Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
23 Sep 2020 6:46 pm
Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/statu ... 64736?s=19
"We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer.
There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
A month and a half from the election, this is what the President of the United States is saying from the White House.
https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/statu ... 64736?s=19
"We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer.
There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
A month and a half from the election, this is what the President of the United States is saying from the White House.
23 Sep 2020 6:49 pm
Mam,
May I ask another favor?
You and C.P. can turn me down, if you wish.
I won't blame you.
K-Dog. kfools. And 2 ladies. Z09......and Iamgreatagain.
That ship over there.....is sinking.
They have too much pride to ask.
So I will ask for them.
Could you slide their Avatars over to this site?
I know your goodness.
Your goodness destroys the heartache.
Yes, I know. I am in your debt.
I promise to pay you back.
These are real good people.
But they won't back down in a fight.
Nor will I. Please help them.
@cannonpointer.
23 Sep 2020 7:02 pm
I don’t know what you mean by slide their avatars over to this site.Taipan » 23 Sep 2020, 6:49 pm » wrote: ↑ Mam,
May I ask another favor?
You and C.P. can turn me down, if you wish.
I won't blame you.
K-Dog. kfools. And 2 ladies. Z09......and Iamgreatagain.
That ship over there.....is sinking.
They have too much pride to ask.
So I will ask for them.
Could you slide their Avatars over to this site?
I know your goodness.
Your goodness destroys the heartache.
Yes, I know. I am in your debt.
I promise to pay you back.
These are real good people.
But they won't back down in a fight.
Nor will I. Please help them.
@cannonpointer.
Have they registered on this forum?
Anybody is free to register.
The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.
23 Sep 2020 11:00 pm
Pennsylvania's 'naked ballot' could be to the 2020 election what Florida's hanging chad was to the 2000 election.
When Pennsylvania residents return their mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3 election, they are required to enclose their completed ballots within a "secrecy envelope" that removes identifying information when votes are counted.
The two-envelope system, employed by only 16 states, was originally designed to maintain anonymity when Pennsylvania counted absentee ballots at polling places.
The outer envelope requires a signature to verify the validity of the ballot, allowing the secrecy envelope to be separated and the ballot later counted.
Ballots that are submitted without the secrecy envelope are considered "naked ballots," and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that such votes must be thrown away.
While most of the attention last week centered on the court's decision to extend the deadline for mail-in and absentee ballots to be received and counted by county election boards, the naked ballot ruling could potentially have serious ramifications.
The 2020 election will see an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots compared to previous elections.
The scale of potential voter error increases dramatically, raising the likelihood that a significant number of votes could be invalidated as a result of a technicality.
Pennsylvania is considered perhaps the most decisive battleground state in the 2020 presidential race, with a thin margin expected to separate President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden.
In a letter to Pennsylvania lawmakers on Monday, Philadelphia City Commissioners chair Lisa Deeley forcefully warned of the damage the naked ballot ruling could do if left alone.
"Recent actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have set Pennsylvania up to be the subject of significant post-election legal controversy, the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000," Deeley wrote.
Further complicating matters is that the state doesn't have an official tally of the number of naked ballots that were received in the June 2020 primary election, which was considered a test-run for the general election.
Approximately 1.5 million mail-in and absentee ballots were submitted in the June primary, accounting for a little more than half the total received.
To generate an estimate of the potential number of "naked ballots" at stake, Deeley looked at Philadelphia's transcripts from the 2019 general election.
The Philadelphia Board of Elections received 3,086 absentee ballots, including 197 "naked ballots" that were counted in accordance with the board's precedent of doing so, barring objections that began surfacing at that time.
That means about 6.4% of the absentee ballots Philadelphia received in 2019 would have to be thrown out, based on the Supreme Court's ruling last week.
"If you carry that percentage over, we would have received 11,211 naked ballots in the 2020 Primary," Deeley wrote.
"Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent ruling, that would amount to 11,211 votes that would not have been counted.
"Deeley expressed further concern that the estimate above reflects error from voters who likely would have been more accustomed to mail-in ballots from previous elections.
In 2020, driven by the coronavirus pandemic, the number of first-time mail-in voters is expected to surge.
If naked ballots rise even somewhat proportionately under the circumstances in 2020, the outcome could be decisive.
"That number could rise to more than 100,000 votes statewide — votes that will not be counted, all because of a minor technicality," Deeley wrote.
"When you consider that the 2016 Presidential Election in Pennsylvania was decided by just over 44,000 votes, you can see why I am concerned.
"That estimate would not even include thousands votes that may be canceled for other reasons, such as problems with signatures, mail delivery or those returned too late.
