73% of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. For the Republican establishment/elite, it is easy to understand why. The politicians cater to the base in order to continue gainful employment as senators and congressmen/women with all its perks and privilege and prestige. The future of the nation is a distant second as a motivator.

The elite, composed of the wealthy, are motivated by the status quo that gives them a luxurious standard of living. Again, the future of the nation is a distant second.

What about the base? Who are these millions that supported Trump and believe that the election was stolen? They proclaim patriotism but when quizzed about their reasons for believing the election was stolen, they are uniformly incoherent when giving their reasons.

When they respond to interviewers with incoherent answers that reveal them to be less than knowledgeable about current affairs, they then aggressively answer interviewers with words like "Communistic" and "socialistic". They revert to the trigger words when they stumble over issues that they are clearly uninformed about. "Socialistic" evil, however, is a fierce belief of these people even though they would be surprised to learn that their medicare and social security are "socialistic".

Dozens of court case (including all the way to the Supreme Court), audits and recounts (witness the travesty of the Arizona CyberNinja idiocy), and plain common sense have done not a whit to disabuse them of their tightly held beliefs of a stolen election.

Are there other reasons for such a blind unthinking allegiance to an event that has been proven to have never occurred?

Another aspect of the Republican Party membership is that the party has morphed into the Trump Cult with white evangelicals being the primary supporting demographic.

The elites are swamp critters regardless of party affiliation .They wallow in the riches and privileges their position allows them to obtain They don't necessarily start that way . They may have the best intentions entering public service . But soon they are consumed by the swamp culture .

Look at All Out Crazy. She thinks she is Joan of Arc champion of the little people . But she has now fully embraced the swamp culture and isn't even aware that wearing expensive gowns with a tax the rich message ;while hobnobbing comfortably in the land of the elite rich snobs is completely hypocritical . It just never occurs to her that is so. Meanwhile she worked to kill an initiative that would've generated thousands of jobs in her district .

I do not understand the objection to election audits . If all they do is prove Quid won then why the fear of them ?
btw the compliant press only focused on the results of the hand count in AZ while ignoring the statistically significant anomalies identified including thousands of ballots cast that were of questionable legality

I often think that I know of nothing much more alarming than the fact that someone like AOC is actually listened to in a serious manner and gets to have input on the operation of our government. You are absolutely correct that her wearing an expensive gown with "tax the rich" on it was silly on several levels. The rich already pay most of the income and inheritance taxes in our county, and putting the message on an expensive gown is on the level of showing up in a mink coat with "Be Kind to Animals" written on it.

Look at All Out Crazy. She thinks she is Joan of Arc champion of the little people . But she has now fully embraced the swamp culture and isn't even aware that wearing expensive gowns with a tax the rich message ;while hobnobbing comfortably in the land of the elite rich snobs is completely hypocritical

The gown thing was a stunt to make a point. She has hardly "fully embraced the swamp culture" and you seeing it as hypocritical betrays your lack of getting her intentions. Plus, she's a knockout and was born in the Bronx neighborhood I grew up in. In fact, just two buildings down from mine. SC Justice Sotomayor is also from that area - two neighborhoods over. The Bronx will rise again!


I do not understand the objection to election audits . If all they do is prove Quid won then why the fear of them ?
btw the compliant press only focused on the results of the hand count in AZ while ignoring the statistically significant anomalies identified including thousands of ballots cast that were of questionable legality

On a more serious note, the several election audits and recounts demanded by the Trump faction serve to undermine the validity of the election even when it has been uniformly praised by all sides (except the Trumpites) as honest and the largest turnout ever.

There were no "statistically significant anomalies" claimed by the far-right loonie who runs CyberNinja as basically a one-man band. These claims were not ignored by a "compliant press". In fact, they were thoroughly debunked by CNN, MSNBC, and print media. You prefer FOX and that's your right but you can't change facts.

The danger with these recounts demanded by Trump is that the Republican state legislatures are moving to override the electoral college by declaring it invalid and replacing it with Republican electors or simply declaring their candidate the winner.

73% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. I hope that is not your belief.

As has been said again and again, this is a serious threat to the American system of government.

Justice Sotomayor is cool . Nothing phony about her .

There will continue to be demands for forensic audits of the election to identify "irregularities" that were rampant in the election. Let's put aside charges of theft and corruption for a minute . The way election laws were changed in a pell mell way because of covid made the possibility of "irregular" results more likely .

