Voter fraud!

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Were they in 2016. Dems cried but moved on... Didn't cause an insurrection.

 

Moved on?? Really? When?

 

 

And "insurrection"

 

Please.

 

8 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

 

Since Trump, the demagogue, won in 2016... They need to repeal the 12th and go back to original USC from 1789... Next time someone may put in a VP who is a corporate yes-person.

 

 

Delusional.

[BillStime]

Funny the cult won't address actual voter fraud...

 

Lauren Boebert “encouraged me” to breach voting system

 

 

 

cc: @DRsGhost @B-Man

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:

 

The sky is green.

Trump’s AG: The election was not rigged

Trump’s Acting AG: The election was not rigged

Trump’s Acting Deputy AG: The election was not rigged. 

Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel: The election was not rigged 

Trump’s Campaign Head: The election was not rigged

Trump’s Campaign Lawyers: The election was not rigged

Trump’s White House Lawyers: The election was not rigged

Trump’s Daughter: The election was not rigged.

 

@DRsGhost: They are all anti-Trump. I’ll believe legal geniuses like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell instead and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. 

[cle23]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

N.Y. Supreme Court strikes down NYC law granting voting rights to non-citizen residents

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/n-y-supreme-court-strikes-down-nyc-law-granting-voting-rights-to-noncitizen-residents/

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/nyregion/noncitizen-voting-ruling-nyc.html

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10957959/NY-Supreme-Court-strikes-New-York-Citys-law-allowing-noncitizens-vote.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's be clear as to what this meant to start with.  

 

"The law did not allow non-citizens to vote in state or federal elections." "The law allowed legal residents, including those with green cards, to vote in municipal elections starting in 2023."

 

No one was voting in the Presidential election as a non citizen.  And everyone was here legally.

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

Most secure election in US history!

 

 

 

The letter asks the attorney general to investigate Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for using "4.5 million dollars of CARES funds to recklessly mail absentee ballot applications to all registered voters not on the permanent absentee voter list"; ordering "Michigan clerks in October 2020 to presume the accuracy of absentee ballot signatures ... in contrast to state law"; and not responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests "by voters and groups like the Michigan Grassroots Alliance related to the voter rolls, Canton Township's voters, and City of Detroit ballots.

 

....

 

 

According to the lawsuit, "Defendants intentionally and fraudulently conspired to and did destroy, delete, secrete, and hide November 3, 2020, election data, materials, and equipment to prevent discovery of election fraud and election law violations in Delaware County, which the Defendants also conspired to commit and did commit while carrying out the November 3, 2020 election."

Last week, Judge John Whelan from the Delaware Court of Common Pleas was assigned to hear the case,

[ExiledInIllinois]

The conservatives sure leaked the SCOTUS ruling.  Get security in place.  Nice... Wonder if Roberts found the leak.  OJ Simpson helping?

[B-Man]

 

Court rules against stuffing ballot boxes.............democrats outraged.

 

[Westside]

49 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Court rules against stuffing ballot boxes.............democrats outraged.

 

Most secure election ever!!!! 
 

What a joke!

[Orlando Tim]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:42 PM, ExiledInIllinois said:

The conservatives sure leaked the SCOTUS ruling.  Get security in place.  Nice... Wonder if Roberts found the leak.  OJ Simpson helping?

Why do you believe it was leaked by the conservative side?

[ExiledInIllinois]

11 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Why do you believe it was leaked by the conservative side?

So they can set up security around the SCOTUS... Get fences in place. Security and retreat to their ivory tower while they ***** the American people.

 

They got theirs the hack court. Roberts is right... SCOTUS is now worse than CongressCritters. They are CongressCritters with a life time appointment. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois

[ChiGoose]

11 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Why do you believe it was leaked by the conservative side?

I originally thought it was a liberal clerk but now I’m thinking it was someone on the conservative side. 
 

Roberts is a bit of a squish to ultra conservatives and seemingly wanted to uphold the Mississippi law without outright overturning Roe. Kavanaugh is close to Roberts and may have been on the fence between Alito’s decision and the path Roberts wanted.

 

By leaking the decision at the time, it showed where Kavanaugh stood in February. If the decision ended up being 4-2-3 between Alito, Roberts, and the liberals, it would be very clear that Kavanaugh was the one who flipped. I think the leak was to pressure him to stay in line.

 

Obviously I could be wrong and I definitely could have been a liberal but it would have been very stupid for them to leak it. 

[Orlando Tim]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

So they can set up security around the SCOTUS... Get fences in place. Security and retreat to their ivory tower while they ***** the American people.

 

They got theirs the hack court. Roberts is right... SCOTUS is now worse than CongressCritters. They are CongressCritters with a life time appointment. 

What did Roberts say? Google did not come up with any insults from Roberts but only towards him.

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

What did Roberts say? Google did not come up with any insults from Roberts but only towards him.

No... No.  Roberts knows that the legitimacy of the court, it's prestige, honor, and how seriously people take it has been severely damaged by the populist conservatives... Demagoguery...

[B-Man]

 

Back to the Voter Fraud thread.

