a good start.
While all of that is well and good, I am more concerned about the opportunity of those $20s being more fairly distributed within this society rather than whose likeness is on the currency.
100% agree Credence2.
The fair distribution of wealth is perhaps the first point to look into.
Tax the rich, it's so simple. And spend more money on schooling and healthcare system and less on the guns and defense.
Create a bigger middle class."Fair", then, does not mean you keep what you build. Instead you must give it to someone else who will then give it to a third person that refuses to support themselves.
I would disagree with that meaning of "fair".From 1940 to 1963, the top income tax rate was no lower than 81%, with a high of 94% in 1944 & 1945. Then from 1964 to 1980, it remained no lower than 70%. 37% now seems overly generous based on historical figures. I wouldn't go over 50% nowadays, but would bump it a bit higher than 37%. They can clearly afford it.
In terms of fairness, wouldn't it be really nice if individual Americans had a say where a certain portion of their taxes go? For those of us that would like to support social programs, we could allocate our taxes there. For those that want to beef up immigration resources, yours could go there.Can't say that gross unfairness from the past makes it alright today.
Fair: everyone pays the same thing for the same product. If it's a loaf of bread, everyone pays the same. If it's citizenship then everyone pays the same.
That's fair, but unfortunately it does mean it is possible to run the country on it. Therefore we have a graduated tax with those that can afford it paying more for the same thing. That does NOT mean it is "fair" to force them to pay even more so it can be given away to those that choose not to support themselves.
Robin Hood was not "fair", no matter how much you, I or anyone else might applaud (or hate) his sense of morality and ethics.
Peterstreep, you should dig into the history of the U.S. relative to "tax the rich." This "tax the rich" mantra has been a battle cry since medieval times when there were rich to tax. And the U.S., with our progressive tax system, has been doing just that since the 1900s.
According to the latest tax data, here are few blurbs that a Google search supplies:(surely you have checked these to validate your opinion?)
"The rich generally pay more of their incomes in taxes than the rest of us. The top fifth of households got 54% of all income and paid 69% of federal taxes; the top 1% got 16% of the income and paid 25% of all federal taxes, according to the CBO."
"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent)."
"In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."
"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).
There are a lot more specific category references, but I think these make the point. In the U.S. the "rich" already pay the vast majority of taxes to the U.S. government.Yet, for too many folks, "tax the rich" is the be all-end all mantra.
What happens when the rich can't be taxed anymore? What happens when the rich say to hell with this' and move there ''riches' offshore to other nations?
[b\"{"Tax the rich, it's so simple. And spend more money on schooling and healthcare system and less on the guns and defense."[/b]
I was very disappointed to read this. Surely you have given this "thought" more thought than just a knee-jerk recitation. At least more than just repeating a talking point mantra? How much more do you think we can tax "them" before they just take their marbles and go home? (home being a more tax-friendly nation)
GAGA,
I just wonder about all those people using Tax havens, they are definitely not the middle class.
And why didn't Donald Trump want to show his tax returns?
Or why is it that Amazon had an $11.2bn profit in 2018 but paid no federal tax?
Why is it that Warren Buffet is saying: "If you look at the Forbes 400, they are paying a lower rate, accounting payroll taxes, than their secretary or - whomever around their office."
Or that Stephan King says that as a multi-millionaire he is only paying 28% in taxes..
Those taxes should not be 28% but about 80+%
This is not simply a US problem, it's worldwide. And companies like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, are not really restricted to a country. They go to the country with the lowest tax.
But with Bezos making $13.4 million an hour, you can seriously question the tax system. Or capitalism in general."Those taxes should not be 28% but about 80+%"
Why? Do you feel that you earned what King has? Do you feel that you have an ethical right to take what King earned or built? Do you view King's millions as belonging to you?
What ethical/moral standard gives you the right to what others own? Simply because you want it? Because you feel you will put it to better use than the real owner? By what right do you claim that wealth as your own?Stephan King, said that it was scandalous that he as a millionaire was paying that small amount of tax. He and Buffet said in a way the same, that the taxes of the rich should be higher.
What ethical/moral standard gives you the right to what others own?
The tax money of others is not my money.
The tax money is government's money.
If you want a tax free society, How should the government repair the roads, let alone make them. How to pay for traffic signs, public rubbish bins, maintenance of parks. How do teachers get paid, the fire brigade, the police, the army, hospitals, schools etc. If not for taxes
If you don't want to support the society you live in, then yes, I guess not paying tax is the way to go.
But if you want a working society, then a government needs money to do things. And that money comes from its citizens through taxes. And if a multi-millionaire is not paying taxes or only a small amount, then it's incredibly a-social, egoistic. It's only taking from society but not giving.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. You make money, so you pay tax. What's wrong with that?OK - what gives you the ethical/moral right to use your government to take from one person what you do not take from all?
Governments/countries require funding to operate. The "small amount" that the rich pay in taxes is thousands of times what others pay...but not enough and never will be as governments have an insatiable greed for money.
So what gives a government the ethical/moral right to take thousands of times as much from one person as from another...without providing thousands of times as much in return? Just because government wants it? Because it has the "might" to enforce the taking? And what gives government (the "you" referenced earlier) the ethical right to take more than is necessary for the operation of the country - to take more simply to give it to individuals rather than the country?what gives you the ethical/moral right to use your government to take from one person what you do not take from all?
It has nothing to do with ethical/moral rights. It has to do with making society work.
Tax has a huge influence on how society works. Tax plastic bags and shops will not give you free plastic bags anymore. Tax cigarettes and people will smoke less.
So yes, in a way there is an ethical/moral side to tax. As with tax you can shape society.
It depends on what you tax and for how much.
Tax gas 90% and solar energy 0.5% and people will start using solar energy.
Tax books bought through the internet and more local bookstores will open.
(just inventing these examples, but you get my point)
-And what gives the government (the "you" referenced earlier) the ethical right to take more than is necessary for the operation of the country-
And so asking for tax is not just earning money for the government, but also a tool to shape the country in the direction and vision of the government in power. And you can, in a democratic country, vote for the vision of a party, so the government has the ethical/moral right supported by its voters.
So the key question is: What do we tax, and for how much.
imagine labor tax=0% and resources 50% or more. Just a thought. It would mean more labours in the factories and fewer robots. more tax on transport (if on diesel, or gasoline vehicles.) more local produce, less pollution. -
And so by tax regulations, you can make a society with a bigger middle class, and a smaller gap between the 1% and the 99%. Not by giving the poor money, but to change behavior with the tax regulations.I see. We have an extremely deep, extremely wide, chasm in our philosophies, for I do not see the tax code as a method to force a way of life on anyone at all. If you wish to control their actions (stop smoking, prohibit use of plastic bags, etc.) then pass a law doing that rather than hiding it in the tax code. And if you can't get support for the law then it should not be passed. Using the tax code to slowly enforce your view of what society should be is unethical in the extreme. IMO.
I guess I do not see government's role to shape the culture of the nation; rather it is the culture's role to shape what government is and does.
But none of that gives any support for forcing one person to pay more for the exact same service as another does. You did not give any kind of reason for that concept.It's not my philosophy Wilderness. It's what happens.
The government makes laws, according to the laws people have to live. And as such the government shapes a society. Nazi Germany had different laws than the USA today, and so it had a different society.
Tax laws change a society. If you like it or not is a personal preference. And that's why you vote for one party or another, as they make the laws and regulations.
You may call using tax to force the will of the people unethical, but that's the reality.
- But none of that gives any support for forcing one person to pay more for the exact same service as another does. -
That's an interesting one. Imagine a speed ticket costs you $500. Consequences: People who can not afford to lose $500 will be careful and follow the law. But people who earn $10.000 an hour, won't give a damn and drive whatever speed they like. Should it not be more honest if the speed ticket was a percentage of income? So everybody had the same caution?I agree with you that fines and penalties mean almost nothing to the rich. I just don't see a practical method of assigning different amounts. We can't reasonably require everyone with a speeding ticket to bring their tax forms in and calculate a fine from that (what about the people with little to no income and get a 50 cent fine for doing 100 mph through a school zone?). Personally, I'd like to see something like that done but can't imagine how it might work unless the "fine" is jail time for everyone. Again, neither practical nor reasonable.
But I DO stand by that concept of everyone pays the same for the same product. We don't hit the grocery line with proof of our income so a price can be set based on income; why do we do it for the right to live in the country? Except, as I pointed out, if we don't we won't have a country at all, but that hardly excuses one person paying millions and the next taking thousands without paying anything at all.
I think you are looking at this wrong Peterstreep. In the restaurant industry, we valued 'contributory profits', (dollars), more than 'percentage profits', (dollars), because it was the actual "profits" that you could put in the bank or your wallet.
For instance; a soda was around 90% profit which equated to less than one dollar contributory profit. A steak dinner was usually less than 30% profit but equated to around five dollars "contributory" profit.
You are looking at percentages as being more important than actual dollars. Our government can't pay bills with percentages—they have to pay with dollars.
I think most of your anecdotal talking point examples have that same flaw. Using just made-up numbers, but most certainly representative of my point, look at just the much-publicized Buffet example.
Even if it was true that he paid less "percentage" than his secretary, let's say he paid 16% and the secretary paid 21%, that would still equate to Buffett paying tens of millions, (or hundreds of millions?), of dollars to the treasury while the secretary would be paying tens of hundreds, (if that), to the treasury. I will take Buffet's "contributory" dollars over the secretary's every time.
And that is before we question why Buffet's effective tax rate is less. Did he donate millions of dollars to charities and causes, (getting deductions in return), that benefited thousands of people? Did he reinvest his profits in his companies, (again, getting a deduction), which may have benefitted the future of thousands of employees and enriched their lives? etc. etc. etc. Until you know the "why" you shouldn't rely so heavily on the "tax havens," and like criticisms to justify your thought that it 'just isn't fair.'
Look at these stats again, but with an eye to the contributory dollars that actually go to the treasury:
"In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."
"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).
Consider just one of those, the top 1% paid a higher share than the bottom 90%. Would you propose that they pay all of the taxes a government needs?
Or, how would you feel about the fairness of a flat tax, everyone pays the same amount—10% across the board. What could be fairer?
Or, what would you do if tax expenditures were forced to be static. A government needs "X" dollars to operate and the rich are taxed to reach that X amount. What do you do when you want more money for new programs? Is it fair to tax the rich more just because you want more?
I know I am beating my head against a brick wall, but I just can't stop myself when I see rationalizations such as your list. Pick any one of your examples and research it thoroughly until you understand all of the details of the "why" and see if you still feel that example carries the same weight in your argument.
GAHi GA, I thought about your reply.
-For instance; a soda was around 90% profit which equated to less than one dollar contributory profit. A steak dinner was usually less than 30% profit but equated to around five dollars "contributory" profit.-
I can understand that. But as I said to Wilderness, there's much more to it than money. It is organizing a society.
