blame it on Joe

People still insist the election was fraudulent and stolen. Yet all they do is talk about it (er, write about it).


If it was stolen.........show it.

https://t.me/ICONS2021/7013

People still insist the election was fraudulent and stolen. Yet all they do is talk about it (er, write about it).


If it was stolen.........show it. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Get serious...a guy robs a bank, shoots three people, and escapes only to be caught in a month. How long does it take him to go to trial with sufficient evidence to convict? Maybe years. Imagine if the entire government was working against the case being made except for one prosecutor's office. How did Capone beat the rap so often?

Please go back, and read post #24. Best of luck! Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Please answer the question....the world is waiting.

https://t.me/ICONS2021/7049

https://t.me/ICONS2021/7013 Originally Posted by bambino

https://t.me/ICONS2021/7049 Originally Posted by bambino

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

lolling eh

I think this is an example of what he's referring to.

Over the summer before the election, several states, notably a few, if not all of the swing states, had some major election rules changed that were seen as primarily advantageous to the Democrats, which were pushed by Democrats, sometimes in violation to their state's constitution. And when cases were brought up to challenge these (again, before the election), the cases weren't given the light of day as the Democrat-appointed Judges refused to see them. It was seen as corruption at the least, and compromising the electoral process at the worst. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Thanks GG. I'm exhausted trying to educate this moron to things that have been discussed ad nauseam.

Really? It's been more than six months, and no evidence has been presented, that ANYTHING happened, other than a normal election.

You're full of crap. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

GG just showed you the evidence but you're confused poor thing.



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stat...ry?id=72309089


Beginning in March, the coronavirus outbreak upended the presidential and statewide primary calendar, leading many states to not only change the date of their elections, but also change how they conducted those elections.


That's called changing the rules! This is a completely different argument than producing evidence of massive fraud but this might be a little too nuanced for you. And then there is the SC telling the Trump people that they had ample time to challenge these "rule changes" before the election as one reason they wouldn't hear these arguments after the election. This is all well documented evidence for people intelligent enough to understand it. I'm sorry that leaves you out. You are pitiful.

GG just showed you the evidence but you're confused poor thing.



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stat...ry?id=72309089


Beginning in March, the coronavirus outbreak upended the presidential and statewide primary calendar, leading many states to not only change the date of their elections, but also change how they conducted those elections.


That's called changing the rules! This is a completely different argument than producing evidence of massive fraud but this might be a little too nuanced for you. And then there is the SC telling the Trump people that they had ample time to challenge these "rule changes" before the election as one reason they wouldn't hear these arguments after the election. This is all well documented evidence for people intelligent enough to understand it. I'm sorry that leaves you out. You are pitiful.




Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Even if you show, explain the evidence of malfeasance, they still don’t get it.

GG just showed you the evidence but you're confused poor thing.



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stat...ry?id=72309089


Beginning in March, the coronavirus outbreak upended the presidential and statewide primary calendar, leading many states to not only change the date of their elections, but also change how they conducted those elections.


That's called changing the rules! This is a completely different argument than producing evidence of massive fraud but this might be a little too nuanced for you. And then there is the SC telling the Trump people that they had ample time to challenge these "rule changes" before the election as one reason they wouldn't hear these arguments after the election. This is all well documented evidence for people intelligent enough to understand it. I'm sorry that leaves you out. You are pitiful.




Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That is an interesting article. What I found most interesting is that the states that altered their voting rules were both Republican AND Democratic.

For the general election, at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia have made at least some changes that will make it easier and more accessible for voters to cast their ballots from home. These changes include removing strict excuse requirements or allowing COVID-19 concerns to be a valid excuse to vote absentee, allowing ballot drop boxes, offering prepaid postage on election mail and proactively sending all active registered voters applications to request an absentee ballot -- with some even skipping that step and sending the actual ballots.

The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Yes, this is a totally different issue than the voter fraud audit that is underway in Arizona and may be done in other states. Did any of the states change their voting rules solely to give an advantage to one party or the other? I'm sure Trump supporters will say "yes". There is little way to really know and no way to know if it impacted the election results by simply making it easier to cast one's vote in certain states.

That is an interesting article. What I found most interesting is that the states that altered their voting rules were both Republican AND Democratic.

For the general election, at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia have made at least some changes that will make it easier and more accessible for voters to cast their ballots from home. These changes include removing strict excuse requirements or allowing COVID-19 concerns to be a valid excuse to vote absentee, allowing ballot drop boxes, offering prepaid postage on election mail and proactively sending all active registered voters applications to request an absentee ballot -- with some even skipping that step and sending the actual ballots.

The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Yes, this is a totally different issue than the voter fraud audit that is underway in Arizona and may be done in other states. Did any of the states change their voting rules solely to give an advantage to one party or the other? I'm sure Trump supporters will say "yes". There is little way to really know and no way to know if it impacted the election results by simply making it easier to cast one's vote in certain states. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Speedy, the DNC sent over 600 lawyers before the 2020 elections to change the rules. Not one of those rule changes was ratified by state legislatures. Which makes those changes unconstitutional. There’s no arguing against that. It’s a fact. And to suggest those DNC lawyers didn’t favor the Democrats is just silly.

https://twitter.com/rasmussen_poll/s...673472002?s=21

Even if you show, explain the evidence of malfeasance, they still don’t get it. Originally Posted by bambino

That is an interesting article. What I found most interesting is that the states that altered their voting rules were both Republican AND Democratic.

For the general election, at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia have made at least some changes that will make it easier and more accessible for voters to cast their ballots from home. These changes include removing strict excuse requirements or allowing COVID-19 concerns to be a valid excuse to vote absentee, allowing ballot drop boxes, offering prepaid postage on election mail and proactively sending all active registered voters applications to request an absentee ballot -- with some even skipping that step and sending the actual ballots.

The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Yes, this is a totally different issue than the voter fraud audit that is underway in Arizona and may be done in other states. Did any of the states change their voting rules solely to give an advantage to one party or the other? I'm sure Trump supporters will say "yes". There is little way to really know and no way to know if it impacted the election results by simply making it easier to cast one's vote in certain states. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Speedy, the DNC sent over 600 lawyers before the 2020 elections to change the rules. Not one of those rule changes was ratified by state legislatures. Which makes those changes unconstitutional. There’s no arguing against that. It’s a fact. And to suggest those DNC lawyers didn’t favor the Democrats is just silly. Originally Posted by bambino

States updating/changing voter laws, particularly before an election isn't the problem. If memory serves, the times those laws are often updated are either just before an election or just after, I take it to be a presence of mind thing.

The specific problem in this case was the handful of states that made changes and didn't properly ratify them in line with their state's constitutional process. That could be considered a simple mistake, but there were several of them, and when opposition was raised, politically aligned judges dismissed the cases. That would be the malfeasance.