About 20,000 mail-in votes were tossed from the June primary for a combination of these reasons.
Surveys have shown that Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to vote by mail in 2020, leading to a greater chance that votes for Biden would be tossed in Pennsylvania.
"This is not a partisan issue," Deeley continued.
"We are talking about the voting rights of our constituents, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, or independents, whose ballots will be needlessly set aside.
As public servants, we owe it to all citizens to avoid this situation, and the likely chaos that would come with it.
"Arguing that secrecy envelopes be scrapped altogether, Deeley pointed to the industrialized process in which votes are now counted centrally.
The Philadelphia Board of Elections, for instance, has purchased 22 extraction desks that operate at high speeds, practically eliminating concerns about anonymity.
"This equipment will allow us to remove about 12,000 ballots an hour," Deeley wrote.
"Without a secrecy envelope, we could remove 24,000 an hour, and we could scan 32,000 ballots an hour.
At these speeds, there is no opportunity to stop, or even slow down, and identify how an individual voted — anonymity is maintained.
"In 2020, Deeley argues the secrecy ballot exists only to "disenfranchise well-intentioned Pennsylvania voters.
"Last week's court decision written by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, stated that the state legislature believed the two-envelope process was necessary to ensure an orderly canvas of mail-in ballots without revealing critical identifying information.
"Whatever the wisdom of the requirement, the command that the mail-in elector utilize the secrecy envelope and leave it unblemished by identifying information is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable," Baer wrote.
Deeley's letter, countering the ruling on grounds of the unprecedented scale of 2020 mail-in ballots, urges the state legislature to eliminate the secrecy envelope requirement.
Doing so as soon as possible would be crucial to ensuring that voters can be properly informed.
In the absence of any legislative change, the proper procedure for returning mail-in ballots with both envelopes — "an extremely odd and unusual way to mail something," Deeley wrote — will need to be a critical objective of voter outreach and education in the weeks ahead.
Read Deeley's entire letter at the link below:
https://www.phillyvoice.com/naked-ballo ... ump-biden/
When Pennsylvania residents return their mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3 election, they are required to enclose their completed ballots within a "secrecy envelope" that removes identifying information when votes are counted.
The two-envelope system, employed by only 16 states, was originally designed to maintain anonymity when Pennsylvania counted absentee ballots at polling places.
The outer envelope requires a signature to verify the validity of the ballot, allowing the secrecy envelope to be separated and the ballot later counted.
Ballots that are submitted without the secrecy envelope are considered "naked ballots," and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that such votes must be thrown away.
While most of the attention last week centered on the court's decision to extend the deadline for mail-in and absentee ballots to be received and counted by county election boards, the naked ballot ruling could potentially have serious ramifications.
The 2020 election will see an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots compared to previous elections.
The scale of potential voter error increases dramatically, raising the likelihood that a significant number of votes could be invalidated as a result of a technicality.
Pennsylvania is considered perhaps the most decisive battleground state in the 2020 presidential race, with a thin margin expected to separate President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden.
In a letter to Pennsylvania lawmakers on Monday, Philadelphia City Commissioners chair Lisa Deeley forcefully warned of the damage the naked ballot ruling could do if left alone.
"Recent actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have set Pennsylvania up to be the subject of significant post-election legal controversy, the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000," Deeley wrote.
Further complicating matters is that the state doesn't have an official tally of the number of naked ballots that were received in the June 2020 primary election, which was considered a test-run for the general election.
Approximately 1.5 million mail-in and absentee ballots were submitted in the June primary, accounting for a little more than half the total received.
To generate an estimate of the potential number of "naked ballots" at stake, Deeley looked at Philadelphia's transcripts from the 2019 general election.
The Philadelphia Board of Elections received 3,086 absentee ballots, including 197 "naked ballots" that were counted in accordance with the board's precedent of doing so, barring objections that began surfacing at that time.
That means about 6.4% of the absentee ballots Philadelphia received in 2019 would have to be thrown out, based on the Supreme Court's ruling last week.
"If you carry that percentage over, we would have received 11,211 naked ballots in the 2020 Primary," Deeley wrote.
"Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent ruling, that would amount to 11,211 votes that would not have been counted.
"Deeley expressed further concern that the estimate above reflects error from voters who likely would have been more accustomed to mail-in ballots from previous elections.
In 2020, driven by the coronavirus pandemic, the number of first-time mail-in voters is expected to surge.
If naked ballots rise even somewhat proportionately under the circumstances in 2020, the outcome could be decisive.