You say the audits undermine the validity of the election and I say that unless the audits are done there will never be confidence in the integrity of the process .

The practice of ballot harvesting is but one example of an idea that has great potential for corruption. Having partisan hands on ballots prior to being turned over to voting officials is plainly a bad concept. "Just picked up old man Terry's ballot. He has made some pro-repub comments in the past, so into the trash goes his ballot!"

I think the primary contributing factor to Trump's loss was not the election being stolen but rather his unwillingness to control his big mouth. But our voting process leaves much to be desired. It should be so efficiently run that voter confidence in the process itself is high. That is certainly not the case now, and I'm sure both sides have some valid complaints. I would say the idea of the massive use of absentee ballots is more open to corruption than is the practice of in-person voting, for instance. If long lines are a problem, then perhaps we need more polling places or a two-day voting window. The use of voter ID's seems to be a plainly good idea. We just need a general commitment to integrity in the voting process.


The politicians cater to the base in order to continue gainful employment as senators and congressmen/women with all its perks and privilege and prestige. The future of the nation is a distant second as a motivator.One of the greatest arguments I've ever heard for limited government.

Having partisan hands on ballots prior to being turned over to voting officials is plainly a bad concept. "Just picked up old man Terry's ballot. He has made some pro-repub comments in the past, so into the trash goes his ballot!"
Are there non-partisan hands-on ballots?

It works both ways: "Just picked up Gramma Tilly's ballot. She has made some pro-dem, even lib, comments in the past, so into the trash goes her ballot!"


But our voting process leaves much to be desired. It should be so efficiently run that voter confidence in the process itself is high.
For mail-in ballots, states should take a hint from Illinois' scrupulous oversight.

Are there non-partisan hands?

It works both ways: "Just picked up Gramma Tilly's ballot. She has made some pro-dem, even lib, comments in the past, so into the trash goes her ballot!"

Both good points.

It seems whenever the infinitesimal amount of actual fraud is uncovered it tends to be committed by Republican Trump Cultists.


The following is still hanging waiting for an answer:

73% of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Dozens of court case (including all the way to the Supreme Court), audits and recounts (witness the travesty of the Arizona CyberNinja idiocy), and plain common sense have done not a whit to disabuse them of their tightly held beliefs of a stolen election.

Are there other reasons for such a blind unthinking allegiance to an event that has been proven to have never occurred?

You say the audits undermine the validity of the election and I say that unless the audits are done there will never be confidence in the integrity of the process .

The audits and recounts were done by Republican Board of Elections Commissioners. These were unacceptable to the loony fringe of the Trump Cultists so the state legislatures arranged for these loonies to hold THEIR audits and recounts and have come up with a GREATER vote count for Biden!

The results apparently meant nothing to the Trumpites as they continue on their merry way undermining the election process wherever possible.

What is your position on State Legislatures changing the rules to invalidate the electoral college and even declare their own candidate to be the winner?

What is your position on State Legislatures changing the rules to invalidate the electoral college and even declare their own candidate to be the winner?

They can't invalidate the electoral college .Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) . This compact was in place long before the election happened

My position on changing the rules in the middle of the game is consistent . I oppose it ;and that included the last ditch effort to have Repub legislatures select electors that would vote for Trump . Across the board the states voted for slates of electors on election day.

I think the election has been decided . As I said ,to have faith in elections the people have to believe that the elections are fair . That is why I continue to support audits .


What ? The Dems have never supported recounts ? What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .

. Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia Republican nominee for governor, ‘I grew up in a world where you have an audit every year, in businesses you have an audit. So let’s just audit the voting machines, publish it so everybody can see it.’ The Arizona audit found serious irregularities 23,344 ‘mail-in ballots voted from a prior address’; 9,041 ‘more ballots returned by voter than received’; 5,295 ‘voters that potentially voted in multiple counties’; 2,592 ‘more duplicates than original ballots’; and 2,382 ‘in-person voters who had moved out of Maricopa County , voters whose ballots were counted despite the fact that they registered to vote after the state deadline for registration had already passed.
That finding should help the state amend it's laws to correct the issues found .

What ? The Dems have never supported recounts ? What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .Exactly correct. The only reason complaints are being voiced is because it fits in nicely with the "we hate Trump" crowd. It's the same reason there was so much grousing about Covid deaths when Trump was pres, but not that it's Biden, it's just ignored. Just more stinkin politics.

Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) .

