U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

NH, as Texas, is requiring voter ID. So in order to advocate that voter ID should be mandatory, It's the second time you cite issues which occurred in States requiring voter ID.

Sorry, but It's incoherent.

 

If you want to go that route, what does voter ID have to do with the OP topic, which is about organizations gathering votes (or harvesting ballots in today's vernacular)?

 

As an alternative, you can realize that voter ID, harvesting ballots and machinery integrity are all part of making sure that every vote is legal, every vote is counted (just once) and every legal voter gets to cast one and only one vote.

 

[candide]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If you want to go that route, what does voter ID have to do with the OP topic, which is about organizations gathering votes (or harvesting ballots in today's vernacular)?

 

As an alternative, you can realize that voter ID, harvesting ballots and machinery integrity are all part of making sure that every vote is legal, every vote is counted (just once) and every legal voter gets to cast one and only one vote.

 

OK, the OP has nothing to do with voter ID. Nothing to do with your examples too, as both States are restricting ballot collection.

[Credo]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

If it's nonsense, explain Windham county, NH.

 

The Dem loser insisted on a recount, and lost even biglier after they recounted.  6% of the votes shifted to Repubs.  They're looking into the discrepancy in the machinery.

 

Maybe it's not fraud, but it sure wasn't a fair election.  I'll let you do the googling...  The article came up Feb 11.

 

If insisting that only legal voters cast only one vote is "voter suppression", I'm all for it.

 

This is the typical nonsense post where there is one very minor, and yet unexplained problem that was corrected in one small town in one small state and from that it's inferred that the entire election in the entire US was fraudulent.  It wasn't.  

This is akin to banning driving because someone, somewhere had an accident.   

 

[MikeyIdea]

11 hours ago, impulse said:

 

No, there were 60 court cases where the courts declined to hear the case.  Most of them on the basis of standing and procedure, as opposed to evidence or lack thereof.   Maybe the election was fair.  But why not hear the evidence in court? 

 

 

The first step is that one must provide credible evidence that a crime or fraud has been commited, judges then review the evidence submitted to verify if there is any credibility to the accusations and then they *order*. They can order that the case is taken up, i.e., there IS credible evidence, or they can order that the case is not taken up, i.e.,  credible evidence of a crime or fraud was not submitted. 

 

Some cases went all the way up to the Supreme Court and 9 (nine) justices reviewed the evidence submitted and then ordered that no credible evidence of fraud or crime was submitted. And 6 of the nine justices were appointed by republican presidents. 

   

I don't believe US courts turn down cases and thereby undermine justice if credible evidence is submitted.

 

[MikeyIdea]

31 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

   

I don't believe US courts turn down cases and thereby undermine justice if credible evidence is submitted.

 

 

I should add: If the right court is petitioned.

[Jeffr2]

11 hours ago, impulse said:

 

No, there were 60 court cases where the courts declined to hear the case.  Most of them on the basis of standing and procedure, as opposed to evidence or lack thereof.   Maybe the election was fair.  But why not hear the evidence in court? 

 

Why not deep dive into the machines?   What's to lose, especially in light of recent revelations that state actors have infiltrated so many gub'ment computer systems.

 

The Pentagon, intelligence agencies, nuclear labs and Fortune 500 companies use software that was found to have been compromised by Russian hackers.

You figure election machines were immune?  On what basis do you make that assertion?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/russia-hack-nsa-homeland-security-pentagon.html

 

BTW, look up the root source of the expression "most secure elections in history".  Not the thousands of parroting media...  The root source.

 

Why not believe what Barr said and let it go. Much more important things to worry about than this. And it just creates more problems than it solves.

[Jeffr2]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

 

If it's nonsense, explain Windham county, NH.

 

The Dem loser insisted on a recount, and lost even biglier after they recounted.  6% of the votes shifted to Repubs.  They're looking into the discrepancy in the machinery.

 

Maybe it's not fraud, but it sure wasn't a fair election.  I'll let you do the googling...  The article came up Feb 11.

 

If insisting that only legal voters cast only one vote is "voter suppression", I'm all for it.

 

You sure fall for this bs. NH is a big nothing burger. You really need to find a better source for your news.

 

https://www.nhpr.org/post/ag-asked-investigate-differing-vote-totals-contested-windham-race#stream/0

 

The recount for the Windham race, conducted by the Secretary of State’s office, didn’t alter the outcome: Four Republican candidates swept the historically conservative district in the first round of tallying done at the Windham polls on Nov. 3, and again after the votes were reviewed at the State Archives.

 

However, the margin of victory over the closest Democratic challenger, Kristi St. Laurent, was 400 votes higher than what was reported during the initial local counting process. On Election Night, St. Laurent fell short by just 24 votes. During the recount process, according to the Secretary of State’s records, she lost 99 votes and each of the Republican candidates gained roughly 300 votes apiece. 

[Sujo]

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

No, there were 60 court cases where the courts declined to hear the case.  Most of them on the basis of standing and procedure, as opposed to evidence or lack thereof.   Maybe the election was fair.  But why not hear the evidence in court? 

 

Why not deep dive into the machines?   What's to lose, especially in light of recent revelations that state actors have infiltrated so many gub'ment computer systems.

 

The Pentagon, intelligence agencies, nuclear labs and Fortune 500 companies use software that was found to have been compromised by Russian hackers.

You figure election machines were immune?  On what basis do you make that assertion?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/russia-hack-nsa-homeland-security-pentagon.html

 

BTW, look up the root source of the expression "most secure elections in history".  Not the thousands of parroting media...  The root source.