"That number could rise to more than 100,000 votes statewide — votes that will not be counted, all because of a minor technicality," Deeley wrote.
"When you consider that the 2016 Presidential Election in Pennsylvania was decided by just over 44,000 votes, you can see why I am concerned.
"That estimate would not even include thousands votes that may be canceled for other reasons, such as problems with signatures, mail delivery or those returned too late.
About 20,000 mail-in votes were tossed from the June primary for a combination of these reasons.
Surveys have shown that Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to vote by mail in 2020, leading to a greater chance that votes for Biden would be tossed in Pennsylvania.
"This is not a partisan issue," Deeley continued.
"We are talking about the voting rights of our constituents, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, or independents, whose ballots will be needlessly set aside.
As public servants, we owe it to all citizens to avoid this situation, and the likely chaos that would come with it.
"Arguing that secrecy envelopes be scrapped altogether, Deeley pointed to the industrialized process in which votes are now counted centrally.
The Philadelphia Board of Elections, for instance, has purchased 22 extraction desks that operate at high speeds, practically eliminating concerns about anonymity.
"This equipment will allow us to remove about 12,000 ballots an hour," Deeley wrote.
"Without a secrecy envelope, we could remove 24,000 an hour, and we could scan 32,000 ballots an hour.
At these speeds, there is no opportunity to stop, or even slow down, and identify how an individual voted — anonymity is maintained.
"In 2020, Deeley argues the secrecy ballot exists only to "disenfranchise well-intentioned Pennsylvania voters.
"Last week's court decision written by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, stated that the state legislature believed the two-envelope process was necessary to ensure an orderly canvas of mail-in ballots without revealing critical identifying information.
"Whatever the wisdom of the requirement, the command that the mail-in elector utilize the secrecy envelope and leave it unblemished by identifying information is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable," Baer wrote.
Deeley's letter, countering the ruling on grounds of the unprecedented scale of 2020 mail-in ballots, urges the state legislature to eliminate the secrecy envelope requirement.
Doing so as soon as possible would be crucial to ensuring that voters can be properly informed.
In the absence of any legislative change, the proper procedure for returning mail-in ballots with both envelopes — "an extremely odd and unusual way to mail something," Deeley wrote — will need to be a critical objective of voter outreach and education in the weeks ahead.
Read Deeley's entire letter at the link below:
https://www.phillyvoice.com/naked-ballo ... ump-biden/
23 Sep 2020 11:15 pm
OOOOPS!
TRUMP COMES UP EMPTY WHEN PRESSED FOR EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD IN COURT
Donald Trump’s campaign, ordered by a federal court judge in Pennsylvania to back up its claims of fraud in the state’s vote-by-mail system, has documented only a handful of cases of election fraud in recent years — none of which involved mail-in ballots.
The revelation, which came in the form of a partially redacted 524-page document produced by the Trump campaign last week, undermines the claim by Trump team operatives that mail-in ballot fraud is a grave risk to Pennsylvania voters.
The campaign is suing Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and each of the state’s county election boards to prevent election administrators from providing secure drop boxes for mail-in ballot returns.
These drop boxes allow voters to return their mail-in ballots by hand, without sending them through the postal system and risking delays.
The Trump campaign alleges that the practice “provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos.”
In a motion last week, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future and the Sierra Club called on the Trump campaign to provide evidence of the existence of voter fraud, arguing that the campaign’s lawsuit was “replete with salacious allegations and dire warnings” about Pennsylvania’s elections and that they “must either be compelled to provide discovery concerning their fraud-based allegations or be precluded from pursuing these claims going forward.”
Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan granted the motion, ordering the campaign to “produce such evidence in their possession, and if they have none, state as much.”
The response provided by the Trump campaign to the opposing counsel, which was shared with The Intercept and Type Investigations, contains a few scant examples of election fraud — but none of the instances in the 524-page discovery document involved mail-in ballots.
“Not only did the campaign fail to provide evidence that voter fraud was a widespread problem in Pennsylvania, they failed to provide any evidence that any misconduct occurred in the primary election or that so-called voter fraud is any sort of regular problem in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, interim director of Common Cause PA, one of the parties in the lawsuit.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/20/tru ... nia-court/
TRUMP COMES UP EMPTY WHEN PRESSED FOR EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD IN COURT
Donald Trump’s campaign, ordered by a federal court judge in Pennsylvania to back up its claims of fraud in the state’s vote-by-mail system, has documented only a handful of cases of election fraud in recent years — none of which involved mail-in ballots.
