Nevada 'fraud': 1,500 ‘dead’ voters, 42,248 voted ‘multiple times,’ RV camps as 'homes'

Yes they certainly do when those are observers that they banned from the premises while the votes were being brought in and tabulated. Wtf are you talking about?

Let’s just assume for a moment that one of the presidential candidates or parties did cheat. Let’s assume the method of doing so was tabulating ballots that did not have valid signature verification and through adding votes to vote machines through thumb drives. Two issues which would require a audit of signature verification of both paper and machine ballots.

Are you under the delusion that the states can just stonewall the auditing of those ballots and signatures and the SCOTUS is going to stand by and do nothing? Lol okay keep thinking that

Why exactly do you think the SCOTUS moved the date for response up before safe harbor?

 

SCOTUS set the response date for the hearing to Dec 9th, the day after safe harbor. That should tell you what is going to happen. Your electors will be in place and legally recognized by the US as the final list. In 16 hours nothing can change that and SCOTUS will be responding to your request well after that. Just to head you off at the pass the date for the state to respond was set by Alito, the most conservative justice on the court.

 

It was moved from 12/9 to 12/8 at 9 AM

 

Don’t think you’re quite up to date there buddy.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/al...pplication-to-day-before-safe-harbor-deadline

 

Fair enough. Best case scenario for Team Trump the other 49 states get to have their votes counted and Pennsylvania as a whole is disenfranchised. Do you not see the problems here?

 

No I would say best case is that the scotus invalidates PA, ideally putting a hold on the electoral vote but even if not making the electors so concerned about fraud in their state that they withhold their votes themselves.

 

many elederly live in these on retirement too

as for the double voting, Trump told his supporters to do that, so does not surprise me, but these were already set aside, so won't change votes

 

And in 33 states go to jail for being a feckless voter and those are all red states.

 

There was no evidence presented and so Donald lost an other courtcase.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...ter-fraud-nevada-court-rules/?sh=14dd7e6812c4

 

Of course you didnt. Because in your mind, there was only one allowable outcome. And then you work backwards from that preference.

In your mind, you already knew BEFORE the election that Trump won. Am I right? You approached the election with the mindset that

A.) Trump will win by a land slide

B.) If Trump does not win, the ONLY plausible reason would be fraud

C.) Trump lost, therefore fraud was committed.



This seems to sum up the thinking of most Republicans right now.

You guys have elevated whining and temper tantrums to epic proportions.

 

Actually, they are now trying the US Supreme Court. It's an interesting argument, last year the Pennsylvania legislature voted to expand mail in voting by no longer requiring a reason for voting that way. This was done pre covid-19 so it proved to be a timely choice. The period to object passed and primaries were held under the new rules. The State supreme court specified because in the huge number of ballots being cast that way ordered that ballots dated on the election day or before should be included so voters don't lose their vote because of a swamped post office. Those votes were left out and didn't amount to many anyway so that fight failed.
Fast forwarding. The new contention is that the state legislature had no right to change the law because it appears in the state constitution and should require a constitutional amendment. While an argument can certainly be made for that the State Supreme court says that the plaintiffs had ample opportunities to object before and now they want to disenfranchise 2.5 million voters who were legal voters following the law as it was written at the time that they voted. The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of legal registered voters who respected the law in good faith. Hash out the legality of the law later but the votes stand.
The argument they are now trying with SCOTUS is that the State Supreme Court overstepped it's authority and that the State Assembly alone can make that judgement. The fact that the State Assembly is where the law came from in the first place has somehow escaped them and that the US Constitution gives them the authority to make such laws and that preempts whatever the State constitution may say.
I'm confident there will be no stay and if it should go to en banc the vote should be 9-0.

 

Think of it this way. Let's say the legislature passed a law extending the date for paying taxes by 2 months for whatever reason and someone comes along after the 2 months and says the state constitution had set a specific date that the legislature can't change. Now that someone wants everyone who took advantage of the extension to pay late fees and penalties.
Not going to happen.

 

Thx, notme.

Another day, another LOSS for Trump.

 

No evidence eh? That seems to be the unanimous ruling from every investigator/court who has made a formal comment on the matter

 

it is not a fraud case, but keep on, keeping on

 

Then you wouldn’t have a problem with a hand count with signature verification in front of both parties would you?

 

Maybe you folks don’t understand how finding fraud works. Rarely do you find the actual proof of fraud without an investigation. What you find is evidence that indicates the likelihood of fraud. Things such as statistical anomalies do not prove fraud occurred but it is indicative of fraud occurring.

At that point it requires a thorough investigation or, in the case of an election, a hand count of ballots with signature verification. THAT is when you prove the fraud occurred. But we can’t get there because for some strange reason the states are stonewalling sig verification of the ballots.

But don’t worry the Supreme Court will remedy that.

 

and if the Supreme Court never makes such a ruling, will you accept those results?

 

lol - they would be added to the conspiracy list

 

I can't help but feel that you're right. I remember them celebrating when AG Barr said he was greenlighting the DOJ to open up investigations into mass voter fraud, and then they quickly turned on him when he said the DOJ has so far found no evidence of mass voter fraud.

 

That dude Barr, total suck up to Donald in the past and got praised for it too, could not make different conclusion himself. Donald is a hoax. He went for faking being a president till he made it. It's not a mystery the guy is doing what a freeloader does best ... and that is nothing, watching tv all day and plays a sport with a semi passion.

He does what "the dude" does in the Big Lebowski for real.
80 million people peed on his rug.

 

He also never got 50% of the vote in any election he ran in that mattered. (after he clinched the nomination, he did win the remaining primaries, but he was the only candidate in most of them). He lost the popular vote nationally as well.

Indeed, the only reason he became President at all was because of winger-take-all rules in GOP primaries and the Electoral College.

 

There may eventually be a sell by date on Trump, but not on Trumpism. The combination of ignorance, fear, xenophobia and bigotry that fueled his cult of personality is something that has always been in the dark underbelly of American political culture.

Trump was the first time it ever got its hands on the levers of of power. He gave them exactly what they wanted. Lots of drama, but not much action. And what little action there was was designed specifically to entertain the base.

. And the legacy of weakness, corruption and disgrace is there for all to see.

 

Would I accept the results of an election that appears to me to be clearly fraudulent without an open and transparent recount and verification? No probably not. Would you?

Let’s say the SCOTUS does issue an order and the recount ends up overturning the election in Trumps favor. Would you accept it as legitimate?

Let’s make that question even more interesting. Let’s assume that the SCOTUS ordered a hand recount with signature verification. And during the process the democrat observers were partially or summarily (as in the Georgia recount) restricted from observing... And it gets overturned for Trump. Would you accept it as legitimate then?

 

I have never believed American voters voted for a candidate I didn't approve..
But I also don't think I will be able to prove it, sadly.