I have no problem with that. The only two recent elections that have been won by the candidate with fewer votes have been Republicans.


My position on changing the rules in the middle of the game is consistent . I oppose it ;and that included the last ditch effort to have Repub legislatures select electors that would vote for Trump .

Agreed.


I think the election has been decided . As I said ,to have faith in elections the people have to believe that the elections are fair .

Thank you.


That is why I continue to support audits

I also support audits, but not the kind that take place AFTER the secretary of state (often Republican) has already performed an audit/recount. I'm referring to the extra audits authorized by Republican state legislatures after their own party has already performed an audit/recount. Like the Arizona CyberNinja BS.

Some state legislatures have called for the removal of Republican secretaries of state who don't see it their way. See Georgia.



What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .

There is reason to believe that Trump was elected under false circumstances. That story is not over yet. There is no reason to believe that Biden was elected under false circumstances. Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.


The Arizona audit found serious irregularities 23,344 ‘mail-in ballots voted from a prior address’; 9,041 ‘more ballots returned by voter than received’; 5,295 ‘voters that potentially voted in multiple counties’; 2,592 ‘more duplicates than original ballots’; and 2,382 ‘in-person voters who had moved out of Maricopa County , voters whose ballots were counted despite the fact that they registered to vote after the state deadline for registration had already passed.

Every one of these accusations has been rebutted.

There were actually a total of 2,364,426 mail-in ballots requested, and 1,918,024 of them were returned.

Senate President Karen Fann said Maricopa County “sent letters out to the voters and saying, ‘Please be aware our system’s been hacked or breached, and we believe none of your personal information has been disclosed.’”

There was no hack, and it isn’t possible for hackers to change votes because the ballot tabulation equipment is a “closed air gapped system,” meaning it isn’t connected to the internet.

In fact, the county in February released the results of the independent forensic audit of its ballot tabulation equipment that found “no issues” with how the votes were counted. That audit was conducted by two federally certified Voting System Testing Laboritories— Pro V&V and SLI Compliance.

The rest of your claimed "irregularities" can be seen as false in this very detailed website.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/debunking-trumps-latest-arizona-election-claims/

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3874643#post3874643)
Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) .



I have no problem with that. The only two recent elections that have been won by the candidate with fewer votes have been Republicans.
This pact will last only until one of the states where the vote in the state goes against the national popular vote winner and the electors are forced to go against the state popular will. You know that will happen sooner or later .


I'm referring to the extra audits authorized by Republican state legislatures after their own party has already performed an audit/recount. Like the Arizona CyberNinja BS.

I don't care how many audits as long as the end product is exposing flaws in the process and corrections made .




There is reason to believe that Trump was elected under false circumstances. That story is not over yet.

Yes far from over yet. The more we learn the more we learn about the collusion of the Evita campaign and the Emperor's admiration's efforts to use the power of the state to steal the election from Trump.



Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.

An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tally


https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/de...ection-claims/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/debunking-trumps-latest-arizona-election-claims/)

I do not pay attention to anything the Anneberg group claims . Their agenda is well known .Although Walter H. Annenberg was a Nixonian Republican ,his Foundation was coopted and used to fund leftist causes. Don't forget that the emperor and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers were put in charge of one of the Anneberg education initiatives .

I also dismiss out of hand the op -eds of fact checkers of all stripes and have never used them as a source. As lib journalist Ben Smith once said about fact checkers ...
“At their worst, they’re doing opinion journalism under pseudo-scientific banners"

Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.


An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tallyIt's surprising to see that raised as an issue. The Florida situation is a perfect illustration of how the same liberals who currently oppose audits and profess great faith in the honesty of the electoral process were of a completely different opinion just twenty years ago. It all comes down to who won and who lost.

This pact will last only until one of the states where the vote in the state goes against the national popular vote winner and the electors are forced to go against the state popular will. You know that will happen sooner or later .

My understanding of the Electoral College is that it was established to reverse a popular vote for a demagogue. That seems naive in the 21st century especially after the election of 2016. Serious thought should be given to a nation-wide popular vote as the deciding factor. Smaller states would still have their senate disproportionate representation to champion their interests.


I don't care how many audits as long as the end product is exposing flaws in the process and corrections made

Where does it stop? Already extra audits are being authorized by Republican legislatures apparently until they get one that serves their purpose. When they are carried out by fraudsters like CyberNinja, they defeat the purpose of voting even tho' CyberNinja was forced to admit the accuracy of Biden winning. They still managed to muddy the water with unproven claims.