 

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

19 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

No... No.  Roberts knows that the legitimacy of the court, it's prestige, honor, and how seriously people take it has been severely damaged by the populist conservatives... Demagoguery...

Once again, what are you quoting? Or are you assuming he is thinking this?

[ChiGoose]

23 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Back to the Voter Fraud thread.

 

 

 

I love the whole “Dems are so powerful that they control the media and when viruses happen but also they can’t pass any meaningful legislation and their president is underwater in approval rating”

 

Real Galaxy brain stuff right there.

[B-Man]

 

 

ELECTION INTEGRITY IN WISCONSIN

 

In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, President Trump and his allies brought numerous lawsuits, seeking to overturn the reported result in various states.

 

Those efforts all failed, not necessarily because the cases’ arguments were not meritorious, and certainly not because voter fraud didn’t occur, but because there was no time to litigate the necessary factual issues between the election and Joe Biden’s inauguration.

 

Wisconsin is a case in point. Uniquely for the 2020 election, Wisconsin adopted a system in which untended boxes were set up where anyone could drop an absentee ballot, filled out by himself or by someone else. This unprecedented measure, which obviously made it easier to commit fraud, was justified by reference to the dreaded covid epidemic.

 

But were these untended and anonymous drop boxes legal under Wisconsin law? Trump’s Wisconsin lawsuit questioned them, but it failed because one conservative justice voted with three Democrats to dismiss the case on the ground that by December, it was too late to rule on the legality of the ballots that were cast in November.

 

Today the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, revisiting the legality of the untended drop boxes. On a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the untended absentee ballot drop boxes were illegal under Wisconsin law.

 

{snip}

 

But that isn’t the point. The point is that the failure of Trump’s many post-2020 lawsuits says little about their ultimate merits. Election integrity is a serious problem, and it was compromised in many states in 2020.

 

In my own state, Minnesota, and a number of others, a corrupt Secretary of State (here, Steve Simon) “settled” collusive litigation brought by the Democratic Party by agreeing to dispense with the requirement of a witness signature on mail-in ballots. The Secretary of State had no constitutional authority to do away with the principal safeguard, under Minnesota’s election laws, against fraud in mail-in ballots. But he did it anyway.

 

This kind of corruption was seen in state after state. In Philadelphia and Detroit, Democrats locked Republicans out of the buildings where ballot counting was going on. Do you think they did that because they were qualifying and counting the ballots honestly?

 

The lesson of 2020 is twofold: election integrity is a serious problem, and it is one that can be addressed only before the election. Once illegal ballots have been cast, it is too late. There is no way to know how many illegal ballots were dropped into Wisconsin’s untended ballot boxes, or how many illegal mail-in votes were cast in Minnesota without the required witness signature. Nor is there any way to know for whom those ballots were cast. Once the votes are counted, the egg can’t be unscrambled. And courts, in any event, are not going to undertake the task of sorting out who *really* won a presidential election.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/election-integrity-in-wisconsin.php

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I love the whole “Dems are so powerful that they control the media and when viruses happen but also they can’t pass any meaningful legislation and their president is underwater in approval rating”

 

Real Galaxy brain stuff right there.

The msm and those who run it are in lockstep with the Democrat party and are willing lapdogs , parroting the WH spin and squashing conservative voices/ ideas. There are a couple Dems who they hate and blame because they won’t go along with everything ( you know who they are). Their President IS underwater in approval with the common folk, but many will simply blame him for not being liberal enough. They’ll be quick to vote for the next candidate with a D next to their name. 

[BillsFanNC]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I love the whole “Dems are so powerful that they control the media and when viruses happen but also they can’t pass any meaningful legislation and their president is underwater in approval rating”

 

Real Galaxy brain stuff right there.

 

Ladies and gentlemen I present a former republican who was driven away because Trump.  

 

Uh huh.

[BillStime]

On 5/12/2022 at 7:00 AM, DRsGhost said:

 

I'm not a fan of Trump the person. He's a narcissistic blowhard and I refused to vote for him in 16. But then again I don't really like any politicians on the national level either. At the end of the day I'm a results guy, so I'll take a narcissistic blowhard who gets ***** done over fake empty vessels all day long.

 

When the establishment fought so hard to get rid of him by any means necessary (russia collusion, fake impeachment, 2000 mules). This bs only made those of us who are actually awake realize that a narcissistic blowhard was directly over the target all along. Trump forced these #######s to pull blatant bs, that many suspected always went on discreetly behind the scenes, right out in the open.

 

He broke them.

 

And I LOVE it.

Look at this gem 

 

lolz

DR luvs cults

 

Freaks

[Boatdrinks]

On 7/8/2022 at 11:38 PM, ChiGoose said:

I originally thought it was a liberal clerk but now I’m thinking it was someone on the conservative side. 
 

Roberts is a bit of a squish to ultra conservatives and seemingly wanted to uphold the Mississippi law without outright overturning Roe. Kavanaugh is close to Roberts and may have been on the fence between Alito’s decision and the path Roberts wanted.

 

By leaking the decision at the time, it showed where Kavanaugh stood in February. If the decision ended up being 4-2-3 between Alito, Roberts, and the liberals, it would be very clear that Kavanaugh was the one who flipped. I think the leak was to pressure him to stay in line.