The revelation, which came in the form of a partially redacted 524-page document produced by the Trump campaign last week, undermines the claim by Trump team operatives that mail-in ballot fraud is a grave risk to Pennsylvania voters.
The campaign is suing Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and each of the state’s county election boards to prevent election administrators from providing secure drop boxes for mail-in ballot returns.
These drop boxes allow voters to return their mail-in ballots by hand, without sending them through the postal system and risking delays.
The Trump campaign alleges that the practice “provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos.”
In a motion last week, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future and the Sierra Club called on the Trump campaign to provide evidence of the existence of voter fraud, arguing that the campaign’s lawsuit was “replete with salacious allegations and dire warnings” about Pennsylvania’s elections and that they “must either be compelled to provide discovery concerning their fraud-based allegations or be precluded from pursuing these claims going forward.”
Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan granted the motion, ordering the campaign to “produce such evidence in their possession, and if they have none, state as much.”
The response provided by the Trump campaign to the opposing counsel, which was shared with The Intercept and Type Investigations, contains a few scant examples of election fraud — but none of the instances in the 524-page discovery document involved mail-in ballots.
“Not only did the campaign fail to provide evidence that voter fraud was a widespread problem in Pennsylvania, they failed to provide any evidence that any misconduct occurred in the primary election or that so-called voter fraud is any sort of regular problem in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, interim director of Common Cause PA, one of the parties in the lawsuit.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/20/tru ... nia-court/
24 Sep 2020 12:00 pm
24 Sep 2020 12:14 pm
So you want to throw out all the mail-in ballots?Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑What he's saying is the truth."We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer.
There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
A month and a half from the election, this is what the President of the United States is saying from the White House.
Because he's been such a great president.
Threatening violence just like your Dear Leader.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑ If Democrats try to steal it, there will be severe consequences.
How nice.
Your corrupt party is the one trying to steal it.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑ Your corrupt leftist party is not going to steal the presidency.
They have brought all kinds of litigation designed to make it harder for people to vote.
The campaign is talking to Republican state legislatures about getting them to appoint Trump electors regardless of the outcome.
They are doing it here in PA.
24 Sep 2020 12:19 pm
Nobody is bungling anything.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑I agree; Democrats bungling the process and voting, then trying to steal the election.Pennsylvania's 'naked ballot' could be to the 2020 election what Florida's hanging chad was to the 2000 election.
Because of the pandemic many more people will be voting by mail than usual and they are not familiar with how the process works.
Trump only won my state by less than 1% in 2016.
So he and your corrupt party are working overtime to disenfranchise as many voters as possible here in PA.
24 Sep 2020 12:38 pm
The lying and the gaslighting never stops.
Trump (to Brian Kilmeade): They found six ballots in an office yesterday in a garbage can. They were Trump ballots.
Eight ballots in an office yesterday in a certain state, and they had Trump written on it, and they were thrown in a garbage can.
The White House could not back up this claim.
Edit: A few minutes ago he said that 'they' found a bunch of ballots in a river.
He said, "'They' throw them out if they have the name Trump on them I guess."
Ballots don't have a candidate's name on the outside.
Trump (to Brian Kilmeade): They found six ballots in an office yesterday in a garbage can. They were Trump ballots.
Eight ballots in an office yesterday in a certain state, and they had Trump written on it, and they were thrown in a garbage can.
The White House could not back up this claim.
Edit: A few minutes ago he said that 'they' found a bunch of ballots in a river.
He said, "'They' throw them out if they have the name Trump on them I guess."
Ballots don't have a candidate's name on the outside.
24 Sep 2020 12:41 pm
That's not true.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑Yes, yes, that's the Official Democrat Talking Point Lie you claim never to tell.Trump only won my state by less than 1% in 2016.
So he and your corrupt party are working overtime to disenfranchise as many voters as possible here in PA.
Democrats are mass mailing ballots in order to steal the November elections.
There are 5 states that have used universal mail-in ballots for years with no problem.
Only a few more states have decided to do that in this election.
In most states like mine, you still have to request a mail-in ballot.
24 Sep 2020 12:49 pm
.There are 5 states that have used universal mail-in ballots for years with no problem.
Only a few more states have decided to do that in this election.
Why do you keep censoring my point about what happened in NJ, the first time in US history this process was rushed to be used?
20% of the ballots were fraudulent, and several Democrat have been arrrested.
Can't let those facts remain in your thread.
24 Sep 2020 1:02 pm
I’ve Never Been More Worried About American Democracy Than I Am Right Now
The preemptive attack on the vote count is a five-alarm fire.