Like the fine example. If a fine for speed driving is $500, most of us will have respect for the law, as $500 is quite a lot. But if you earn $100.000 a month, $500 is nothing, so you see no point in respecting the law and can drive faster.
On paper, it's the same $500. But it divides the rules between rich and poor.
So percentage-wise is much better and make a speed fine of x% of income.
Tax is not just money or income for a government. It's how a government shapes a society. Tax plastic bags, and shops won't give them for free, which is better for the environment.
It's not about the money, but to get people to act in a certain way. It's making laws. Tax diesel cars higher than electric cars. Tax cigarettes with 200% and people will smoke less. etc.I think you have gotten slightly off-track Peterstreep, at least relative to our discussion. Your reply seems applicable to the current direction of your conversation with Wilderness, but I don't think it applies to our conversation about justifying your "tax the rich," "they are not paying their fair share," thoughts.
I feel similar to Wilderness concerning government using the hidden, (not really so "hidden"), hand of taxation to accomplish desired social engineering objectives. I would be glad to also join that discussion, but first, we need to establish some common ground of understanding.
At this point I think that common ground has to be about your justifications for thinking the rich don't pay their fair share, (I have yet to hear anyone of your thoughts actually define what that "fair share" might be. The best I got was that it was like porn—you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
So, using my perspective of contributory dollars actually going to the treasury vs. your percentage dollars, (which you say you can understand as a perspective), how about another shot at a response to my latest comment?
*(and maybe give some thought about the specific details and reasons Buffet's tax rate is lower than his secretary's?)
GAHere is a second shot to give your effort the response it deserves with an answer directed at your new direction.
Speaking of percentages, and extrapolating your "speeding fine" thought to other areas, let's have a look at it. (although we are making an error equating "fines" to "taxes" — shades of deja vu' ala the ACA mandate ;-0
What if cigarette taxes were percentages of income like your speeding fine example. Whew, talk about dividing the rules between rich and poor. (statistics show the overwhelming majority of smokers are the poor)
But even so . . . I am not completely against social engineering via taxation. I do think there are acceptable instances of desirable—and equitable—outcomes that do justify the action. If such a tax can withstand the time span of multiple opposing administrations, then maybe society is okay with a particular action. So be it.
GAAh,
yes, you got me there. That's a fallacy of mine. For sure, and I agree with your correction. Tax is a much-complicated business than to say in an oneliner, tax the rich.
It's not easy to make laws (and tax laws). I don't see tax as a punishment, or a thing like, "Go and get them those rich bastards.." Not at all.
Tax is a way to organize things and spread wealth.
I just get angry on a company like Amazon that is earning millions by the minute and hardly pays any taxes (in other words, not contributing to the society it profits from). Or all those people talking about patriotism and having their money in tax havens.
I read an article about the idea of not taxing labour but taxing resources. An how this would change things.
The cigarette percentage tax case shows that it is not doable. But putting a high tax on cigarettes definitely stopped people from smoking. And I think with fines or punishment, percentage-wise thinking can be a solution. As justice for the poor is not the same as justice for the rich who can buy themselves out of the same crime a poor man can't.
And so with using money as leverage, you can do a lot. Good intentions and asking polite doesn't work, tax rase does.
It's a complicated discussion point..."Tax is a way to organize things and spread wealth."
Again, this concept is where we have a massive disagreement, for taxes are levied (or should be) in order to operate the country. Not to "spread the wealth" by taking what one person built and giving it to another that has not spent the effort to build for themselves.
Nor is "social engineering" (stop people from smoking, stop using plastic bags, etc.) a proper function of the tax base - proper use, and collection, of taxes is to build roads and dams, not force living styles through making it expensive.Sorry, with wealth I meant not money. I meant things like better welfare. Better education for a larger group of people, better healthcare for a larger group, more parks and cleaner streets.
I did not mean take money from rich and give it to the poor kind of thing, like Robin Hood.
Social Engineering is exactly what tax does. An example is a tax law in England that taxed windows in 1696. The result: everybody bricked their windows. then they taxed bricks. And so people started to use bigger bricks, a bit more economical. In the old neighbourhoods in the UK you still find houses with bricked up windows and large bricks...
This is of course a stupid way of using tax. But it illustrates how tax changes society.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/04/w … in-uk.htmlThat's what I said; take from one to give to another. When we talk about better education, I assume you mean a "free" (to the recipient, not to the one that pays for it) college education. The US does not need more college grads, so that does not benefit the country, just a single individual. Same with welfare (free food, free housing, free transportation, etc.); it does not benefit the country, only a specific individual. Same for free healthcare. And that is NOT the proper function of the tax base; instead it is taking from one person to benefit specific individuals. The needs of the country are parks (as you said), protection (military and police), roads, utilities such as water or electricity, etc. These all benefit everyone, not just one person.
More educated people does not serve a country? Do you prefer an elite with good education and a huge number of illiterate people?
I didn't say free education. But education available for everyone yes. If you have talent but no money, the talent should be used. And the person should have the possibility to fully exploit the talent. Talent is resources too. So why waste talent?The importance of individual liberty is something one needs to consider when delving into matters of social science.
Read works by David Hume.
The basics and reality of human nature is what one needs to acknowledge and understand.
"In 1734, after trying his hand in a merchant’s office in Bristol, he, (Hume) came to the turning point of his life and retired to France for three years. Most of this time he spent at La Flèche on the Loire, in the old Anjou, studying and writing A Treatise of Human Nature. The Treatise was Hume’s attempt to formulate a full-fledged philosophical system. It is divided into three books:
Book I, 'Of the Understanding,' discusses, in order, the origin of ideas; the ideas of space and time; knowledge and probability, including the nature of causality; and the skeptical implications of those theories.
Book II, 'Of the Passions,' describes an elaborate psychological machinery to explain the affective, or emotional, order in humans and assigns a subordinate role to reason in this mechanism.
Book III, on morals, characterizes moral goodness in terms of “feelings” of approval or disapproval that people have when they consider human behaviour in the light of agreeable or disagreeable consequences, either to themselves or to others."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-HumeWould you prefer a country of blue collar jobs and only white collar workers? Not all jobs require a college degree.
If "wasting talent" means that the talent must pay for its own improvement then I'm all for it. Talent without effort equals nothing, after all, and if that person is unwilling to put forth the effort to improve I'm not much interested in paying it for them.
Not real sure what it means that you don't mean free education but DO mean education for those that refuse to pay their own way. Sounds "free" to me, at least to the single person benefitting.
(If they are still illiterate after 12 years of childhood school, I'd have to say the college won't change anything anyway - certainly illiteracy is not a reason to me to put someone else through college.)I see it more as an investment. If there are talented people, it would be a shame to let the talent pass and go to waste.
It's what companies do as well, don't they. They pay often for the education inside the company. Hoping the person will pay it back by working for them. Which is not a guarantee.
Same with sports. Good football players get the education paid by the club if I'm correct (like a language course for foreign players.)
If you have expensive schools with the best education, and 90% can't pay it. Then I think you're missing out.
The more people have access to education, the better a country will fair. As with education the middle class will grow and criminality with decrease.
Well, that's what I think.
Oh lordy, lordy. . . You tripped one of my most sensitive and strongly held triggers: "Tax is a way to . . . spread wealth."
Nope, no way I can even address that point without hyperventilating. So, I will just pretend you didn't say it. ;-)
I understand your gut reaction when you hear things like the Bezos, Buffet, King examples you gave. And, if research turns up sketchy manipulation of loopholes and such, I would condemn them right along with you, but, without knowing the "why" it is pretty risky to put any faith in those first gut reactions.
Let me start with a caveat. In my discussion here I am talking about the Big Names such as your examples. I think it is too possible for there to be a lot of immoral cheats, that I would never defend, in that 1% category to address as a generality.
There are two immediate thoughts that stop me from jumping to the same conclusions you do. The first is one of your points; using taxes to organize and social engineer desired outcomes in our society. That is what our U.S. tax code is all about. Our government wants a company or individual to do something or behave a certain way and boom—they use the tax code. Either incentive deductions and credits, or penalties.
And, our government never has a problem using the teeth of our tax laws to extract as many pounds of flesh as they want from rule-breakers. Just ask Al Capone. They couldn't convict him for known murders so they nailed him just as severely with our tax laws. Ha!
This brings me to my second point. I have no doubt that the names we are discussing, both the individuals and the companies, are paying for the best accounting and tax advice available. So, if they are benefiting from some tax effort, my gut says it is perfectly legal.
But wait, I know you immediately thought legal doesn't mean fair. Now it's my turn to say but wait. You are all for using tax laws for social engineering, well, Bezos, Buffet, and Amazon et al. are just following the social engineering tax rules that you approve of.
Just to pick a number, say Amazon was going to have a tax liability for a billion profit. But, our government wants our corporate citizens to be good citizens. You know, helping out the less fortunate. So they write a tax code: for every charitable dollar you spend they will give you a charitable dollar donation deduction. So bingo. if Amazon is going to have to pay $280 million in taxes, why not spend that same amount on charitable work? You get what you want—social engineering, and Amazon gets twice what they want—the benefit and public goodwill for their charitable efforts, and a reduced tax bill.
Of course, that was a simplistic example, and the numbers were just made up, but I think you can see my point.
And then there is the final kick in the butt for folks that say things like Buffet and King did . . . You can always voluntarily pay more taxes! There is a special line for that on the tax forms. So Buffet and KIng could put their money where their mouth is if they were really serious about their comments.
GAI understand what you want to say. Amazon is following the law with legal teams and avoiding tax. So you may not like it, but it is legal. And you choose/voted for the government that made these legal possibilities.
And then I think. The laws are made to benefit to powers that be. The powers that wrote the law. Social engineering to create comfortable positions for the 1% and a position of the 99% to stay in their place.
This is nothing new. The UK is built upon this class system. But it does not mean that I should agree with this division in society upheld by tax and other laws. In the UK the system is even so strong, that when I talk with people from the working class (ex-pats here in Spain for example) that they think themselves stupid and unable to learn, as to me they are intelligent enough to learn new things (The Spanish language for example). But it is the self-image that is rammed into the psyche during years of building a class society. (But maybe this is a different topic.)
I don't think that charity and tax is the same thing. As if you can choose where to put your money, and do a good deed. You are in power. If you pay tax, you are not in power but the government. In other words, you are not willing to accept the government above you as a power.
Also as you choose your charities, you can easily give money to the "charity" of your friend. But I don't know how strong the government is overseeing these charity lines of money...
(This is more philosophical, as I think there are more things attached to this "philanthropic" thing, but I don't know enough of it.)
