5 ms·

Including the safeguards where observers are safely kept away from the counting! There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. The supreme Court recently said Pen

Including the safeguards where observers are safely kept away from the counting! There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. The supreme Court recently said Pennsylvania should not have counted some of the ballots it did in 2020 (policy change by secretary of state vs legislature).

gruez 2y ago
>There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. Source? I thought all the election fraud lawsuits/investigations for the 2020 election basically went nowhere?
- anon291 2y ago
  For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. Opinions aren't formed on court cases. That's why in 2020, more than half of Democrats thought the election was irregular. It's remarkable to me because this is one of those issues where polling says voters of both parties agree, but the media insists that there's nothing there. That's crazy
  - gruez 2y ago
    >For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this seems sus") that you can provide?
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The accusations are always vague as well since each time you zoom in on one it’s completely anodyne but you need the distance to keep up the specter of something nefarious.
      - anon291 2y ago
        I guess for me personally I don't deny that Joe Biden won the contest as performed. I just question the contest themselves. After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania.
        acdha 2y ago
        > that's what happened here What precisely happened here? Can you specify which ruling you’re talking about and why you think it’s so significant?
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I am going to take a guess as to what the GP was referring to: In 2020, Pennsylvania was one of the states that made many changes to how their elections work under the guise of the pandemic. But they changed their rules at the last minute once more in a way that may have altered Pennsylvania’s outcomes. Existing state law meant ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to extend that deadline and the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court (not SCOTUS) made a highly controversial ruling that extended the deadline to the following Friday. This extension would have helped Biden (given his party filed the lawsuit to force the change), and given they barely won the state (Biden had 50.01%), there is a good chance it affected the outcome.

gruez 2y ago

>There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. Source? I thought all the election fraud lawsuits/investigations for the 2020 election basically went nowhere?

anon291 2y ago
For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. Opinions aren't formed on court cases. That's why in 2020, more than half of Democrats thought the election was irregular. It's remarkable to me because this is one of those issues where polling says voters of both parties agree, but the media insists that there's nothing there. That's crazy
- gruez 2y ago
  >For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this seems sus") that you can provide?
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The accusations are always vague as well since each time you zoom in on one it’s completely anodyne but you need the distance to keep up the specter of something nefarious.
    - anon291 2y ago
      I guess for me personally I don't deny that Joe Biden won the contest as performed. I just question the contest themselves. After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania.
      - acdha 2y ago
        > that's what happened here What precisely happened here? Can you specify which ruling you’re talking about and why you think it’s so significant?
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I am going to take a guess as to what the GP was referring to: In 2020, Pennsylvania was one of the states that made many changes to how their elections work under the guise of the pandemic. But they changed their rules at the last minute once more in a way that may have altered Pennsylvania’s outcomes. Existing state law meant ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to extend that deadline and the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court (not SCOTUS) made a highly controversial ruling that extended the deadline to the following Friday. This extension would have helped Biden (given his party filed the lawsuit to force the change), and given they barely won the state (Biden had 50.01%), there is a good chance it affected the outcome.