With less than six weeks to go before Election Day, and with over 250 COVID-related election lawsuits filed across 45 states, the litigation strategy of the Trump campaign and its allies has become clear: try to block the expansion of mail-in balloting whenever possible and, in a few key states, create enough chaos in the system and legal and political uncertainty in the results that the Supreme Court, Congress, or Republican legislatures can throw the election to Trump if the outcome is at all close or in doubt.
It’s a Hail Mary, but in a close enough election, we cannot count the possibility out.
I’ve never been more worried about American democracy than I am right now.
Much of the blizzard of election litigation concerns the casting of ballots by mail, a means of voting that has exploded thanks to COVID-19, and the fears many people have of voting in person during a pandemic.
Rules for casting mail-in ballots vary from state to state, and some are onerous during a pandemic, such as a requirement to have an absentee ballot notarized.
There are also serious questions about timing; even without all the tumult at the United States Postal Service, some states allow voters to request absentee ballots in the period close to the election, and there is real fear that voters will not get their ballots back in time to elected officials to be counted.
Some state and federal courts have responded to these lawsuits by relaxing technical requirements, such as allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Election Day (or if they arrive shortly after Election Day with no postmark, given that USPS does not always put a postmark—or a legible one—on ballot envelopes).
Trump has made repeated and loud unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in relation to mail-in ballots, even though he and his allies have voted by mail themselves and even as the campaign has begun encouraging more mail-in balloting among his own supporters.
The Trump and Republican litigation strategy has been to fight efforts to expand voting by mail: They have opposed expanded use of government drop boxes to return absentee ballots, extension of deadlines for ballot return, and state decisions to proactively send mail-in ballots to all active registered voters.
Four states—California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont—are doing so this time, joining the five other states that already conduct their elections almost exclusively by mail.
The Trump campaign has through litigation attacked the expansion of mail-in balloting in Nevada, so far unsuccessfully, and Attorney General William Barr has ridiculously claimed that election officials—led by a Republican secretary of state—will somehow “find” 100,000 ballots to help Joe Biden win the state if Trump is in the lead.The Trump strategy of fighting the expansion of mail-in balloting appears to be twofold.
To begin with, the campaign appears to have made the calculation that lower turnout will help the president win reelection.
This may explain why Pennsylvania Republicans are planning on going to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the counting of ballots arriving soon after Election Day without a legible postmark.
They argue that doing so unconstitutionally extends Election Day beyond Nov. 3 and takes power away from the Pennsylvania Legislature to choose presidential electors.
The first argument is not a particularly strong one: A decision to accept ballots soon after Election Day without a legible postmark does not extend Election Day as much as it implements how election officials determine if a mailed ballot was timely mailed.
It recognizes the reality that many ballots have been arriving without postmarks and uses proximity to the election as a proxy for timely voting.
Virginia and Nevada recently adopted similar rules, in light of pandemic-related mail delays.
The Trump-allied Honest Elections Project is fighting a consent decree over a similar extension in Minnesota.
The argument about the state Supreme Court’s ruling usurping legislative power to set federal election rules echoes a parallel claim that was made during the disputed election in 2000.
The question is whether a state supreme court usurps legislative power when it interprets election rules in line with both state statutes and the state constitution.
The argument that a state supreme court applying a state constitution in a voting case usurps legislative power is weak to me, but it was convincing enough for the more conservative members of the Supreme Court that decided Bush v. Gore.
The fighting over things like postmark rules are fights on the edges, the kind of trench warfare that will only matter if the election comes down to hundreds of ballots in a key swing state essential for the Electoral College outcome.
But there’s a second play here as well, one that is far more worrisome.
The idea is to throw so much muck into the process and cast so much doubt on who is the actual winner in one of those swing states because of supposed massive voter fraud and uncertainty about the rules for absentee ballots that some other actor besides the voter will decide the winner of the election.
That could be the RBG-less Supreme Court resolving a dispute over a group of ballots.
Indeed, on Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence suggested that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement needs to be seated, possibly without so much as a hearing, in order to decide “election issues [that] may come before the Supreme Court in the days following the election,” including questions involving “universal unsolicited mail” and states “extending the deadline” for ballot receipt.
(Never mind that a 4–4 split on the court on an election issue is unlikely.)
It could be a Republican legislature in a state saying it has the right under Article 2 of the Constitution to pick the state’s winner in the face of uncertainty.
Bart Gellman in the Atlantic recently quoted a Republican operative imagining these state legislatures saying, “All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power.
We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state.”
And it could be Republicans in the Senate—if they keep their majority—not counting Electoral College votes that were cast for Biden based upon manufactured uncertainty.