Nobody is paying out of free will. That's why tax is so important and powerful weapon to keep control. Even over big companies, but I think the US lost the battle to those companies a while ago and Amazon, Apple, NRA, Facebook etc. have far to much power over the government (it seems to me, but maybe I'm wrong.) Money is power. (And too much money - or too much power - in just a few hands is dangerous in my opinion.)One thing you are missing is that (some) big companies pay very little tax because government has given them a break...a break to do some of that "engineering" at the companies expense.
They may, as just one example, give a tax break in order to encourage a company to open a store or factory in an undesirable location. Or to produce more (or less) of what government thinks is desirable. Or to build a factory in a specific state or locale rather than somewhere else. There are hundreds or thousands of these kinds of tax breaks throughout the country, and are mostly what is being used to reduce the tax load for the company. Government is "buying" specific actions by the company in order to get what they want.
Again, not something I approve of, for those things are hidden from normal observation that way. If government wants a specific action they should write a check for it, visible to all, rather than hide it in the tax code.Again, not something I approve of, for those things are hidden from the normal observation that way. If government wants a specific action they should write a check for it, visible to all, rather than hide it in the tax code.
I do agree with you there.
But they won't. All things related to money are decided behind closed doors. Not even during election time these topics are talked about. Only red herrings, like building a wall, ending a war, war on drugs, war on terrorism, guy rights, abortion etc. But the people funding parties don't care about these subjects, they want influence about tax breaks and weapon deals etc.
The first thing Trump did when he was in office, for example, was getting a tax break law though. The wall could wait.We needed a tax break, particularly for those that pay 90% of the taxes. Unfortunately we also needed a massive spending cut and that we did not need.
The wall - no, it can't wait. The US has a massive problem with illegal border crossings and it desperately needs addressed. And not with Biden's plan to simply make it OK to cross illegally as long as you can avoid the laws once inside, too.Oh, look...Trump's out of office, time to start the whining about border crossings. And then fabricate something that is not remotely 'Biden's plan.'
Sorry that you won't get to celebrate separating families at the border any longer or the dozens of dead kids that Trump policies caused.What I wanted to say Wilderness, if you agree with the policy or not, is that politicians don't talk about their tax policy during the campaign. They talk about popular topics. Trump didn't give a damn about the wall. He cared about a tax break for the 1%
And that's why I said, The wall could wait. It was never his priority.
I understand your points, but you can't have it both ways. If you support using taxes for social engineering, then it is a weak argument to complain that you don't like the results.
Charity and taxes do equate in one aspect—money out of one's pockets. And in another that they both are a civic responsibility. In one case as a benefit to your society, and in the other as a benefit to your societal government.
GAIt's one thing to understand how things work. It's another to agree with them.
I support using tax for social engineering. (support is a strange word, as there is not much choice in the matter), But you can discuss how this engineering should be, and here you talk about different political points of view. How do you want your utopia to be like?
No, I don't think charity and tax are the same thing. Charity is something you do (or should do) by free choice. (not because it is an alternative for paying taxes)
Tax is something you have to do by law. And the government is choosing where the money goes.
If everybody only paid charity instead of taxes, roads would never be paved. Who would pay for tarmac? Cat's would love the idea though, as there are many cat lovers in the world..
Of course, you need a proper democratic system that has many checks where the money is going, as you don't want a corrupt tax system.I have only been discussing the use of a tax system for social engineering purposes. I do not intend to try to defend our U.S. code. I think it is stuffed with political corporate plums.
You are right that support for this tax use depends on one's political views. Many may support such efforts as the cigarette taxes, yet few support New York's soda, (sugar), tax. But both are the same effort—social engineering via the tax laws.
I want my taxes used for the purpose of government needs, (roads and other infrastructure), that benefit all taxpayers. That is seldom the case with social engineering taxes.
GAYes, I agree with you.
But in a way all taxes are a way of social engineering. If you only give tax breaks to butchers, the meat will be cheaper. etc. Give tax breaks to millionaires and double the tax on incomes below $50.000 and you are social engineering too. (Without even the discussion of what to do with the money) - creating a bigger gap between the two.
The more I think about it, thanks to you and this discussion, the more complicated and interesting it becomes.
I think that this social engineering is the magic of taxes and all governments around the world are doing it. Some with a blunt knife, some incredibly clever. Strangely enough, governments seldom talk about it. I guess they don't want you to know that you are being manipulated. As we don't like to be manipulated and prefer the thought that we have a free choice etc.
Mmm. interesting subject GA.. . . and one that could go on until I change your mind. Hmm . . . I don't think I have that much time left. ;-)
GAhaha. But what's the fun in that? If everybody was like-minded all the time it would be a dull world. Comfortable perhaps....
I appreciate your input GA, and your attempts to show me the way...;-)
Not that we always agree with each other, but you may never know...Ha! I think I am rubbing off on you Peterstrep. I do think we could find a middle-ground of understanding if we continued.
This is not an all-or-nothing or a my-way-or-the-highway topic. It is my belief that a progressive tax code is necessary for advanced nations. It is also my belief that there are many instances of tax code social engineering that legitimately benefit our society as a whole. But . . . and that one is a very big but, the difference between those beliefs and what we, (the U.S.), currently have is vast.
As a nod to 'your side' I completely agree that Big Money has corrupted our governmental system and our tax codes, but jumping back to my side—that Big Money isn't the real problem, the real problem is the willingness of our politicians to be corrupted.
And that is just a fact of human nature. You can sing kumbaya around a world of campfires and you won't change a thing until you can change that human nature. I know that I am not immune to it and I can only hope that you don't think you are either.
Here is one of my own conundrums. I like the idea of a system like the U.K.'s where there is a specific limit to the number of dollars a candidate can spend for election. Not just what they can raise from individuals, but the total amount they can spend. But, I can't support such a restriction because that would abridge the free speech Rights of candidate supporters. If I support Joe Blow's candidacy and he has spent his allotted election amount, then I couldn't even hold a backyard BBQ to promote his candidacy. And that, from my American view, just ain't right.'
However, I also recognize the flaw in that thought. My multimillionaire neighbor could also hold a backyard BBQ with free booze, a Pink concert extravaganza and a meet-and-greet raffle to meet and have dinner with Pink, along with a free year's worth of groceries, and ' that ain't right' either.
So, where is an equitable middle ground? I don't know. But I do know it isn't the liberal philosophies that you support. Life is hard. you must work at succeeding. And, if it isn't hard to get, maybe it isn't worth having. And if you can't earn it, you have no Right to expect it to be given to you—just because you are you, (aka a citizen).
GAI agree with everything here GA, even the last paragraph. Except...
I think the last paragraph is just as an oneliner as my tax the rich kind of thing.
If you want to succeed, you have to work for it. Completely true. But nobody can do it on their own. You need help. Some people will give it freely to you, like advice or knowledge. Sometimes you have to pay it back, like a loan from a bank when you want to start an enterprise.
Also I think that society is more important than this rule. So if you help the poor by free education, you can see it as an investment in society. As they will pay it back later in life by buying a newspaper that they can read.
Your parents for instance gave a lot of things for free to you when you were a child. They did not give you pocket money with interest. (I don't know your relationship with your parents, so this is a bit of liberty to presume on my side..)
You help your neighbor when he is out of flour. etc.
You have no right to expect it..Completely true. But nevertheless, helping each other out for free is a glue that binds us. If you don't give freely to the community you live in, you will be looked down upon.
There are a lot of things for free. even a lunch. As this is help you give and help you receive.
These are just a couple of quick thoughts about supporting the poor, the power of giving, doing it on your own (which is a romantic notion but not true as everybody gets help on their way to success)..etc.
It's a complicated concept."But nobody can do it on their own. You need help. Some people will give it freely to you, like advice or knowledge. Sometimes you have to pay it back, like a loan from a bank when you want to start an enterprise."
I think you are mostly correct - nearly all of us need help to succeed. There are two basic methods of getting that help:
1. If it's knowledge you need, join groups. Buy and study books. Attend (and pay for) schooling to learn. Network and pick the brains of those you have a relationship with.
If it's money, borrow from a bank or other institution. Make a partnership. Barter your own work for others work or money. Grow slowly, without the need for large sums of capital. Hold a part time job on the side, working 80 hours per week if you need to, to keep your side job plus your growth.
2. If it's knowledge: force your neighbor to buy you an education. Force your neighbor (a CEO) to hold night time seminars in his house on his time. Force your neighbor to set up SBA help for anyone that wants it.
If it's money, force your neighbor to provide the capital you want, without return. Force your neighbor to loan you money at below market rates of interest. Force your neighbor to provide what you need to purchase. Force your neighbor to forego repaying the exorbitant sums you borrowed rather than work for it.
Simplistic, yes. Exaggerated, yes. But the underlying concept is there: resources abound and it is up to you to use them (including your own hard work). It is not up to your neighbor to provide them for you. The "help" we all need to build a success story is resources, and those resources are available to all that put forth the effort to find them. Not by simply forcing someone else to provide them, at gunpoint if necessary.It appears we are just arguing about degrees Peterstreep.
In the U.S. we already provide 12 - 14 years of free education. If someone can't read a newspaper after completing the 12th grade, 4 more years isn't going to help.
I think all your examples of "free" in our society are also just examples of degrees. Certainly, it is not out-of-line for someone to expect to borrow a cup of flour from a neighbor, but it would be if they expected that neighbor to also provide all the other ingredients and tools needed for the recipe.
Building a business might be another example of degrees. I think most people would freely offer to share their advice or knowledge to help someone striving for such independence, but they might not feel helpful if you were demanding to put your hand in their pocket.
I am never arguing against helping a fellow citizen, I think you are right—that is the glue that holds us together. I am arguing against the demand that we help. Offering that help must always be a choice and not a forced action that exceeds what one sees as acceptable degrees.
I will freely give you the shirt off my back today, but I will not give it to you every day, day after day.
GAJust so. It is one thing to ask for help from others, it is completely to demand that help, at the point of a gun if necessary.
It is also one thing to ask for a cup of flour today; it is completely different to forcibly demand that same cup every day for years without end.Yes, it's about degrees. Also, it depends on a lot of things. That's why I said, it's not a simple answer as to say, everybody for themselves and no aid whatsoever.
Now with Covid, it's clear that lots of people will lose or already have lost their jobs. Would it make sense for a government not to aid people?
No, it doesn't. As when people have no money to spend, nothing will be sold and the economy will go down. etc.
So it also depends on the situation what a government should do in terms of giving help.
And for instance, Banks have been bailed out a lot. Should the government have said, well, if you can't run a bank, then you should do something else. You won't get a dime.
Should the government not give money to General Motors or the car industry or the agricultural industry, as they are given tons of money (for free...)
So why not give schools tons of money for free?
This is one big, complicated can of worms. Interesting, with lots of related topics, but maybe we are off topic a bit....
Yep, I think e have covered it. Any more would just be arguing specifics—which I think are entirely personal positions. Thanks for the engagement.
