Ballot harvesting laws by State. GOP must match the Dems ballot harvesting if they want to win more elections

[task0778]

The more that goes on the harder it is to hide.

Kelly beat Masters by more than 125,000 votes. Do you really think they "harvested" that many votes?



Why is it so hard to prove?



Well, it is true that it can never be proven there was no fraud, or very little at least. It is hard to prove a negative. In my view, those making the claims have the onus on them to provide the evidence.

First of all, you didn't answer my question: How can you possibly know how much of this and other dubious fraud was going on?


Why is it so hard to prove? You have to prove it a court of law under the rules of evidence that an illegal act occurred, and this law was broken with deliberate intent rather than by mistake or accident. Kinda hard to do that, no? How do you prove harm? How do you show standing? What laws does a judge have at his/her disposal to define what is fraudulent? It's obviously different from one state to another, but my point is that there are real reasons why so few cases of voter/election fraud are brought, and there has to be a basis for a lawsuit. But the absence of that basis does not mean there was little or no fraud at all, it only means it can't be proved in a court of law.

In my view, those making the claims have the onus on them to provide the evidence.

Sure, but there's evidence that will stand up in court and evidence that won't. Which does not mean the evidence that won't should be summarily discarded as meaningless, nothing to see here so let's move on. And should we assume that the hundreds of claims of fraud was all there was? How much fraud went undetected? None you say? That's quite an assumption, one that a lot of other people will not make. Some might say what we don't know eclipses what was reported. Conspiracy you say. OK, but just because a person is paranoid does not mean that somebody isn't out to get them. Meaning that one cockroach usually means a bunch more than you haven't seen yet. Distrust born of dishonesty will do that to people.


There are a ton of people out there, mostly MAGA, that flat out do not trust the recent elections and definitely not the current gov't. You can dismiss them as deranged, deluded, and misguided, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but so are they. And I don't think they are going to change their minds anytime soon, and people like you don't want to even try to deal with their concerns. Prove it you say, knowing full well how hard it is, and then writing them all off as nutcases. And nobody wants to walk a mile in anyone else's shoes. I don't think that's going to work out very well for anybody.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

First of all, you didn't answer my question: How can you possibly know how much of this and other dubious fraud was going on?

I base my view of how much fraud on the amount of evidence that is given for it happening .

But the absence of that basis does not mean there was little or no fraud at all, it only means it can't be proved in a court of law.

Or anywhere else for that matter.

There are a ton of people out there, mostly MAGA, that flat out do not trust the recent elections and definitely not the current gov't. You can dismiss them as deranged, deluded, and misguided, and that's fine.

And there are ton of people out that that think the earth is flat and Anna Niccole married for love. I do not care what people think, just what they can support.

And I don't think they are going to change their minds anytime soon, and people like you don't want to even try to deal with their concerns.

I do not wish to change anyone's mind, that is a fools game.

Prove it you say, knowing full well how hard it is, and then writing them all off as nutcases. And nobody wants to walk a mile in anyone else's shoes. I don't think that's going to work out very well for anybody.

I do not need proof, just something that is actual evidence. According to you people there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fraudulent votes, yet you cannot show evidence for 100 of them.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It is not a big deal….just do exactly what the Dems are doing everywhere they are doing it.

Seems fair. No one could possibly argue thats not fair.

Same rules for everyone.

Ballot Harvest in 2024!

TRUMP
HAVRVEST
2024

 

[task0778]

I base my view of how much fraud on the amount of evidence that is given for it happening .



Or anywhere else for that matter.



And there are ton of people out that that think the earth is flat and Anna Niccole married for love. I do not care what people think, just what they can support.



I do not wish to change anyone's mind, that is a fools game.




I do not need proof, just something that is actual evidence. According to you people there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fraudulent votes, yet you cannot show evidence for 100 of them.

And still you did not answer my question: How can you possibly know how much of this and other dubious fraud was going on?

So, I'll answer it for you. You don't know, any more than I do. In total it could be 100, it could be 1,000, it could be 100,000, it could be a million or more. You don't know and you have no more reason to be believe you are right than I do that you are wrong. Which actually doesn't bother me that much, our opinions differ, big deal.

But what does bother me is that you and so many others discount the possibility that you are wrong because nobody can prove otherwise. And the problem is that around half the country have doubts or reservations about our elections, AND YOU DON'T CARE. Fuck 'em, they can't prove anything. I can admit that maybe there wasn't enough fraud to change the results in any election with national implications, but you cannot admit that maybe there was. Lack of proof does not mean innocence.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And still you did not answer my question: How can you possibly know how much of this and other dubious fraud was going on?

So, I'll answer it for you. You don't know, any more than I do. In total it could be 100, it could be 1,000, it could be 100,000, it could be a million or more. You don't know and you have no more reason to be believe you are right than I do that you are wrong.

Yes, I did answer it.

And yes, I do have no reason to be believe I am are right than I do that you are wrong....it is called lack of evidence that you are right.

But what does bother me is that you and so many others discount the possibility that you are wrong because nobody can prove otherwise.

It is about going where the evidence leads.

I can admit that maybe there wasn't enough fraud to change the results in any election with national implications, but you cannot admit that maybe there was. Lack of proof does not mean innocence.

“A conspiracy theorist is a person who tacitly admits that they have insufficient data to prove their points.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[lennypartiv]

Ballot harvesting laws by State. GOP must match the Dems ballot harvesting if they want to win more elections

Exactly. Dems like doing the voter fraud thing and nobody in the government is stopping them. However Dems are winning elections, Republicans need to do the same thing.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Exactly. Dems like doing the voter fraud thing and nobody in the government is stopping them. However Dems are winning elections, Republicans need to do the same thing.

Its legal in many states. Pubs should do it where it is legal.

 

[Winco]

Biden said they had the bbiggst voter fraud netowrk ever created.

Context, you liar.

Anti-Fraud Unit you simpleton.