This would lead to a dispute with the Democratic House and lead to a political struggle over the presidency.
The president has been laying the groundwork for these claims for months, and just Tuesday his son, Donald Trump Jr., baselessly suggested that Democrats will “add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election.”
(The video remains up on Facebook even though it contains blatant election disinformation. Facebook has added a label to the post, however.)
Video
If we are lucky enough, the election will not be close, and we will avoid this election meltdown only to start panicking again in the run-up to 2024.
But if it is close, all bets are off.
We should not think of the litigation and the wild claims of voter fraud as separate from one another.
Instead, they are part of a play to grab power if the election is close enough.
There are good legal arguments against a power grab, but if another body tries to overturn the will of the people in voting for president, there will be protests in the streets, with the potential for violence.
This is a five-alarm fire, folks. It’s time to wake up.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... count.html
The preemptive attack on the vote count is a five-alarm fire.
With less than six weeks to go before Election Day, and with over 250 COVID-related election lawsuits filed across 45 states, the litigation strategy of the Trump campaign and its allies has become clear: try to block the expansion of mail-in balloting whenever possible and, in a few key states, create enough chaos in the system and legal and political uncertainty in the results that the Supreme Court, Congress, or Republican legislatures can throw the election to Trump if the outcome is at all close or in doubt.
It’s a Hail Mary, but in a close enough election, we cannot count the possibility out.
I’ve never been more worried about American democracy than I am right now.
Much of the blizzard of election litigation concerns the casting of ballots by mail, a means of voting that has exploded thanks to COVID-19, and the fears many people have of voting in person during a pandemic.
Rules for casting mail-in ballots vary from state to state, and some are onerous during a pandemic, such as a requirement to have an absentee ballot notarized.
There are also serious questions about timing; even without all the tumult at the United States Postal Service, some states allow voters to request absentee ballots in the period close to the election, and there is real fear that voters will not get their ballots back in time to elected officials to be counted.
Some state and federal courts have responded to these lawsuits by relaxing technical requirements, such as allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Election Day (or if they arrive shortly after Election Day with no postmark, given that USPS does not always put a postmark—or a legible one—on ballot envelopes).
Trump has made repeated and loud unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in relation to mail-in ballots, even though he and his allies have voted by mail themselves and even as the campaign has begun encouraging more mail-in balloting among his own supporters.
The Trump and Republican litigation strategy has been to fight efforts to expand voting by mail: They have opposed expanded use of government drop boxes to return absentee ballots, extension of deadlines for ballot return, and state decisions to proactively send mail-in ballots to all active registered voters.
Four states—California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont—are doing so this time, joining the five other states that already conduct their elections almost exclusively by mail.
The Trump campaign has through litigation attacked the expansion of mail-in balloting in Nevada, so far unsuccessfully, and Attorney General William Barr has ridiculously claimed that election officials—led by a Republican secretary of state—will somehow “find” 100,000 ballots to help Joe Biden win the state if Trump is in the lead.The Trump strategy of fighting the expansion of mail-in balloting appears to be twofold.
To begin with, the campaign appears to have made the calculation that lower turnout will help the president win reelection.
This may explain why Pennsylvania Republicans are planning on going to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the counting of ballots arriving soon after Election Day without a legible postmark.
They argue that doing so unconstitutionally extends Election Day beyond Nov. 3 and takes power away from the Pennsylvania Legislature to choose presidential electors.
The first argument is not a particularly strong one: A decision to accept ballots soon after Election Day without a legible postmark does not extend Election Day as much as it implements how election officials determine if a mailed ballot was timely mailed.
It recognizes the reality that many ballots have been arriving without postmarks and uses proximity to the election as a proxy for timely voting.
Virginia and Nevada recently adopted similar rules, in light of pandemic-related mail delays.
The Trump-allied Honest Elections Project is fighting a consent decree over a similar extension in Minnesota.
The argument about the state Supreme Court’s ruling usurping legislative power to set federal election rules echoes a parallel claim that was made during the disputed election in 2000.
The question is whether a state supreme court usurps legislative power when it interprets election rules in line with both state statutes and the state constitution.
The argument that a state supreme court applying a state constitution in a voting case usurps legislative power is weak to me, but it was convincing enough for the more conservative members of the Supreme Court that decided Bush v. Gore.
The fighting over things like postmark rules are fights on the edges, the kind of trench warfare that will only matter if the election comes down to hundreds of ballots in a key swing state essential for the Electoral College outcome.
But there’s a second play here as well, one that is far more worrisome.