GAThe same to you GA,
keep save.
And you too Wilderness. It's a privilege to live in a world where people can express their different political opinions. And to talk with people from all over the world with different backgrounds, from different cultures.
No, Peter, I could not go so far to think that I can change the "system" any more than I can expect the Earth to stop orbiting its Sun.
But, there needs to be push back to remind the oligarchs every now and then that this is a government of the people and it is not for sale. And believe me, without safeguards, "they" would take it all if they could.
The candidates that were serious about addressing these disparities were passed off as kooks and socialists and all that. The powers that be made sure that they could never have a voice or be offered as a serious alternative to your choices of bromide.
Thus, my suspicion as to how Biden managed to move to front runner so quickly during the campaign when his prospects moments before were dismal. Or, why Bloomberg got involved in the campaign, not expecting to win, but explicitly derailing the prospects of candidates that understood the root of the problem and the underlying villains involved and were willing to do something about it beside utter the same old platitudes.
The public was never intended to understand the whereabouts and true nature of the "man behind the curtain". The system is already corrupt and the oligarchs will pull all stops to keep it that way to maintain their position.
Those exemplary candidates were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.Apparently it's easier for a fascist to become a president of the United States than a socialist.
Yes Biden, was not my candidate either, too conservative. Same old thing (no pun intended.) Harris, I don't know her, but my gut feeling tells me she's also working for the upper class. (but I could be wrong.)
It's good to know though that there is a young generation like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad trying to change things.
Let's hope that Biden is not just words and symbolic gestures.
Some here were highly offended when I said those who continue to believe the election was stolen should be relegated to the fringes, along with moon landing deniers and flat earthers, but I think they should. At this point, still proclaiming massive election fraud is just plain loony.
What about those that don't believe there was massive fraud, but DO believe that it is a possibility AND that we will never know because we won't investigate properly? Should those people, desiring only a legal, proper election now and in the future, be relegated to the fringes as well? Should their requests for truth be ignored in favor of turning a blind eye because of an untested belief?
As far as I am aware all credible allegations were investigated. That was the position of Trump's DOJ, Trump's FBI, state election officials including Republican s, and judges including Trump appointees.
What is left?
Are you a person who denies that a legal process has been followed? If so,where are the crack legal teams making sure it is followed?How many of the witnesses and whistleblowers testified before a court? I believe there was at least a hundred of them - how many testified? How many computer experts examined the software and hardware of the voting machines and gave their testimony in court? How many handwriting experts examined the dates on ballots and testified? How many legal experts have, in a courtroom, made a case for states not following their own laws in changing requirements for mail in ballots?
There is a vast difference between "Your case is thrown out because it was not timely" and a thorough investigation into the allegations. My limited information is that only a single case was actually heard at all, and it was thrown out because there was insufficient evidence to change that state's vote. Not because there was NO evidence - because it wouldn't make a difference. While that is fine (I guess) for the past election, it doesn't do much for future ones. IMO.
Or perhaps the difference in opinion here is that little world "credible"? Is it that anything that does not show a fair election (the desired conclusion) is not "credible" and thus not worthy of investigation?
*edit* the case filed against Guliano (sp?) by the maker of the machines could be interesting - with a lot more time to work, will it be shown that there really is a "backdoor" into the machines, OR that votes can be easily changed with no record of that change? Will the reported connections to crime and/or "criminal countries" be shown?I'm sorry but this is so irrational. If I go to the police and say I think you stole my lawnmower and the police investigate and find no evidence (no lawnmower in your possession, no evidence you sold it, no video of you taking it, no witnesses), should the case against you go to court? Probably not, but let's say some lawyer believed me so much she decided to take my case to court and put it before a judge, who looks it over and dismisses it.
Would you think it rational for the entire neighborhood to think you stole the lawnmower even though the case was so flimsy it was dismissed? After all, the judge never heard my case and I'm an upstanding citizen.
Panther, they are offended because it represents a large swath of the Trump voting electorate. What happened in 2000 or even 2016, the Democrats that lost put their loyalty to the Democratic system and accepted the outcome, what does the GOP do stirring up all this nonsense for so long?
Honestly, i think all parties involved should just accept the fact that Biden is our new president come hell or highwater, and just move on. We have enough problems in this country than worrying about the legitimacy of Biden's victory in the election.
And with a straight face, you can say that the 2016 Democrats put their loyalty to the Democratic system? Hmm . . . they began beating the illegitimacy drums in 2015, and spent the next 5 years working that same democratic system to get their way. Yep, that 'fer sure' sounds like good losers accepting the outcome and abiding by the Democratic system—not.
Geesh bud. Take a minute and hit "Preview" to look at your comment before you post it.
GAAlmost as bad as the entirety of the GOP ignoring that Russia, a hostile foreign government, helped to elect Trump and saw no need to investigate why, or care at all when Trump commits ten counts of obstruction to protect Russia.
What you call good losers, I would call protecting national security."Almost as bad as the entirety of the GOP ignoring that Russia, a hostile foreign government, helped to elect Trump"
You really should read the Mueller Report. American citizens paid millions for it. Those of us who have read it can say your statement is blatantly false.
I know, in case you don't have the internet skills required to find a copy of the report let me help you. Here is a copy of it from your favorite news outlet known as CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics … index.htmlI think I recall you mentioning that once before. It was probably addressed then.
GA
My, you have definitely fallen off the fence and landed on your @ss! lol
I might point out that, yes, the Democrats used every tool at their disposal to remove a criminal.president from.office,just as their constituents wanted, but it was all within the law.
Yeah, I get it that you and others think it was rabid obstruction. But a good many Americans,including many principled Republicans (such as those forming The Lincoln Project) are thankful the Democrats are standing up to the crazy, lawless wannabe-President-for-Life. And they are doing it lawfully.Yep, it was lawful, and yep, I do think it was rabid obstruction. And, yep, many times I think it was deserved. But many times it wasn't.
GA
Yes, there was much more to question regarding the 2016 outcome, did Clinton spend two months denying that Trump won the election? Did Clinton spend that time undermining the democratic process?
She, having won the popular vote, with Trump winning battleground states and the electoral college by the skin of his teeth, regardless, she concedes as every losing candidate has except in the past with the noted exception of Donald Trump.
We are all free to protest, I don't have to like my adversary. But, sacking the Capitol Building, and impeding the transition process for then President Elect Biden was the last straw. When have the Democrats done that?
So, don't compare similarities Democrats with Republicans in this regard because the differences are quite stark if you bother to look closely.That reminds me, if anyone should know about stolen/rigged elections, it is certainly the Democrats, from 2016.
After all, that is how they got Clinton rather than Bernie...
But 2020 was so much sweeter to watch, they had a gaggle of misfits and a couple decent options thrown in.
They character assassinated the two Dark Horses as they began to get some attention and interest, they even wheeled out Clinton to throw accusations of Russian Collusion at one of them (Tulsi) while making sure another (Yang) was given no air time or coverage at all.
Then after Bernie had a big win (NH) the puppet masters pulling the strings said "oh hell no... not again" and they pulled just about everyone running into a "side room" got them to drop out, and overnight everyone was voting for Biden and the election was over...
Mind you, two months prior to his suddenly winning the nomination everyone was making fun of Biden, including most Democratic pundits, and laughing at his on stage gaffs and countless times he couldn't recall where he was or what he was talking about.
But hey... its all legit... Bernie didn't get skrewed in 2016... and the field wasn't completely cleared of all competition for Biden in 2020... nah... Biden is exactly who everyone wanted and adored for his brilliance and fresh ideas all along.
The problem is even if the election was rigged, you'd have no way to prove it honestly. Look at what's been going on with the Robinhood App, and the Game Stop Stock. When a band of reddit users screwed over the hedge fund companies using their own tactics against them to drive up the stock of Game Stop, the Robin Hood app temporarily put a ban on people to buy anymore stocks into game stop, which angered a lot of reddit users to downvote the app on the google play store, which google deleted because they didn't want to look bad. Therefore, it's hard to find evidence even if Biden and his camp did cheat to win because the big tech companies will normally side with whoever pays their bills and butters their bread.
Either way, I think it's best for all parties involved to just accept that Biden will be our president for the next four years. Personally, I didn't like either candidate, so this doesn't bother me much, but we'll see what happens. Cheers.
Edit: For the record, I'm not saying Biden cheated to win, as I honestly don't know if he did. As of right now, I'm going to assume he did win legitimately until proof comes out to prove otherwise, but I am open to the possibility that the democratic party cheated to win this election, but I said the same thing about Trump in 2016 so I guess we'll never know for sure.This Article may answer your question.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/Some people believe the earth is flat. There are lots of videos on youtube that will explain this theory.
The facts have been hidden. The force opposing America has become ruthless. Some gleefully jump on board the train of destruction and demise in favor of making people into slaves and data makers. This force wants to make children so connected to the internet that they will become automatons themselves. This force wants open borders so that the people who live and work here will loose their jobs and homes. This force wants to create equality where none should exist. This force wants us to give up common sense and logic in favor of utopian feel good thinking. Utopia, by the way, means that which can never be:
Paradise on Earth.
Never.
Earth, wherever one lives, in any nation, is a hard place to live and we need common sense!
We need to tend to reality.
Not pretend to ILLUSION. which is what that force is implementing and encouraging in a myriad of ways.
Blah to that force. May that force N O T be with you.Will the R E A L force please stand up?
- this comment is reportable, in my opinion, (an opinion you value very little ... No Prob.)
"Some people say the election was stolen, but it is hard to find proof of that." [paraphrasing]
Investigators, state election officials, the DOJ, the FBI, the judiciary--after hearing the allegations, reviewing the evidence, and investigating the evidence--all say the election was not stolen.
" Yet, there are those who are very concerned."
Celebrate, Americans! You are about to find out if the voting machines were accurate or not. In a court. Yay!
Which means presumably we’ll all hear less of the ‘Rigged election’ cry that still dominates online (even now after the unthinkable / the thing that was never going to happen did ... on Inauguration Day.)
Yes, the Republicans can assign their best legal experts to the task of proving their claims of voter fraud once and for all.
Here’s the exciting news. (Good news for everyone ... or at least everyone with any interest in learning the actual. truth.)
An election technology company that has been the focus of consistent conspiracy theories by Donald Trump and his allies has sued the former President's lawyer Rudy Giuliani for $ 1.3 Billion for defamation, saying he pushed the "Big Lie" about election fraud on his podcast and TV appearances.
Giuliani is seemingly delighted to be sued, because now he can request all the information he needs from the company as part of the process, with the intention of proving his allegations.
Trump and other entities including media outlets like Fox News will presumably be helping Giuliani because they are on the company’s list of people to sue. Giuliani is just #2 on the list.