 

Wrong, some courts did hear evidence and laughed it out of court.

[Eric Loh]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Wrong, some courts did hear evidence and laughed it out of court.

Trump’s Election Challenges Keep Getting Laughed Out of Court

By Jonathan Chait

PS. My ribs still hurt from so much laughing.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/trumps-election-lawsuits-lose-court-vote-fraud-2020-biden.html

[candide]

18 hours ago, impulse said:

 

No, there were 60 court cases where the courts declined to hear the case.  Most of them on the basis of standing and procedure, as opposed to evidence or lack thereof.   Maybe the election was fair.  But why not hear the evidence in court? 

 

Why not deep dive into the machines?   What's to lose, especially in light of recent revelations that state actors have infiltrated so many gub'ment computer systems.

 

The Pentagon, intelligence agencies, nuclear labs and Fortune 500 companies use software that was found to have been compromised by Russian hackers.

You figure election machines were immune?  On what basis do you make that assertion?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/russia-hack-nsa-homeland-security-pentagon.html

 

BTW, look up the root source of the expression "most secure elections in history".  Not the thousands of parroting media...  The root source.

 

As mentioned by Eric, when so-called evidence was presented it was rejected because there was no acceptable evidence.

On top of it, most complaints were not about fraud, they were about legal technicalities or procedures, I.e. GOP lawmakers complaining about amendments they voted themselves.

So we had Giuliani and friends bragging about voter fraud on TV, social media , organising fake hearings about fraud, etc... but in courts they did not talk about fraud anymore (Giuliani: "It's not about fraud", lol!).

 

Actually, even now, nothing prevents anyone from filing a lawsuit backed by acceptable evidence. We are still waiting for it....

[Sujo]

57 minutes ago, candide said:

As mentioned by Eric, when so-called evidence was presented it was rejected because there was no acceptable evidence.

On top of it, most complaints were not about fraud, they were about legal technicalities or procedures, I.e. GOP lawmakers complaining about amendments they voted themselves.

So we had Giuliani and friends bragging about voter fraud on TV, social media , organising fake hearings about fraud, etc... but in courts they did not talk about fraud anymore (Giuliani: "It's not about fraud", lol!).

 

Actually, even now, nothing prevents anyone from filing a lawsuit backed by acceptable evidence. We are still waiting for it....

60 attempts and nothing. Dont know how much more humiliation they can take.

Congress gone

Senate gone

Whitehouse gone

 

Trump gone and becoming more and more irrelevant. Will be interesting when we find out which members of congress were contacting the proud boys on jan 6.

 

I note josh hawley was questioning wray about phone metadata at the hearing. I think he knows he is in trouble.

[candide]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

60 attempts and nothing. Dont know how much more humiliation they can take.

Congress gone

Senate gone

Whitehouse gone

 

Trump gone and becoming more and more irrelevant. Will be interesting when we find out which members of congress were contacting the proud boys on jan 6.

 

I note josh hawley was questioning wray about phone metadata at the hearing. I think he knows he is in trouble.

Interesting news are starting to surface...

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/03/04/trump-appointee-arrested-for-capitol-riot-473825

[impulse]

16 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

You sure fall for this bs. NH is a big nothing burger. You really need to find a better source for your news.

 

https://www.nhpr.org/post/ag-asked-investigate-differing-vote-totals-contested-windham-race#stream/0

 

The recount for the Windham race, conducted by the Secretary of State’s office, didn’t alter the outcome: Four Republican candidates swept the historically conservative district in the first round of tallying done at the Windham polls on Nov. 3, and again after the votes were reviewed at the State Archives.

 

However, the margin of victory over the closest Democratic challenger, Kristi St. Laurent, was 400 votes higher than what was reported during the initial local counting process. On Election Night, St. Laurent fell short by just 24 votes. During the recount process, according to the Secretary of State’s records, she lost 99 votes and each of the Republican candidates gained roughly 300 votes apiece. 

 

So, you're saying that swinging 6% of the vote is a nothing burger?    

 

[Susco]

Here's another nice one

 

People Can’t Believe Rudy Giuliani’s Warning About Misinformation Isn’t A Comedy Bit

https://finance.yahoo.com/huffpost/rudy-giuliani-misinformation-reaction-083905269.html

[candide]

1 hour ago, Susco said:

Here's another nice one

 

People Can’t Believe Rudy Giuliani’s Warning About Misinformation Isn’t A Comedy Bit

https://finance.yahoo.com/huffpost/rudy-giuliani-misinformation-reaction-083905269.html

Yet he perfectly knows he's a liar, same as Powel! ????????????????

 

Giuliani tried to dodge being served with $1 billion Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit, source says

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-tried-dodge-being-served-035100322.html

Dominion Says It Chased Sidney Powell 'Across State Lines' After She Evaded Lawsuit for Weeks

https://www.newsweek.com/dominion-says-it-chased-sidney-powell-across-state-lines-after-she-evaded-lawsuit-weeks-1568092

[Jeffr2]

16 hours ago, impulse said:

 

So, you're saying that swinging 6% of the vote is a nothing burger?    

 

In one small country where it had no impact....yes.

 

overall, the biggest problem we have with voter fraud are the politicians who support the bug lie. They should set an example and lead. Sadly, they are telling porkies. And sadly, many are falling for it.

[Sujo]

17 hours ago, impulse said:

 

So, you're saying that swinging 6% of the vote is a nothing burger?    

 

Correct. If you dont agree take it up with trump appointees bill barr and everyone else with knowledge of it saying its a nothing burger.