The idea is to throw so much muck into the process and cast so much doubt on who is the actual winner in one of those swing states because of supposed massive voter fraud and uncertainty about the rules for absentee ballots that some other actor besides the voter will decide the winner of the election.
That could be the RBG-less Supreme Court resolving a dispute over a group of ballots.
Indeed, on Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence suggested that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement needs to be seated, possibly without so much as a hearing, in order to decide “election issues [that] may come before the Supreme Court in the days following the election,” including questions involving “universal unsolicited mail” and states “extending the deadline” for ballot receipt.
(Never mind that a 4–4 split on the court on an election issue is unlikely.)
It could be a Republican legislature in a state saying it has the right under Article 2 of the Constitution to pick the state’s winner in the face of uncertainty.
Bart Gellman in the Atlantic recently quoted a Republican operative imagining these state legislatures saying, “All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power.
We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state.”
And it could be Republicans in the Senate—if they keep their majority—not counting Electoral College votes that were cast for Biden based upon manufactured uncertainty.
This would lead to a dispute with the Democratic House and lead to a political struggle over the presidency.
The president has been laying the groundwork for these claims for months, and just Tuesday his son, Donald Trump Jr., baselessly suggested that Democrats will “add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election.”
(The video remains up on Facebook even though it contains blatant election disinformation. Facebook has added a label to the post, however.)
Video
If we are lucky enough, the election will not be close, and we will avoid this election meltdown only to start panicking again in the run-up to 2024.
But if it is close, all bets are off.
We should not think of the litigation and the wild claims of voter fraud as separate from one another.
Instead, they are part of a play to grab power if the election is close enough.
There are good legal arguments against a power grab, but if another body tries to overturn the will of the people in voting for president, there will be protests in the streets, with the potential for violence.
This is a five-alarm fire, folks. It’s time to wake up.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... count.html
24 Sep 2020 1:06 pm
There is NO reason people cannot go to the polls to vote. Having all mail in ballots is RIPE for fraud.
24 Sep 2020 1:16 pm
There is a little thing called a pandemic.duck615 » 24 Sep 2020, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑ There is NO reason people cannot go to the polls to vote. Having all mail in ballots is RIPE for fraud.
Maybe you heard about it.
I applied for a mail-in ballot because I have asthma and I don't believe that I should have to risk my life in order to exercise my right to vote.
I had to give proof of my identity in order to obtain a ballot.
But now that the Trump campaign is working overtime in my state (PA) to steal my vote, I am seriously considering taking the risk and voting in person.
24 Sep 2020 1:26 pm
You still don't see what's going on here, do you?Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑Yes, unlike squishy Beltway Repubs, Trump has the courage to fight the corrupt liberal left.I’ve Never Been More Worried About American Democracy Than I Am Right Now
The preemptive attack on the vote count is a five-alarm fire.
With less than six weeks to go before Election Day, and with over 250 COVID-related election lawsuits filed across 45 states, the litigation strategy of the Trump campaign and its allies has become clear: try to block the expansion of mail-in balloting whenever possible and, in a few key states, create enough chaos in the system and legal and political uncertainty in the results that the Supreme Court, Congress, or Republican legislatures can throw the election to Trump if the outcome is at all close or in doubt.
Trump is trying to undermine people's faith in this election before it even takes place.
He told us so when he said that the only way he could lose is if the election is rigged.
And now he's talking about how it will probably end up in the SCOTUS, because he intends to use the court to hand it to him even if he loses.
And by defending him, you are complicit in the shredding of our democracy.
24 Sep 2020 1:27 pm
If you have a medical condition fine. I am saying don't make UT mantory for everyone has to vote by mail.Misty » 24 Sep 2020, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑ There is a little thing called a pandemic.
Maybe you heard about it.
I applied for a mail-in ballot because I have asthma and I don't believe that I should have to risk my life in order to exercise my right to vote.
I had to give proof of my identity in order to obtain a ballot.
But now that the Trump campaign is working overtime in my state (PA) to steal my vote, I am seriously considering taking the risk and voting in person.
24 Sep 2020 1:45 pm
**** as usual.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 12:46 pm » wrote: ↑Yes, the states that are doing it are crucial Swing States.Misty: There are 5 states that have used universal mail-in ballots for years with no problem.
Only a few more states have decided to do that in this election.
In most states like mine, you still have to request a mail-in ballot.
Only one (Nevada) is considered a battleground state.
The other three states that have decided to do universal mail-in ballots this year are
California, Vermont and New Jersey.
Hardly swing states.
Why don't you stop pulling crap out of your *** and do some research for a change?
This is why I send your garbage to the PG.