 

Obviously I could be wrong and I definitely could have been a liberal but it would have been very stupid for them to leak it. 

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

[BillStime]

42 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

Ginni did it - she needed to mobilize the cult 

[ChiGoose]

8 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

It would have been stupid for a lefty to leak it because doing so early would take the punch out of the final decision. Also, it would make the shock of the decision come even further from the midterms, potentially allowing the furor to die out before it could help the Dems in November.

 

That doesn’t preclude a lefty from having done it, but it would have been counter-productive for them to do so. 

[Doc]

Sigh.  A lefty leaked it in order to generate enough outrage to get the judges to change their minds before the final verdict.  It's not rocket surgery. 

[BillsFanNC]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

Sigh.  A lefty leaked it in order to generate enough outrage to get the judges to change their minds before the final verdict.  It's not rocket surgery. 

 

Additionally if it was leaked by a right leaning clerk the chances that the culprit still hasn't been identified and leaked to media is zero point zero.

[716er]

This guy leaked it

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

39 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Been saying this for years…whoever wins an election does not care about voter integrity- and more so on the Left, because they seem to want to tear down American institutions rather than conserve them (ie wanting to eliminate the electoral college, abolish the senate, and pack the Supreme Court, just to name a few)…

Edited July 11, 2022 by JaCrispy

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

Been saying this for years…whoever wins an election does not care about voter integrity- and more so on the Left, because they seem to want to tear down American institutions rather than conserve them (ie wanting to eliminate the electoral college, abolish the senate, and pack the Supreme Court, just to name a few)…

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:19 AM, ChiGoose said:

It would have been stupid for a lefty to leak it because doing so early would take the punch out of the final decision. Also, it would make the shock of the decision come even further from the midterms, potentially allowing the furor to die out before it could help the Dems in November.

 

That doesn’t preclude a lefty from having done it, but it would have been counter-productive for them to do so. 

Since the left hasn’t stopped screaming about the decision, it would seem to have plenty of punch for them. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

👆this 🤡

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

But ....MOST SECURE ELECTION IN US HISTORY!!

 

 

The 2020 election was full of chaos and irregularities. States across the country changed election policies and procedures last minute. Due to the pandemic, election officials claimed these emergency actions and deviations from election laws were necessary.

 

 

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.

The court ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not have the power to enact and change election laws. This power belongs to the state legislature.

 

 

This is not the first state to have violated its own laws in the 2020 election.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

 

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment. 

 

The vote-by-mail system was a complete failure in 2020. According to federal data, the commonwealth lost track of more ballots than the difference in votes between Trump and Biden.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

On 7/11/2022 at 4:46 PM, DRsGhost said:

 

 

 

My oh my, how the internet makes everybody an expert. Lots and lots of nonlawyers ready to tell us what a law or even the Constitution means. 
Other posters are free to (and often do) dispute my football takes here based on my not-so-privileged position of self-appointed “informed fan.” But Big Molly is not a lawyer, and neither (to my knowledge) are DR and his caddy. 
So read and learn …

… the Wisconsin law says a vote will be counted if “an elector mails or personally delivers an absentee ballot to the municipal clerk.” So I guess the actual “Municipal Clerk” (a real title in Wisconsin, held by a real person) must be there to accept it? Well, no. The Municipal Clerk may designate an alternate drop-off site overseen by his or her delegate. And the law says that the Election Commission may promulgate uniform rules for elections consistent with the statute. So they said “mail-in or drop-off is o.k.”  After all, we know that the term “personally delivers to the Municipal Clerk” doesn’t mean handing it the actual Municipal Clerk; after all, she may designate someone else, somewhere else to receive it for her. So is a secured drop box overseen by the Municipal Clerk or her designee and not accessible by others “personal delivery?”  The Elections Commission says “of course.” And that what we lawyers all do when we address a letter as “BY PERSONAL DELIVERY” and hire a courier to drop it off at the front desk of opposing counsel’s office. It’s not like service of process where the package actually needs to touch the real person being served. It’s still “personal delivery” in common parlance. 
So 4 members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that here “personal delivery” means something in between for this law. It doesn’t actually have to touch the body of the Municipal Clerk, but presumably it needs to be dropped off at the desk or filing window occupied by some kind of real person. 3 other justices said “you just made up that in between rule; a secured drop box completely fits the understood meaning of “personal delivery.”

I’m not saying the majority was clearly wrong, but to suggest that the dissenters don’t care about election integrity ignored the fact that this is what lawyers and judges do all the time. The language is ambiguous; they argue and decide what those ambiguous words really mean. 
Consider yourself educated. 

[BillsFanNC]

I know, but that's different. 

 

Never change leftists.

[BillStime]

 

 

"LOST, NOT STOLEN: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election," looked at more than 60 court cases Trump and his supporters filed and lost in six key battleground states. It reached the "unequivocal" conclusion that the former Republican president's claims were unsupportable -- which Trump's own Department of Homeland Security as well as election officials nationwide debunked days after the 2020 election."