Fair/Unfair Elections

1. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

   Many suspect our last election might have been rigged. Was this possibility due to the pandemic and the complications it caused? Will our next election be more fair, since, most likely, the pandemic will be over? Will mail-in ballots be allowed as freely as they were? Can we prevent unfair elections in the future, knowing what we know, now?
   
   According to a new movie called "Rigged," Mark Zuckerberg played a part in the stealing of votes. Is there a way to prove this election was rigged and if so, could Trump be declared President and take office?
   
   
   
    
   
   Wondering

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      There is not one shred of evidence from any agency or any court that has examined the idea of tampering or fraud. This is just another wild conspiracy theory.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Which agency checked that every ballot was actually filled out and signed by a legal voter in those states with mass mailings?
         
         All I've seen is that they assume each one was legal and that every mail in voter was legal.

         replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, It is true that there are  American citizens that do believe the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Was it?  Thus far it has not been proven that fraud took place. In regard to the pandemic, some voting laws were changed a bit to accommodate voters due to the problems the pandemic was causing. Some states thus far have removed some of the special voting accommodations and returned or in some cases changed their voting laws, keeping some of the laws that seem to make it easier for voters For example yes, many states did not use drop boxes that have decided to keep that option for voters and expand hours to when one can vote.
      
      It would be very hard to stop voter fraud altogether. Voter fraud has always been around.'
      
      I have not watched Rigged, so unable to comment.

      replyreport
   3. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Most of the anti-election dissension came from the followers of QANON who has now been banned from most social websites.  It is known that the information Q is spouting is coming from Russian propaganda.  Please inform us, if you can, why Mark Zuckerberg would get involved in trying to defeat a man that every sensible person knew would be defeated?
      
      https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-russi … o-fox-news
      
      And to answer your question, if there were any way for the election to be overturned, it would have already happened.

      replyreport
2. 77

   Credence2posted 11 months ago

   "According to a new movie called "Rigged," Mark Zuckerberg played a part in the stealing of votes. Is there a way to prove this election was rigged and if so, could Trump be declared President and take office?"
   
   
   Nope, sorry, that amounts to a mere exercise in futility.
   
   In other words, no proof, no soap.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I agree.  Trump will never be declared winner in the last election.  There will be no proof because 1) IMO there was insufficient fraud to change the results and 2) We will never check the things that needed tested to find proof if there was sufficient fraud.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Wilderness, you acknowledge the fact of insufficient evidence of fraud to change the outcome.Trump must know by now the futility of his continuing to harp on this theme. What's the point?
         
         How can any of this be seen in a positive light by his supporters?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            How can justice not prevail?
            
            "Did you notice when Trump tries to sue the States that commited fraud NONE of the Judges in ANY of the courts inclueding the SCOTUS allowed the Lawyers for Trump to present their evidence against the States that were being sued. After the lawyers on each side had their opening arguements, the judges in each case decided without allowing evidences to be presented that the suit had no standing." KC Mc Gee
            
            How corrupt is the judicial system at this point.
            without it, I shudder to think about th e  f u t  u   r  e.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

               ?????????????????

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  ? trying to create pretty wall paper?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                     You did not finish your point when I replied.
                     
                     How many failed civil suits and court cases do you have to experience before you realize that you have no standing? Even Trumps rightwing tribunal Supreme Court would not bother.
                     
                     From your perspective, any Government related entity or Government agency that denies Trump must be corrupt. That is at the very height of illogic and arrogance.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                        I was taking KCMcGee seriously:
                        "After the lawyers on each side had their opening arguements, the judges in each case decided without allowing evidences to be presented that the suit had no standing." KC Mc Gee
                        
                        Is he lying?

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           KC McGeeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                           No, I am not lying.

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                              Maybe not lying, but truly misinformed as multiple cases had evidence that was analyzed and deemed to be supposition or witness misunderstanding of election processes.
                              
                              When the evidence is not credible, the case gets dismissed.  Weird how that is a thing in court cases.

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                 Something about "standing" that many people don't understand. Let's explain it to him. So, I don't like Texas new anti-abortion law so I file a lawsuit in court against it. The lawsuit is dismissed because as a non-citizen of Texas, I have no right to file a case against a state in which I do not live or that will not affect me or my property. In this case, I would have no standing. People were filing lawsuits against states in which they had no legal interest and those were dismissed for lack of standing.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 77

                           Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                           I don't call any one a liar in this forum, but I can say that he or she has been lied to, however....
                           
