Section 1. Equal protection under the law.
It’s not. As long as everyone has to follow the same rules in a state, there is no violation.
The rules must be legislated.
There’s always details that are left to the election boards and administration to sort out. No legislature makes a law for everything.
Obviously.
The constitution stipulates that any election rules changes must go through the state legislature.
PA didn’t do this. Left wing judges and non-left wing judges refused to consider any cases. The non-left wing judges due to fear of attack by democrat fascists who destroyed cities all year.
It doesn’t say that. It says the manner of the election is determined by the legislature. That’s not the same thing.
But it
is the same thing. Read what you wrote.
No honest person would accept the numbers of this election. An audit was warranted but not granted due to bias and/or fear of reprisal.
Ox-Bow election.
It’s not. Method and means are not quite the same.
The numbers are legitimate. The people who don’t want to accept them merely can’t come to terms with losing.
The numbers are suspicious to say the least. Only dishonest people believe otherwise.
When you decided before the election that Trump won, then any number that doesn’t result in that outcome would seem suspicious.
That doesn’t mean it is.
My interpretation is rooted in results and figures.
Anyone who doesn’t question the veracity of the 2020 election is dishonest.
So the only reason a person could come to the conclusion that the 2020 election was fair is dishonesty?
You don't think the fact that it was monitored by members of both parties could make you draw that conclusion?
Or the fact that widespread voter fraud wasn't even alleged in court besides that is by Powell. Something she now claims was done in jest.
Or the fact that the lawsuits that were actually filed by Trump were shot down almost across the board.
A few weeks ago I had a discussion with my brother about believing something to be true because it sounds logical. It took me giving an example of giving a logical but different explanation for something he believes, before he realised that theirs a difference between believing something to be true and it actually being true.
No dishonesty is required to believe something different than what you believe.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that election deserves an audit is dishonest.
The anomalies are too conspicuous to ignore.
I have no problem with auditing an election. I have a problem with claiming voter fraud happened even after audits happen. I have a problem with demanding other people having to carry the burden of paying for an audit when the margins in the election in states have a zero chance of changing the results.
I have a problem with demanding audits when no credible reason for it can be established in a court of law.
There are several safeguards in place to ensure voter fraud is minimal. Measures that are enforced by members of both parties. Measures that allow an aggrieved party to challenge the election result. Measures that are arbitrated by the judicial system that is equally bipartisan.
If after all those safeguards have been applied you still are not satisfied that is just tough and by no means dishonesty on the part of those that have been satisfied.
Anyone who doesn’t request an audit on that election is dishonest.
That you’re too easily satisfied with election results with those anomalies suggests that you’re dishonest.
The fact that you aren't disputing the election was monitored by both parties and arbitrated by the judicial system and that no instances of large-scale voter fraud have been credibly alleged. And the fact that despite those facts you are still insisting you have reason to believe the election where stolen speaks more to your honesty than mine. (and no I don't think you're being dishonest just biased to a point that you can't rationally examine the facts.)
Ask yourself this. What would you accept as credible proof of an honest election? I highly doubt there is anything you would accept. Since audits, manual recounts, lawyers for Trump saying it there was no voter fraud, lawyers for Trump saying they claimed voter fraud in jest, the AG (a very partisan AG) saying there was no voter fraud, judges nominated by Trump saying there is no evidence for voter fraud, certification of the election result by Republican officials, certification of the election results by congress apparently aren't sufficient.
I would accept a thorough examination and verification of mail-in ballots.
That can’t happen because the verification elements have largely been destroyed.
I would then discount every unverifiable mail-in vote and/or every mail-in vote cast in violation of constitutional standards.
Until and unless that happens, no
honest person should accept these results.
Do you mean checking the signature in mail-in ballots to the signature in a voter registration form, or against the signature on your driver's license or other government-issued ID? Or check it against your address? Guess there is no reason to doubt the results then.
VOPP: Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee Ballots (ncsl.org)
As to constitutionality. Who do you imagine the
CONSTITUTION designated the arbitrate if the constitutional standards are followed? I'll give you a hint it starts with a c and ends in ourt. And before you come with the argument that the courts didn't rule on all the constitutional objections filed by Trump. Know that ruling to not weigh in on an argument in itself is a RULING.
The problem is not that mail-in ballots haven't been thoroughly examined or that they don't follow the constitutional standards, the problem is that YOU don't accept the conclusions of those examinations or accept the rulings of those the constitution empowered to judge on constitutionality.
And for the love of god please stop throwing the word honesty around, your bias prevents you from recognizing honesty.
**** YOU. I'm presenting EVERY POINT THAT WAS A MATTER OF STEALING THE ELECTION.
reason.com
The understatement of this century,this troll rivals AFrench as the biggest troll of usmb,making threads all the time always seeking attention.
