4 ms·

You are right about the first part. You won't know you have a dead raccoon in your basement until it starts stinking. I was hearing the conservatives complain a

by _yoqn 5y ago

You are right about the first part. You won't know you have a dead raccoon in your basement until it starts stinking. I was hearing the conservatives complain about the mass mail-in voting rules and Trump himself also, long before the actual election. On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be constitutional. In other words they're illegal. So wouldn't it be sensible to hear calls to count only the legal votes? There are many, many more irregularities that are too numerous to list but here are a few: https://rumble.com/vhj5at-2020-election-irregularities-compilation.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3 https://rumble.com/vhj5at-2020-election-irregularities-compi...

shadowgovt 5y ago
the conservatives in Pennsylvania supported the change in the law that allowed for mail-in ballots. Traditionally, older Pennsylvanians support conservative candidates. And with the state's population skewing older, Republicans in the state realized the thing that could dampen votes for their candidates was that the state's ancient, overly-tight restraints on what constituted a valid excuse for an absentee ballot meant that older Pennsylvanians who were shut in in nursing homes and couldn't find transportation to the polls increasingly wouldn't be able to vote for their candidates. It was one of those bipartisan pieces of legislation that passed because Democrats believed the more of the population voted, the more would vote for them, and Republicans believed supporting the elderly's right to vote meant more Republican votes. In the end, they were probably both right. Point is, the state Supreme Court rightfully saw through it when the people who'd supported the law in the first place called foul, but only in the third election the law was used, when their candidate wasn't the one who won. ... well, their candidate for President. An awful lot of their down-ticket candidates won. Which would be a weird thing to happen if the election had been rigged, wouldn't it?
jcranmer 5y ago
> On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be constitutional. In other words they're illegal. So wouldn't it be sensible to hear calls to count only the legal votes? No. Those who voted using improper procedures had reasonable basis to believe that the procedures they used would have been proper. If they had known those procedures where improper at the time they availed themselves of them, they very well could have used proper procedures instead. After the election and the votes are counted, it is absolutely too late to cure any defects. Why should those people be penalized for actions that they have done through no fault of their own?

by _yoqn 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

the conservatives in Pennsylvania supported the change in the law that allowed for mail-in ballots. Traditionally, older Pennsylvanians support conservative candidates. And with the state's population skewing older, Republicans in the state realized the thing that could dampen votes for their candidates was that the state's ancient, overly-tight restraints on what constituted a valid excuse for an absentee ballot meant that older Pennsylvanians who were shut in in nursing homes and couldn't find transportation to the polls increasingly wouldn't be able to vote for their candidates. It was one of those bipartisan pieces of legislation that passed because Democrats believed the more of the population voted, the more would vote for them, and Republicans believed supporting the elderly's right to vote meant more Republican votes. In the end, they were probably both right. Point is, the state Supreme Court rightfully saw through it when the people who'd supported the law in the first place called foul, but only in the third election the law was used, when their candidate wasn't the one who won. ... well, their candidate for President. An awful lot of their down-ticket candidates won. Which would be a weird thing to happen if the election had been rigged, wouldn't it?

jcranmer 5y ago

> On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be constitutional. In other words they're illegal. So wouldn't it be sensible to hear calls to count only the legal votes? No. Those who voted using improper procedures had reasonable basis to believe that the procedures they used would have been proper. If they had known those procedures where improper at the time they availed themselves of them, they very well could have used proper procedures instead. After the election and the votes are counted, it is absolutely too late to cure any defects. Why should those people be penalized for actions that they have done through no fault of their own?