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame … a8201bd227
So this news is exciting for everyone, right?Proving how badly the Democrats cheated during this past presidential election is gaining steam. I hope Biden continues to do what he's doing, it help grow the number of people who want to know just how this mindless old fool actually got elected. At the very least is warrants a federal investigation. There is just too much evidence to ignore.
"Judge rules Virginia's late election law changes for mail-in ballots were illegal"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … _98LoWGCHc
This is from the liberal news outlet MSN. This is huge since it sets precedent. Expect more rulings like this to happen in the future. Counting mail in ballots three days after an election changed it. Without this, Biden would have certainly lose. Simply taking all of them off the table changes the election dramatically.
"Pennsylvania Bombshell: Biden 99.4% v. Trump 0.6%
Stunning testimony that the media has dutifully ignored."
https://spectator.org/pennsylvania-bomb … trump-0-6/
"What surfaced during hearings in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 25, 2020, may set the standard for electoral outrageousness. An expert testifying to the Pennsylvania Senate flagged a batch of ballots that recorded some 570,000 votes for Joe Biden and only 3,200 for Donald Trump.
Yes, you read that correctly. That would equate to Joe Biden bagging 99.4 percent of that enormous chunk of votes. That one batch alone would have flipped the state to Biden.
This bombshell was dropped last Wednesday at the Wyndham Hotel in Gettysburg. The November 25 hearings, which began at 12:30 p.m. and ran for nearly four hours, were convened at the request of Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Adams, Cumberland, Franklin, and York counties). It was sponsored by the Senate Majority Policy Committee, chaired by Sen. David Argall (R-Berks/Schuylkill). Mastriano has called what happened “unacceptable,” and has called for the resignation of Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar."
"Arizona legislators have called for an “expeditious” forensic audit of the Dominion voting machines used in Maricopa County."
"Top legislators from both the House and the Senate in Arizona have called for the forensic audit of the Dominion machines, which were only used in Maricopa County, the largest county in the state, and the only one that narrowly flipped from President Trump to Joe Biden according to preliminary election results."
https://nationalfile.com/breaking-arizo … -machines/
This is huge. Again, it sets precedent. This can be used to call for the forensic audit of voting machines in other states.I don’t think anyone should waste emotional energy on this issue.
As I mentioned earlier, Dominion has begun launching multiple defamation cases.
We’ll all know who has been telling the truth soon enough.
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame … a8201bd227I welcome this lawsuit. This means many things will be made part of the public record. I think it is a good thing. If Dominion was to eventually withdraw their lawsuits, I would not be surprised. If they go forward, all the better.
There is quite a bit of emotional energy on this issue and it is not going away.
Blatantly false is about everything you write on this site.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume5.pdfReally?
Do you see the words "Colluded with the Trump campaign" in this report? I didn't.
Virginia: Perhaps if there were 400,000 votes with illegible or missing postmarks, Mike could have a case that Trump won the states. Charlotte Gomer, a spokeswoman for Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, said the number of ballots with missing or illegible postmarks is likely very small.
https://apnews.com/article/election-202 … 364826ea49
Pennsylvania: On the night between November 3rd and 4th, between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. EST both Trump and Biden’s votes increased by approximately 1 million. The biggest increase was from midnight to 3 a.m. after which the tallies stayed very stable. So, not sure where Mike's 'expert' pulled his 3,200 vote total from to get his percent, but it appears he omitted about 996,800 votes to get there.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact … SKBN27Q307re: the Pa voting sequence. Given that the vote total was about 50-50, it is possible that any "batch" (from the link) would come in 600,000 to 3,000...but the odds of that are literally astronomical in size. This is elementary probability at work.
Regardless of the eventual total outcome, it is also a very valid reason to find out the "why" it happened. Consider that if you flip a coin 10 million times you will not find any consecutive batch of 600,000 times that are all heads. You may find 100 "heads" in a row, you could conceivably find 200 (very low probability), but you will not find a series of half million tosses that come in at 600,000 to 3,000. Not unless the coin is weighted or mis-read. And all the whining that the end count was what we needed to see does not change that.
So what's the problem with finding out why such an insanely improbable event occurred? Or even if it did - the claim was made but has anyone else verified it?It's interesting to look at the timeline in Pennsylvania to see if the 600,000 to 3,200 claim even makes sense:
Tuesday, Nov. 3, just before midnight Trump holds a 550,000 vote lead.
Wednesday, Nov. 4, 7am Trump's lead improved to 700,000.
Wednesday, Nov. 4, 10am Trump's lead drops to 590,000.
Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2:35pm, More than 1 million mail-in ballots remain to be counted. Statewide, Biden has been taking 78% of them.
By the end of Wednesday, as mail-in ballots have been counted, Trump's lead has decreased to 196,000.
Thursday, Nov. 5, 7am, Trump's lead decreases to 164,000 after overnight counting.
Thursday, Nov. 5, afternoon mail-in counts from Philly drop Trump's lead to 102,000 by the afternoon.
Thursday, Nov. 5, Trump's lead drops to just 24,000 before midnight.
Friday, Nov. 6, Trump's lead is down to 18,229.
Friday, Nov. 6, Biden takes the lead by 9am of 5,600 votes.
By 1:30pm, his lead grows to 13,000.
Now, if you can find somewhere in that timeline that there was a nearly 600,000 vote change for Biden, that might lend some validity to the claims.
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/ … vaporated/But where is the problem in doing a forensic analysis of it? Where is the problem in investigating if the claim is true? Your timeline seems to indicate that it is only possible time period it could have happened is between Wed. morning and Friday afternoon, directly contradicting the claim, so who is right? Your timeline or the claim of 600,000 unchallenged ballots in a few hours?
Did we see 600,00 ballots come in for Biden, immediately followed by 600,000 for Trump (unmentioned by the Trump team)? If so, just who is separating them out, and why? Were votes being "counted" locally but not passed to a mainframe somewhere? Was communication just lacking for a few hours?
What's the problem with digging into this?The 'expert' witness claimed the vote surge happened on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd in the evening. Yet, Trump increased his lead overnight by 110,000 votes. Numerically, it makes no sense.
How about the 'expert' shows us the batch he analyzed to garner his conclusion.
Because that expert is Phil Waldron and he also testified in Michigan where his claims were easily debunked.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 824210001/That's what I said! Look into it! Don't write it off because you got the results you like - find it. If it's there then those that made the claim can point out the exact time and the exact "batch" of ballots that produced the result. Look at them instead of writing it off as something that "obviously" did not occur.
Trump increased his lead by 100,000 votes - should it have been 600,000? How can you tell if you don't look?
And we're still left with why you won't support looking.
Not sure what your link about Michigan has to do with the reported problem in Pennsylvania.Because you clearly missed how the same expert used in Pennsylvania's claims, made the same claims in Michigan that election officials debunked. Which was the point of that link. So, in summary, Mike is posting links and claims that have been clearly debunked, two months after an election and nearly two weeks after Biden was already sworn in. Clearly, he's stuck in conspiracy theoryland, as are many Trump supporters.
I think one of the most important stories is how using mail-in ballots that are NOT post marked and counted three days after an election have been found illegal by a judge. This is HUGE. Think of the tens of thousands of ballots that should have been disqualified in Virginia, Pennsylvania as well as Michigan. It IS a game changer...it, combined with the other evidence, are good grounds for a federal investigation.
We can't change Biden's fraudulent election, but we must work toward preventing another one from happening in the future.Ten of thousands? The office of the Attorney General noted that it wouldn't be many at all. Plus, tens of thousands still doesn't swing Virginia or Michigan. And one judge's ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.
Plus, Mike thinks this such a big deal...but this decision was made on October 28th. A week before the election. So those ballots that were affected in Virginia were not counted. Not sure why he thinks that equates to fraud...
https://vpm.org/news/articles/17626/vir … in-ballots
It is not the job of the government to "change behavior (
!) with tax regulations."
Since when is it okay for the government to have this kind of influence?
Since When?
Since you care more about the big picture of Utopia than the individual's right to guide his own free will toward his own happiness, (within the boundaries of good-will toward others.)Equal taxation would be nice. But applying those same rules to American companies would also be nice since they charge higher prices here in America for the same goods and services than they do in other parts of the world. If they can do it, why should those that benefit from those unfair practices be given the same treatment?
There is some justification for those higher prices. The cost doesn't end with production and labor and other expenses must be factored in. Cost of advertising as well. And of course competition plays a part, too - if competition for sales is high then prices drop.
But that isn't to say that some of our patent laws don't play a part as well, giving a company an opportunity for higher prices that they don't have in other countries.If you say so - it's pretty easy to demonize or find wrongdoing when important parts of the story are left out. George Washington was an evil, evil child; we know this because he chopped down the cherry tree!
IF there is nothing to hide why is this happening?
"Maricopa County board refuses to turn over election equipment for Arizona Senate audit
Maricopa County refuses to turn over elections equipment and ballots from the November general election to the Arizona Senate, escalating a fight between the dueling government bodies over election integrity oversight.
The Board of Supervisors, which announced its audit of the county's election machines on Jan. 27, missed a Tuesday noon deadline to comply with a Senate subpoena following a meeting with the board's attorneys, a local Fox affiliate reported.
Three days after Maricopa announced its audit, the Senate initiated its own parallel audit of elections equipment and materials, claiming the board's audit does not meet the Senate's request for a "deep forensic audit." The Senate audit began on Tuesday with the issuance of the subpoena.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Warren Petersen said there could be "serious legal consequences" if the board does not comply. Petersen then followed through on the threat, announcing on Twitter that the Senate would draft a contempt resolution against the board."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … RnWm48yXJYProviding voter information to partisan hacks like the Arizona GOP Senate, the same people who censured Cindy McCain and Governor Ducey, seems like it's not in the best interest of voters.
Instead, they have contracted two companies that are certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Of course, this will simply allow Trump cult members to claim deep state, since they need a new conspiracy.
The two companies will do the following to ensure that the county's voting system worked properly in the general election, Jarrett told the supervisors on Wednesday:
Analyze its hacking vulnerability.
Verify that no malicious malware was installed.
Test that tabulators were not sending or receiving information over the internet.
Confirm that no vote switching occurred.
Verify state and county procurement regulations were followed when leasing the equipment from Dominion Voting Systems.
The supervisors were going to invite lawmakers to oversee the process and ask them for their input. He said the supervisors understand that part of the Senate's interest is to monitor the audit in order to see which changes are needed to election law.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po … 269186001/
So, as always, your partisan Washington Times article leaves a lot out.'Providing voter information to partisan hacks like the Arizona GOP Senate, the same people who censured Cindy McCain and Governor Ducey, seems like it's not in the best interest of voters.'
They have been voted into the state senate by the "VOTERS." So, it is obvious they are following the dictates of their constituents.