                           I have a better chance of winning the powerball rather than believe that Trump ever tells the truth....

                           replyreport
                        3. 76

                           KC McGeeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                           There were over 50 court cases in which Trump tried to sue regarding the election. The ALL stated the suit had Mo Standing.
                           
                           That's over 50. None of them agreed to hear the evidence. NONE
                           
                           And worst of all, the SCOTUS normally give a reason for their decisions. In this one case they give no reason at all.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                              They ALL stated the suit had no standing. That's over 50. None of them agreed to hear the evidence.
                              
                              - how come, do you suppose?
                              
                              in plain English, WHY would they refuse to hear the evidence?
                              
                              ONE REASON!

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 KC McGeeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                 Becauseif they heard the evidence it they would have to admitt that Trump had won and many Democrats would be later investigated, charged with crimes and would end up in jail.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                    Don't rock the boat.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 88

                                    MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                    How does a candidate win when he does not get enough votes? There was a lack of evidence in all cases that skullduggery took place. Just a crybaby bawling that "they said I didn't win, so somebody had to have cheated."

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 76

                                       Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                       I will not rock the boat.
                                       The crybaby you speak of is Trump.
                                       Trump is a crybaby.
                                       That is the narrative we, as a nation, must not deviate from.
                                       
                                       I will not rock the boat.

                                       report
                              2. 61

                                 Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                 Do we really need to go through case by case in terms  what Mr Trump's lawyers actually brought before judges in each state And what the outcome was? This is all spelled out very clearly in documentation.
                                 You do realize that as Mr Trump was claiming fraud but every time his lawyers went before a judge they never used the language of "fraud"   Why? Lawyers are bound by professional ethics rules. In short, they knew better.
                                 https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-n … nce-fraud/

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 94

                                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                    Why?  Perhaps because "fraud" indicates an intentional effort to commit a crime and there wasn't much, at least by the people/entities he was suing (in his half dozen or less cases - the rest were brought by other people).
                                    
                                    For instance, there was most definitely...inconsistencies, shall we say, and illegal ones...in how some mail in ballots were received and counted.  But fraud?  I doubt it would be called fraud as there was no deliberate attempt to sway the election one way or another.  Just to get more votes counted in a very difficult year.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                                       The latest case of you ignoring the many times election's officials were granted the ability to modify election law during times of crisis and calling it illegal. 
                                       
                                       Happened in Florida with Rick Scott as Governor in 2018.  Greg Abbott unilaterally altered his state's election laws in 2020 due to the pandemic - and then had the gall to sue other states for doing the same thing - which was then thrown out for lacking standing.  Could have been tossed for extreme hypocrisy if you ask me.
                                       
                                       In many cases, these modifications have been accepted practice and are written into their election law.  Just because you clearly do not understand and label it illegal, does not necessarily make it true at all.

                                       report
                           2. 86

                              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                              I'm looking over the list and not seeing standing as the issue, except in the Texas case.  What I'm seeing is flawed arguments, arguments that sought to changed the rules after the fact, or arguments that lacked evidence.
                              
                              https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c … ts-2020-11

                              replyreport
               2. 88

                  MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Have you noticed that the justice system is corrupt only when it goes against the Republicans?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                     Darn tootin, Ms. B . How is it you think that these people continue to get under my skin with their bald face hypocrisy and double standards? And, yes, Trump is still the big baby balloon floating over London and the Republicans are still in the Romper Room.
                     
                     It is all I can do to try and keep a straight face.... Nice to see you again!!

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                        Thanks, Credence. HP has made it really hard for a busy person to keep up with all the stuff going on. Wonder why?

                        replyreport
         2. 85

            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            "Trump must know by now the futility of his continuing to harp on this theme. What's the point?"
            
            Could he be politicking to his base? Could he truely believe there was voter fraud?  In my view not many that support him really care one way or the other if he is politicking or really believes there was voter fraud.
            
            They simply liked his America first agenda and felt they were much better off when he was in the White House. Many just felt he did a good job.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

               I actually have very little doubt that Donald Trump does truly believe there was massive fraud in the 2020 election - far more than was necessary to sway the election to Biden when it should have gone to him.
               
               Doesn't mean, of course, that he is right or that I agree with him.

               replyreport
            2. 77

               Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

               Why would his base listen to that, you have told me that you knew better?
               