It's all disinformation, propaganda, lies and ****.
Why should I waste my time with that ****?
24 Sep 2020 1:58 pm
More **** as usual.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑ Why did you censor this factual information, psycho?
To hide the truth.
It took Oregon ten years to prepare for it. The states now doing it have had only weeks, and Nevada did it cutting out the Republican party and not informing citizens before doing so.
The one time it has happened was the NJ primary. 20% of ballots were fraudulent, and several Democrats were arrested.
Those Democrats were not arrested for turning in 3 thousand fraudulent ballots.
The claim: Mail-in ballot fraud in New Jersey is a sign of bigger issues.
An article, "Mail-In Ballot Fraud in New Jersey Signals National Trouble" published July 15 on the website run by Judicial Watch, uses the arrest of four men in New Jersey on voter fraud allegations as evidence for “national trouble” if more American states move to vote-by-mail systems ahead of the 2020 election.
Judicial Watch is a "conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation, according to its website, and states its purpose as promoting "transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."
An email request for comment from the post’s author was not returned.
What happened in Jersey
Four men from New Jersey were charged with multiple counts of voting fraud after the U.S. Postal Inspection Service reported finding hundreds of ballots in a single mailbox during a May election for the city of Paterson.
The election was the first there conducted completely by mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Judicial Watch article alleges this is what happened: “The scheme appears to have been simple: the men collected blank ballots, forged the paperwork and signatures, and submitted fake votes.”
This is inaccurate.
First, a bit of background on the state's election law: New Jersey has three ways to legally submit a mail-in ballot.
Voters can put it in the mail themselves, deliver it to the local board of elections or designate a “bearer” to drop off their ballot.
“Bearers” must identify themselves on the ballot.
They cannot collect and deliver more than three ballots, and they cannot be a candidate in the election, according to New Jersey election law.
On June 25, state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal charged Paterson City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, Shelim Khalique and Abu Razyen with the crimes, saying they collected and delivered more than three ballots each and did not identify themselves as the “bearer.”
Mendez also was accused of submitting one or more voter registration applications where he allegedly knew the person was not eligible to vote in the district.
He pleaded not guilty.
New Jersey also alleged that Jackson received one ballot that wasn’t sealed, and that ballot was subsequently delivered to the board of elections in a sealed envelope without information identifying the bearer.
Nowhere in any of the charging documents or public statements made by officials in New Jersey does it allege that any of the four men voted on someone else’s behalf.
[....]
Judicial Watch stated “nearly 20% of the 16,000 ballots were disqualified."
That claim is correct; however, it needs context.
The Passaic County Board of Elections tossed out 3,190 mail-in ballots, or about 19% of those submitted, according to Northjersey.com.
Of those, 800 ballots were improperly bundled.
Election workers rejected the remaining 2,300 for other concerns, including signatures on the ballots not matching the ones on file.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 493078002/
24 Sep 2020 2:08 pm
There are five states that have used universal mail-in voting for years with no problem.duck615 » 24 Sep 2020, 1:27 pm » wrote: ↑If you have a medical condition fine. I am saying don't make UT mantory for everyone has to vote by mail.Misty » 24 Sep 2020, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑There is a little thing called a pandemic.
Maybe you heard about it.
I applied for a mail-in ballot because I have asthma and I don't believe that I should have to risk my life in order to exercise my right to vote.
I had to give proof of my identity in order to obtain a ballot.
But now that the Trump campaign is working overtime in my state (PA) to steal my vote, I am seriously considering taking the risk and voting in person.
Only four more have decided to do it this year.
Of the nine, only one (Nevada) is a battleground state.
In all of the other states you need to request a mail-in ballot.
And in my state I had to prove my identity in order to qualify for one.
24 Sep 2020 2:51 pm
I answered that post you filthy liar, and as usual you mischaracterized what happened in NJ.Termin8tor » 24 Sep 2020, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑Why do you keep censoring my point about what happened in NJ, the first time in US history this process was rushed to be used?
20% of the ballots were fraudulent, and several Democrat have been arrrested.
Can't let those facts remain in your thread.
The Democrats were NOT arrested for turning in 3,190 (20%) fraudulent ballots.
Everything you post is disinformation, propaganda, lies and ****.
I am not going to spend all of my time here debunking your garbage, so I just take out the trash.
Who is online
In total there are 4285 users online :: 0 registered, 13 bots, and 4272 guests
Registered users:
Bots: proximic, CriteoBot, ADmantX, Baiduspider, YandexBot, LCC, DuckDuckGo, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, Kinza, curl/7, Googlebot, bingbot