Again, it is obvious they are afraid of something. Democrats don't get to choose which laws they follow. The state Senate of Arizona is a governing body. I hope that serious censure comes their way. Also, maybe a loss of state funding should be in order.
It is very suspicious and they are acting like guilty criminals.Considering a minority of people in the state voted for Trump, there is an equal argument that they are denying the dictates of their constituents by not accepting the results.
Considering that no law exists to dictate what the Senate is doing in this case, it appears that they are the ones trying to do something that no law covers. They would be the ones not following the law in this case as Senate leader Karen Fann noted back in November:
'Fann acknowledged it is the Legislature that crafted the election laws, including the security features. And it was never thought necessary to require the kind of outside audit that she now wants.'
So, what's even more suspicious is that the GOP Senate members are trying to do something outside the law to swing the election that had multiple safeguards in place such as audits (a law that requires that 2% of the ballots from select precincts be counted by hand to ensure the tally matches what the machine has spit out), certification of the machines before the election (by the US Election Assistance Commission) and tests on the machines both before and after to ensure they work and worked properly."Considering a minority of people in the state voted for Trump"
You might want to check your stats. Biden won Arizona by .4 percent. Less than a percent is not a minority of people.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/arizona
"Considering that no law exists to dictate what the Senate is doing in this case, it appears that they are the ones trying to do something that no law covers."
Hate to bring this up to you but according to the US Constitutions it is the legislatures of each state that is responsible for voting and following the laws. So, the Arizona state senate has jurisdiction over every county in the state when it comes to elections
Maricopa county is only one county in Arizona. A state that has 15 counties.
I still wonder why they are defying the US Constitution and their own state constitution.
The behavior of the commissioners in Maricopa county is very suspicions to say the least. If the states gets those voting machines and prove they were tampered with, someone will likely go to jail.
Could the .4 percent be negated by corrupt voting machines? The state senate of Arizona wants to know,Crack a book, Mike.
Majority - noun, the greater number
Minority - noun, the smaller number
You're absolutely right. The U.S. Constitution does state that following the laws is important. So, by law, if the Senate wants an audit, they need to pass a law stating that they want to include that as part of verifying the votes. Currently, one does not exist and the GOP Senators are trying to do something without a law to condone it, circumventing the rest of the Senate.You need to brush up a bit on the Arizona state Constitution and laws.
If the board members refuse the Senate's request, they can be found in contempt. The state senate has the authority given to them by the state Constitution of Arizona. Those in charge could be put in jail.
"Republicans who control the Arizona Senate are moving ahead with their threat to pass a contempt resolution finding Maricopa County has failed to comply with a subpoena demanding access to elections equipment and ballots cast in the November election...If the resolution passes, board members could be jailed for failing to comply."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … n-election
What are they hiding? The state Senate has authority over ALL the counties in the state. That is how it works.The GOP Senate seems to have made a subpoena that violates their own state law. In essence, I could argue that they are violating their oaths to the Arizona State Constitution and should be thrown out of office.
'There is an explicit state law that requires ballots to be locked up after an election and only released pursuant to a court order. Images of the ballots are afforded the same protection. Senate Republican leadership has obtained no such court order. So, the leadership is demanding that the county commit an illegal act.'
You claim they, and they being composed of four Republicans and one Democrat by the way, are hiding something, when the reality is that they are following the law.
The additional tests conducted by the board are entirely transparent and public. The firms that are conducting them are known and approved by the federal government for such purposes, so certification of the machines has not been put at risk. Legislators and media can watch the tests taking place.
The board decided to do so in hopes of tamping down allegations of irregularities still circulating among Trumpeteers. That’s never going to happen. Further tests and audits simply feed the delusion, suggesting that there might still be something to find, or something that is being hidden.
The only path forward is for everyone else to move on and leave the Trumpeteers to their delusions.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion … 390858001/They are asking to see the voting machines, not the ballots. Big difference.
There is no Arizona state law covering the examination of voting machines. The Senate is well within their prevue to order an examination of the voting machines. Maricopa County does not have the authority to say no.
I have no idea why this is not a huge national news story.Actually, they did ask to see the mail-in ballots as part of their subpoena. Look it up. Illegal.
And machine verification is talked about on page 249...
https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2 … PROVED.pdfThanks for providing that document. It provides a wealth of information. What I saw on page 249 said "During these retention periods, ballots and official returns may only be opened pursuant to a court"
So, I believe this will end up in the Arizona court system...as does everything like this...and then we will see what happens.
I'm simply surprised this is not a national news story covered on all the national media outlets.
As I said before, this isn't going to go away. The Supreme Court is going to hear if two different election fraud cases can proceed.
'Supreme Court to decide if two Trump election fraud cases can proceed this month
Former President Donald Trump still has two challenges to last year’s presidential election waiting to be addressed by the Supreme Court, despite Joe Biden swearing-in as president over two weeks ago. The high court will determine whether the cases can proceed at the next conference on Feb. 19.
In one of the cases, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al, Trump’s team alleges statutory requirements including signature verification, the right to challenge invalid mail ballots, mandates regarding dates and signatures and the right of campaigns to observe mail ballot canvassing were eliminated.
The other suit, Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, et al, the former president’s allies allege that Wisconsin violated election code, calling for 50,125 absentee ballots to be set aside and not included in post-recount vote totals."
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/0 … his-month/
If the Supreme Court approved just ONE of these cases it will be huge. We shall see. The election results can not be overturned, this is more to make a statement that the allegation of election fraud were true. There are still 20 other lawsuits around the country concerning election fraud waiting to be heard or dismissed.No, problem. I learned some things from doing the search as well.
You keep using the word fraud when discussing the lawsuits Trump has filed. In many of the cases, the issue is changes to election procedures attributed to the pandemic. Many of those changes were done by Republican election officials. So, Trump's argument is that by making voting safer and trying to protect their constituents during a pandemic, that equates to fraud.
And if I'm arguing the cases, I'd mention that 30 states and the District of Columbia changed election laws due to the pandemic. Why was Trump only suing in states Biden won? Wouldn't 'fraud' have then occurred in a plethora of states Trump had won?"So, Trump's argument is that by making voting safer and trying to protect their constituents during a pandemic, that equates to fraud."
The issue is that only key battleground states violated the US constitution and passed election laws without their state legislatures. THAT is the problem. In the state of Michigan and Pennsylvania as well as Georgia, they violated the US Constitution as well as their own state's constitution. Attorney generals as well as governors don't have the authority to simply make laws. It MUST go through a state's legislature.
Why would the do such a thing?
The other problem is the mail in ballots. A judge in Virginia found that not having mail in ballots not required to have a date stamp and counting them three days AFTER the election is illegal. He won't be the last.
Those TWO issues alone constitute fraud on a massive scale.
Again, it's too late to change the 2020 presidential election results. BUT, the fraud that did occur needs to be identified and safeguards put in place to prevent it from happening in the future.
That is why I say there has to be a federal investigation into fraud during the presidential election, it is essential. There is more than enough evidence. An effort needs to be made to reassure tens of millions of Americans the system is not rigged against them.I've already debunked the Virginia claim as only affecting a small amount of ballots. And again, this is a process issue that was settled before ballots were even counted on October 28th. Your claim that it led to fraud appears to discount that.
So your claim is that the other 25 states and the District of Columbia who changed election processes for Covid did so by passing laws? I find that claim very hard to believe.
In Texas, 'Gov. Greg Abbott extended the early voting period by an additional week because of the coronavirus pandemic, but Texas, unlike some other states, did not relax criteria for requesting a mail-in ballot.'
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/08 … -pandemic/
Wouldn't Abbott have needed Congress to pass a law granting the change in days that voters could vote early? Texas seems to have been fraudulent in favor of Trump by your criteria.Actually, the Texas governor does have the authority to move dates of voting based on the laws of Texas. To be specific, it is covered in Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code. What he CAN'T do, and other states did, is change how and when votes are counted. That is the issue.
Again, why did only the battle ground states ignore the US Constitution and in some cases their own state constitution for the 2020 election? Why did they change only how and when mail in ballots are counted?
It is suspicious.
What you provided is an opinion piece. There are those who would disagree with those opinions. I'm with the group who believes Maricopa County doesn't have the authority to refuse the state Senate. It is the STATE that has the responsibility for vote certification and not the county. Remember, there are 14 other counties in Arizona with no such problems.
I linked to an opinion piece that noted the specific Arizona Law that a court order is needed to get ballots released. A court order the GOP Senate never asked for. Good job trying to ignore the point I made, but here is the same law quoted on the passed election procedures of Arizona.
Page 262 of 544 at the bottom, just as the opinion piece noted:
https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2 … PROVED.pdf
We want to help ourselves. As adults we don't want to have to ask others for help.
Therefore, the time to help humans become independent, robust and intelligent is in the first six years of life.
We must have better education for our youth; an education only parents can manage and delegate, if not provide ...
somehow.
And that word, "somehow", isolates the difficulty.PS As someone who had a great time during the 60s and 70s, when we experienced freedom and independence, I advise: keep control over your lives.
Don't give it to the government.As I said before, this isn't going to go away.
"Top Democrat Elections Attorney Marc Elias Agrees With Republicans that Voting Machines Are Unreliable and Invalid
Elias was also responsible for funneling money from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the Fusion GPS opposition research firm, which produced the fraudulent “Russia dossier.” Marc Elias worked with Stacey Abrams in Georgia to ensure Democrats win the election using absentee ballots.
In a legal filing on behalf of Brindisi, Marc Elias challenged the faulty voting machines for the Democrat lawmaker’s loss.
Elias wrote:
In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, (supra at 4), and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi, (id.). In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 … e-invalid/I'm in Oswego County...this does not surprise me. So, it wasn't the machine in that case, but the election officials that did not follow state law in testing and calibrating them.
No, it is about charges of the voting machine giving incorrect tabulations.
"In a legal filing on behalf of Brindisi, Marc Elias challenged the faulty voting machines for the Democrat lawmaker’s loss."
Oh, this sounds familiar. Like I said, it is coming back around to the Democrats and they don't like it either.This is like the Antrim, Michigan case where the election officials didn't calibrate the machines and Biden was deemed the winner at first. Once they figured out what they did wrong, they fixed their mistake and the results matched the actual ballots.
It's funny. When the Democrats have trouble with voting machines they're "shocked" when a judge won't hear their case. Oh, it IS shocking when hypocrisy and double standards come back around.
"New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi, the incumbent for New York's 22nd congressional district, said Friday that he is "shocked" a New York judge rejected his campaign's claims that voting machine irregularities resulted in his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney.
Not only did DelConte criticize local boards of election for what he called "systemic violations of state and federal election law," but he rejected claims that voter fraud tampered the outcome of the contested election, according to Syracuse.com.
From Syracuse.com:
The judge also took the opportunity to dispel the rumors that have swirled around the legal proceedings regarding the integrity of the election. While there were errors, he writes, there was no fraud. No dead people voted. There were no discrepancies in voting machines, he said.