               Wouldn't it make you nervous that someone can continue to promote a baseless lie, as not stoking the fires of resentment among those that follow you has to be the mark of a leader? Why doesnt he frame his rallies around why he believes that he could do a better job?

               replyreport
3. 76

   KC McGeeposted 11 months ago

   The last election was rigged, there was a lot of cheating and fraud commited by the Democrate party. Did you notice when Trump tries to sue the States that commited fraud NONE of the Judges in ANY of the courts inclueding the SCOTUS allowed the Lawyers for Trump to present their evidence against the States that were being sued. After the lawyers on each side had their opening arguements, the judges in each case decided without allowing evidences to be presented that the suit had no standing.
   
   What kind of BS is that.
   
   I call it rigged cheating and fraud even by the courts.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I think you should take a closer look at all of those decisions and the majority of judges that heard those cases were Trump appointees actually. It appears that their judgments follow the rule of law. Why would you expect anything different? And are you really proposing the idea that All of these people somehow orchestrated a 7 million popular  vote difference?  Mr Trump only won 232 of the electoral votes. That's more than a little far-fetched.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         KC McGeeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Yeah, and there are Republicans out there who hate Trump's guts. They're worthless RINO's. So what's your point.
         
         And there were people working in the White House sticking a knife in Trmp's back while he was president. So what's your point.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Ah, yes. Very well laid out argument. Forgot about the power of the backstabbers and rinos.  Kudos.

            replyreport
   2. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      You mean the same kind of "rigged cheating" that sent the election of 2000 to the Supreme Court that decided in favor of Bush. The same kind of "rigged cheating" that put Trump in the White House? People do get upset when the shoe is on the other foot.

      replyreport
4. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months ago

   "... well, it would be too upsetting to the nation."
   
   It's better to just keep the steamboat chugging on down the river. ... one of these days we will be forced to stop adding fuel to the steamboat's fire. Someday, it will be time to stop the ship. Yes, we will have a hard time for a while, but then things will improve and we can get back on-board.
   It's no big deal. We just have to go through it.
   Guess not yet, though. However, the longer we wait, the worse it gets.
   Whoever wins in 2024 will have a big job on their hands.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      KC McGeeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Have you notice when Democrats say the election fraud was Debuked. but they NEVER tell you who debuked it or what evidence was provided by whoever debuked it. NO, just "election fraud was debuked with no evidence to show it. Yet the courts refuse to hear the evidence of mass election fraud.
      
      Here's my question , who exactly "debuked" the election fraud? I have yet to be told by anyone. No one seems to know. Hummmm.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         Good Lord, you don't have to look far on the internet to find out who debunked it. Do you need me to list every decision by every judge in every state that Mr Trump brought a case?  And Attorney General Bill Barr along with Christopher Krebs director of the Homeland Security Department's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under The Trump administration declared as the most secure election in history?

         replyreport
      2. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         It looks like we need to figure out a way to guarantee fair elections.
         How could it be done?
         
         I would say go back to non-computer voting.
         Absentee ballots cannot be used unless a person is really going to be absent.
         
         I would like a guarantee that my vote will count.
         
         I would also like a guarantee that my vote will not be cancelled by someone who sneaks in to vote with false documentation, etc. who is not a citizen.
         
         What happened to checking driver's licenses? the old voting booths?
         ... where you punch out holes with a stylus connected to a chain.
         Probably in a rusting heap somewhere.
         
         Time to move to some cool island.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I guess it is only a "fair election" when only the candidate of your choice wins? It is interesting how Rightwingers regurgitate things solely for their own convenience?
            
            Sounds like pretty elementary stuff to me.

            replyreport
         2. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I kind of agree with you on this one, Kathryn. It's kind of difficult to hack a manual voting machine, but I do remember the "hanging chads" that put Bush in office. I have no objection to showing an ID. The precinct where Larry and I vote requires that we show our drivers licenses or other government photo ID. By the way, because of covid and our age, we voted absentee in the last election. Our ballots were held as provisional until the election officials checked to see that we were legally registered citizen voters. We were notified by mail after our votes were certified that they were counted as legal votes. What is the problem here? I live in Arkansas, a perennial Red state but we did not vote for Trump and his minions, but I feel that we were treated fairly. Do other states not check absentee ballots so thoroughly?

            replyreport
      3. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

         "Debuked"? How can your question have credibility when you don't know the proper terminology?

         replyreport
5. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months ago

   Too many will get thrown off and drown, I guess.

   replyreport
6. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months ago

   I think I will just go away and live with my new philosophy:
   
   Don't rock the boat.
   Whatever.

   replyreport