"Every single valid vote that was cast in New York's 22nd Congressional District has been accounted for, and counted," he wrote.
Lawyers for Brindisi had argued in a court filing this week that voting tabulation errors had marred the election."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-york- … ction-lossThe difference here is that the court found that state and federal law was violated. Not one court for Trump ruled that that had happened.
In his decision, DelConte wrote, “Despite the SEVERITY of the transgressions that have been uncovered in this proceeding, including multiple violations of state and federal Election Law, this Court has no authority to grant any other relief…”
He basically argues, despite the blatant errors on the part of some voters, some boards of election offices, and for some, blatant election injustices, the court doesn’t have the power to fix the problems.
The hand count request was prompted by discrepancies between the manual canvass of ballots and the numbers on ballots run through county boards of elections voting machines.
While the argument revolved mostly around subsequent canvassing of ballots in Oneida County after error correction, Brindisi’s attorneys argued discrepancies also were in Oswego, Madison, Chenango and Herkimer counties.
The Oneida County changes resulted in a significant change in the tallies.
Also at issue:
128 ballots from voters who dropped ballots off at the wrong polling place
20 ballots cast in the wrong county, many by college students
85 ballots, cast by people who were deemed “purged voters”Hey, like the judge said "there were errors, he writes, there was no fraud"
Sounds familiar. It is coming around to the Democrats now.
Oh, not one Court heard the evidence in the 2020 presidential election lawsuits. Most of the lawsuits were either dismissed or denied. Especially the ones with the strongest evidence.'Oh, not one Court heard the evidence in the 2020 presidential election lawsuits.'
That's a huge lie.
And like I noted, the judge confirmed that elections officials violated state and federal law in this case. Not fraud, but errors and 'injustices' which clearly could have affected the result. This is definitely about a confirmed case where elections officials are in fault as confirmed by actual evidence that proved it.If a company repossesses your car, or empties your bank account or evicts you from your home as a result of an "error" in their not following the law I can't see a non-political court allowing it to simply be set aside without correction.
Yet that is exactly what has happened in these "errors" and "injustices" which states pulled off in our election.
I don't know why this isn't in the national news. It is a huge story. One, the main stream media will try to ignore.
"A Michigan judge has released the bombshell report on the audit of Dominion Voting Systems, revealing that the machines and their software were “designed” to “create systemic fraud.”
The report covers the forensic audit of Dominion’s machines in Michigan’s Antrim County — which received national attention after it was discovered that 6,000 votes for President Donald Trump were “flipped” to Democrat Joe Biden due to an “error.”
13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ordered the report’s protective order to be lifted on Monday night, allowing the details of the audit to be unsealed and released to the public.
The data firm that conducted the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems determined that the machines and software in Michigan showed that they were designed to create fraud and influence election results, the report reveals.
“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,” Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, said in a preliminary report."
https://web.archive.org/web/20210107040 … mic-fraud/That audit has been widely debunked.
So, Antrim changed their ballots just before the election, then forgot to update the machine, leading to human error. Upon fixing their mistake, results were easily fixed.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit … cy-theory/They are two different audits. Your story is from December 18, almost a month ago. The story about the judge's audit is from one week ago.
Read the link...Ramsland is the author in your post as well as from the link I posted. Same debunked audit.
I think the Factcheck.org article raised more questions than it answers.
'Several experts on voting systems also told us the report betrayed a misunderstanding of election technology and process, and that it jumped to conclusions to proclaim fraud and make legal judgments.'
Who are these experts and what is their background that makes them “experts.”
“But election officials soon found the suspicious results were the result of a human error — and that Trump was actually leading in the vote count. Dominion Voting Systems has also said the “issue with election results reporting in Antrim County was due to user-error.”
The matter came down to the fact that the county clerk “accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data,” the Michigan Department of State, which oversees the state’s elections, said in a Nov. 6 statement.”
Who is this clerk and why has nobody spoken with her? If this voting machine data that was not updated, can't this be determined with an audit of the machines? It is convenient for human error and a lowly clerk to be responsible. If this happened with one machine, couldn't it also have happened with others?
“The Ramsland report said it didn’t accept the explanation for the error, writing: “We disagree and conclude that the vote flip occurred because of machine error built into the voting software designed to create error.”
In a rebuttal to the report he submitted to Michigan and federal legislators, Ryan Macias, former acting director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program, noted that the ballot definition files (used in the tabulator cards) “are not part of the certified voting system software, are unique to every election, and are regularly updated in advance of the election.”
A Michigan federal legislator? Seems pretty biased to me. This situation needs an independent review.
So, the entire article makes it look more like the Michigan government is trying to hide something rather than be open about the situation. It all seems rather suspicious.
Again, I suggest a full federal investigation with open access to ALL of the voting machines by independent forensic auditors. It just seems like something is being hidden for some reason.People did speak to the clerk, if you bothered to do a little extra research and get out of your media bubble:
A review by the clerk resulted in a change that showed Trump won the county. Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy indicated she failed to properly update memory cards that led to tabulation errors. Her office quickly updated the results, showing Trump won.
The office of Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson oversaw a hand recount of the ballots in Antrim, which resulted in a net gain of 12 votes for Trump and affirmed he won the county.
So once the clerk error was fixed, and a hand recount was done, results were confirmed with very little difference between machines and paper ballots.
Now, if you can explain how that hand recount of ballots indicates fraud when the machines are properly used, then you would have a case.
As to the experts, here is one who cleared things up:
Dominion CEO John Poulos recently testified under oath at a Michigan Senate hearing. He denied allegations, including those involving Antrim County, walking lawmakers through explanations as to why the accusations were wrong.
Senate Oversight Committee Chairman Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said after the hearing that Poulos "dispelled all manner of rumors about the origins, connections, and dealings of Dominion Voting Systems."
Its no wonder AG Bill Barr left the scene.
Its enough to drive you absolutely M A D.Why is Dominion not suing Mike Lindell?
Is it because they don't want to be found out?????
Yes.- ValKarasposted 3 years ago
0It's another cherry-picking theme based on one's political preference. First, because the pandemic "making cheating possible" doesn't automatically mean that it did happen on a large scale as it's being suspected.
Second, there is not much logic, let alone proof, that "all 61 judges refused to look into an evidence" which even Rudy Giuliani failed to present. Let's remember that some of those judges had been installed by Trump.
And maybe most important of everything -- third, if there really had been "extra votes", where is logic denying a possibility that they were not Trump's votes? Because, logically, a "playground for cheating" allowed BOTH sides to cheat on votes. Namely, how do we know that Trump didn't lose by even bigger difference?
Beyond suspecting, what a lay person can "know" what those directly involved failed to make public enough to prevent judges from "ignoring" the evidence?
All we kept hearing were repeated phrases of suspicion.
And again, I am simply being logical here, totally neutral. Do I dislike Trump? I do dislike that he separated those parents from kids -- which was inhuman. His constant contradicting himself and lying on videos doesn't bother me, because ALL politicians are doing it all the time. How about the voting machines being connected to the internet? That is cause for major fraud concern and it DID happen.
This is a huge problem. Hackers around the world could get into them.
Here is an NBC news article about it BEFORE the election.
“A team of election security experts used a “Google for servers” to challenge claims that voting machines do not connect to the internet and found some did.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi … g-n1112436
A witness at a Senate hearing states voting machines WERE connected to the internet.
“Fired Director of Cyber Security Chris Krebs told the US Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday that some Dominion Voting Machines were connected to the internet.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 … -internet/Some states still prefer voting machines with modems to relay results to their county election offices.
In all, the number of its election machines with wireless modems is 14,420 across 11 states, including Florida, Rhode Island, Georgia and Wisconsin.
Now, that being said, the recount in Georgia, one where they counted the actual paper ballots yielded the following results:
Here's how the final counts of Biden's win from the three recounts ended:
First count (by machine, certified by counties Nov. 13): 13,558
Second count (after hand audit, certified by Secretary of State Nov. 20): 12,284
Final count (after official recount, also by machine, certified Dec. 7): 11,779
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/po … f18f318645
So while you argue that hackers could have gotten in, the proof when the machine tallies compared to the paper ballots, which all of the voting machine aside from a few non-battleground states have, do not back your claims in the slightest. How do you dismiss the paper ballots? How did the hackers change the writing on the actual ballots that verified the machine tallies?
In Wisconsin, Trump paid for a hand recount in Milwaukee, Biden actually gained votes there.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-p … in-2020-11
Antrim, Michigan hand recount versus machine totals:
https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-1 … --,00.html
Your claims just do not match the recounts and audits. Saying there is a chance of fraud is fine. Saying fraud actually occurred requires proof. It's like me saying that you own a gun and could murder someone, then making a leap that you have murdered someone despite not having a body and all the ammunition your ever purchased is accounted for. This is what you're trying to convince people of.Biden won Georgia by .24 percent of the vote. There were groups that found illegal voting. If those votes were deducted, President Donald Trump would be the winner.
"One of many volunteer groups, a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm says it has found that about 40,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 3 general election. Mark Davis, President of Data Productions, Inc. and considered an expert in five court cases concerning election disputes found 40,239 people who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election and voted in their old county, which is illegal according to Georgia law. Those 40,239 people who voted failed to register their new address in time to vote in their new county, and according to the law they cannot vote in either county until they do."
40,239 illegal votes are more than triple the size of the current margins in the Presidential race as Joe Biden is listed as being approximately 12,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 … mp-column/
"Here is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan. Hundreds of thousand of illegal votes were counted.
Michigan officials counted another 35,109 ballots that were not associated with any address. This statistic is nothing short of mindboggling. According to Northon, voters “were sent an absentee ballot, but there’s no address on file. They voted. That violates the law.”
Michigan officials also counted 13,248 ballots cast by individuals who were registered to vote in another state. They also counted 317 ballots from people who voted more than once and 259 ballots from voters who listed only an email address instead of a physical address. Finally, election officials mailed out at least 74,000 absentee ballots that voters requested online."
https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-ne … s-n1181826
And then there is Wisconsin.
"Election Changes in Wisconsin Call Into Question Tens of Thousands of Votes
In Wisconsin, a state Joe Biden carried by just over 20,000 votes, tens of thousands of votes are being called into question due to last-minute changes made by election supervisors. Only state legislatures have the ability to change the ways elections are conducted, per the Constitution.
Just the News reports that election supervisors in the state of Wisconsin made three substantial changes in the run-up to the election that could potentially impact the fate of tens of thousands of votes."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonst … n-n2579709
The evidence of voter fraud is massive.
So, answer the question of why it is necessary for a mail in ballot to not have a post mark and be counted three days AFTER the election? How does this make sense, unless it is part of an organized effort to commit election fraud.So instead of answering a simple question of how paper ballots match machine tallies, you continue posting your garbage?
I could debunk all of that crap just as easily as I did the last stuff, but it sounds like you just want to share all the delusional rabbit holes you've fallen down without actually taking the time to acknowledge the reality that I just laid out for you.
But just for the fun, here is a Georgia illegal vote conspiracy debunked: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … l-for-him/The main question the left avoids and can't answer. Your Mother Jones article speaks about Matt Braynard, a onetime Trump campaign operative and my article is about the findings of a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm called Data Productions. You've debunked NOTHING.
So, answer the question of why it is necessary for a mail in ballot to not have a post mark and be counted three days AFTER the election? How does this make sense, unless it is part of an organized effort to commit election fraud? Can you answer it?So providing accurate data pertaining to the miniscule difference in machine counts and hand recounts that debunks your ridiculous arguments about voting machines is opinion? Only in your own mind.
22 States allow mail-in ballots to be received after the election, with the amount of days varying between three and twenty days. Are 22 states, including seven who went red, organizing to commit election fraud?
Like I've noted, in Virginia, the courts enjoined the Virginia Board of Elections on October 28th to not count ballots without a postmark.
And other states have specific rules about how they treat ballots without postmarks:
The state of Pennsylvania splits the mail-in ballots they receive into three groups, according to state guidance to local election officials:
-Ballots postmarked correctly on or before Nov. 3 which are counted,
-Ballots without a postmark (or with an illegible postmark) which are presumed to have been mailed prior to Nov. 3 which are counted, and
-Ballots that were not postmarked and are not assumed to have been sent before Nov. 3 which are not counted.
or Maryland:
Maryland Election officials say they check the postmark on each ballot to make sure it was mailed before the Nov. 3 deadline. If a ballot's return envelope has no postmark, "the date the voter signed the oath is used to determine if it was timely mailed; if the date is on or before Nov. 3, it is considered timely mailed."
But as the Constitution says, each state can determine their own rules pertaining to mail-in ballots. Just because Virginia ruled a certain way does not mean it applies to any other state in the country.
And more specifically to your question, and pertaining to this election, perhaps states felt the need to be more flexible with mail-in ballots due to the increased volume due to a pandemic. It could have also had something to do with Trump and DeJoy making changes to the USPS that was going to have an affect on citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. Either is a valid answer to your question.
As to the Georgia example, this lends credence to the type of idiots the Trump campaign was putting forth with analytics claims. They were not based in any reality and when scrutinized with actual voters, they got laughed out of court. Until your Data Analytics group provides the names to verify like Giuliani's guy did, not sure how serious the claim should be taken since the first claims were so easily debunked."So, answer the question of why it is necessary for a mail-in ballot to not have a post mark and be counted three days AFTER the election? "
One explanation offered by a Post Office spokesman said that some/many(?) ballots were mailed with preprinted return postage, (as we have all seen on business mailings), and that preprinted postage envelopes are not typically postmarked, (again, as we have all seen on business mailings).
It was further explained that because the item in question was a ballot, and that mail-in ballots were the hot topic of the election, some USPS facilities did make an effort to postmark them. but this was not a system-wide effort. So some of the preprinted postage ballots were postmarked and some weren't.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. Or, do you think it was just a CYA explanation to hide fraud?
GAAgain, tell me what safeguards were put in place to avoid voter fraud taking place. I wonder why do it mail in balloting if there are no such safeguards in place? Was it an oversight...or done on purpose?
You do know there is signature matching on mail-in ballots, right?
https://theconversation.com/6-ways-mail … aud-145666Ah, but has it been followed? What safeguard are in place to make certain the signatures are matched? I think this is not something too closely followed.
'WATCH: Stacey Abrams Brags About Lack of 'Exact' Signature Matching in Georgia'
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … a-n2582578Not sure about you, but sometimes I vary my signature a little bit. But while not exact, it's easy to see similarities among the variations. I wasn't even sure I put the right one in until they showed me the match when I recently voted, since it had been four years prior since I had voted.
Also, if someone tried to copy my signature and vote for me, there would be two ballots in my own name listed since I also voted.Sounds good. Now, not all states require signature verification of mail in ballots. A few are key battleground states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
"Election rules in multiple key battleground states permit voters to submit mail-in and absentee ballots without having their signatures checked to ensure the vote is valid.
Five states that have historically been competitive in presidential races — North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire — do not require signature-matching for mailed voting forms.
In some cases, state officials have explicitly codified that rule. In August, Karen Bell, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, wrote in a memo to all local county boards that a voter’s siagnture “shall not be compared with the voter’s signature on file because this is not required by North Carolina law.”
“County boards shall accept the voter’s signature on the container-return envelope if it appears to be made by the voter,” she continued, “meaning the signature on the envelope appears to be the name of the voter and not some other person.”
“Absent clear evidence to the contrary,” she added, “the county board shall presume that the voter’s signature is that of the voter, even if the signature is illegible.”
In other cases, signature-match rules have been struck down by jurists. Judges in New Hampshire and Iowa in recent years both struck down provisions of state laws mandating signature-match policies for absentee ballots.
In New Hampshire in 2018, a judge struck down a state law ordering election officials to match a voter’s signature on the application for a mail-in ballot with the voter’s signature on an affidavit accompanying the ballot itself.
“[T]he current process for rejecting voters due to a signature mismatch fails to guarantee basic fairness,” the ruling states. “Such discretion [in signature verification] becomes constitutionally intolerable once other factors are taken into account: the natural variations in voters’ signatures combined with the absence of training and functional standards on handwriting analysis, and the lack of any review process or compliance measures.”
The ruling suggested election officials could institute a policy of reaching out to voters regarding disputed ballots in order to give them a chance to rectify the errors.
In Iowa last year, meanwhile, a district court judge struck down a portion of a state election law which mandated that a voter’s affidavit signature match his or her signature on record with the state. The judge struck down that rule both under the Iowa constitution and on procedural due process grounds.
And in Wisconsin, the state’s website declares that “election inspectors are not required … to compare the signature [of a voter] to any other record.”
“Voters should be directed to sign using their normal signature as they would sign any other official document and election inspectors should indicate the line number on which the voter is to sign,” the state says.
“The law does not require voter signatures to be legible,” the rule continues.
Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told Just the News that the state “has never matched signatures for absentee ballots or any other voting activity.”
“There are many other security measures in place to protect the integrity of absentee voting in Wisconsin, including the use of photo ID,” he added.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, the state Department of State issued guidance in September directing that local election officials are not authorized “to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/10/16/ke … n-ballots/
That's an interesting idea: one person says fraud, another says no fraud...and therefore there was no fraud and the original claim is false. Not the second, "debunking" the first; the first is false because the second claims a tiny portion is in error.
If that is good, sound reasoning, I'm Santa Claus. All you've done is support the idea that the claims of fraud have NOT been investigated; that any single error out of 40,000 instances is being used to invalidate the entire thing.Hi, Santa!
Just as the 40,000 instances were not properly investigated before being lumped into a fraud claim. The claim was 40,000 - clearly that claim was false.
And if you saw a tiny portion after reading that article, you could be the next enrollee at Trump University!Well, I saw a sample of 10 votes, and another that did not give a total value but found 2 (supposedly) wrong ones - maybe even 15 or 20 sample size?
Ya think that's a reasonable sample size to predict 40,000?Well Santa, first off, you're talking about two separate cases again. In the article I cited, the claim was 22,000, not 40,000. The 40,000 is Mike's Data Analytics Group.
I guess you missed how they included whole apartment complexes of people who use PO boxes for mail. That was in the article, but I guess you skipped over that part while out feeding the reindeer. That was a quick check of local places to realize that the numbers used were based on incorrect information.
Remember...Biden won the state by less than a percent of the vote.
“Georgia Election Board Refers 35 Voter Fraud Cases for Prosecution
FEB 11, 2021
“Authorities said a group called the New Georgia Project submitted 1,268 voter registration applications after a deadline, causing voters for be disenfranchised in a 2019 special election.
Authorities are also accusing Floyd Jones and the Fayette County Board of Elections and Voter Registration, where he was director at the time, of improperly handling four memory cards registering 2,760 votes in the Nov. 3, 2020 general election. The board didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.”
https://yournews.com/2021/02/11/2025154 … osecution/Nobody on the left can answer the question as to why laws were passed to have mail in ballots with no post mark be counted three days after an election. I have an answer, it was designed for voter fraud. It enabled the democrats to know where Biden stood on election night and then produce enough fraudulent mail in ballot with no time stamps to put him ahead in the voting. I can't think of another reason. Some states went against the US Constitution and their own state constitution to make this happen. It's called fraud.
I've answered it a few times, you just don't seem to want to accept simple reasoning.
Changes to USPS just prior to the election by a Trump appointee caused states to worry about the reliability of their service. One could make the case that Trump's direct attack on the USPS forced the changes to allow a free and fair election.
Add to that the increased volume expected because the pandemic and states felt the need to be more flexible in how mail-in ballots were handled. A third reason was that other states already had rules in place on how they handle mail-in ballots without a postmark, and chose to mirror those laws.
And I've already noted that a judge enjoined the Virginia Board of Elections on October 28th not to count ballots with no postmarks that arrived after election day. So if that's the case you're talking about, it had no bearing on the 2020 election.That is a very PR driven explanation.
Now...tell me what safeguards were put in to avoid fraud? I wonder if you or anyone else is aware of ANY safeguards put in place to avoid fraud.
It's like saying "We put a table filled with money outside the bank because the vault was full. Nobody should steal the money because that is against the law"
Then be shocked and horrified because people steal the money on the table outside the bank.
Related Discussions
- 140
Report Confirms 2020 Election Abuses by Democrats
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
As I said before, this isn't going away. "Exclusive: Report confirms 2020 abuses and RNC deploys 'year-round' election integrity unit“However, Democrats, including some public officials, used the pandemic as a pretense toachieve long-sought policy goals such as expanded mail voting and...
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
- 224
Attorney General Merrick Garland sues the state of Georgia
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/10102594 … -black-vot
- 22
Delaying the election? Trump continues to be his own worse enemy.
by Credence2 3 years ago
It is just dumb, why would the President even open this can of worms? It if were me, I would have asked privately about the possibility of postponing elections, before revealing to the entire world how ignorant I was about the nature and content of this nation's guiding document. Stupid stuff,...
- 35
Georgia, Texas Voters Wait Hours to Vote
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Reports from Georgia and Texas reveal people waiting in line to vote for up to 8 hours. This should simply not occur in our country. It is flat-out voter suppression and intimidation to make somebody wait 8 hours to vote.Where I live, I received my ballot in the mail. I filled it out the same day....
- 56
what do you think about mail-in balloting?
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
This election has been thrown into chaos and delayed due to mass main-in ballots...Is this a good idea going forward?