The more we learn the more we learn about the collusion of the Evita campaign and the Emperor's admiration's efforts to use the power of the state to steal the election from Trump.

That is right-wing QANON material.


An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tally

There were different conclusions from the post-election media recounts. One had Bush winning by 493 votes and another had Gore votes increased by 682. But that is not the main issue of that SC decision.

Even Alan Dershowitz, of all people, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[75] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#cite_note-Dersh-77)


I do not pay attention to anything the Anneberg group claims

This is an ongoing problem when attempting to show facts to you. When they don't agree with your position, you dismiss them out of hand. Not because they're not true, but because they're not playing your tune.


I also dismiss out of hand the op -eds of fact checkers of all stripes and have never used them as a source.

That is the most arrogant position I've seen. If you disagree with fact-checkers, then offer your own facts that show them to be wrong. It's as simple as that. But you don't do that. You just, in your own words, "dismiss them out of hand". That is no way to carry on a discussion. You, of all people, should know that.

Even Alan Dershowitz, of all people, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history,

He is right that it is a bad SCOTUS call . His reason is wrong . It was a bad call because the Fla vote was decided when the vote was certified . Once that was done then the courts had no role and that is how SCOTUS should've ruled . Since then every election is being refereed by the courts when the Constitution clearly makes the states the referee.

As far as so called "fact checkers" go I don't bother wasting my time with point by point rebuttal . The arrogance is them pretending to be the gate keepers of truth . The nativity is in the people who go to them as a primary source . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And I gave my reason for distrusting any "fact" that is forwarded by the Anneberg group .

My understanding of the Electoral College is that it was established to reverse a popular vote for a demagogue.


The states existed before the Republic and essentially before the revolution .
The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately to protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. We are a federal republic .The popular vote is not mentioned at all in Article 2 .So going solely by the popular will is democratic but also anti-Constitutional.

The very fact that the states have decided to appoint their electors by elections is a testament to the Federal system . The states decided how electors are appointed . Evita got 61% of the California vote in 2016 but got all of the states electors even though most of the counties of the state voted for Trump (Evita won the population centers ) . So it works both ways . It gives deference to proportional representation in the number of electors each state gets . And it gives states the power to determine the way electors are appointed ,


Smaller states would still have their senate disproportionate representation to champion their interests.

You are in the minority of the progressive ranks that would like to see the federal system completely dismantled more than it already has been since the beginning of the 20th century national power grab from Washington . There is also a move to abolish or to reduce the power of the Senate . So much for protecting the interests of small states .

He is right that it is a bad SCOTUS call . His reason is wrong . It was a bad call because the Fla vote was decided when the vote was certified

Do you therefore also apply this reasoning to the Jan 6 insurrection attempt to prevent the vote from being certified?


As far as so called "fact checkers" go I don't bother wasting my time with point by point rebuttal The arrogance is them pretending to be the gate keepers of truth .

This is the argument of a child. If you COULD rebut facts point by point, I'm sure you would do just that. Lacking that ability to rebut, you call it "wasting time". That's exactly how small children argue. Presenting the truth is not an exercise in arrogance. The arrogance is when you dismiss the facts without the slightest attempt to show they are wrong.


The nativity is in the people who go to them as a primary source

I think you meant naivete. What could be a better source than facts? It's a simple matter to challenge facts - just offer your own facts and let the reader decide. But you don't do that. The naivete is all yours.


And I gave my reason for distrusting any "fact" that is forwarded by the Anneberg group .

Your "reason" was not a reason at all. It was simply a false argument challenging the FACT-CHECKER instead of the FACT ITSELF. A logical fallacy.

Hmm. That sure didn't sound like a celebration of the other guy's views. Very disappointing.


This is the argument of a child.
If you COULD rebut facts point by point, I'm sure you would do just that. Lacking that ability to rebut, you call it "wasting time". That's exactly how small children argue.

But you don't do that. The naivete is all yours.

The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately to protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy.

I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?


going solely by the popular will is democratic but also anti-Constitutional.

The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.


The very fact that the states have decided to appoint their electors by elections is a testament to the Federal system . The states decided how electors are appointed

By eliminating Federal office holders from being electors, the FF intended the electors to be free agents, their voting based on their high integrity and intelligence. Over time, the states used their power of selecting electors to be partisan or based on the popular vote. Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation. Now the electoral college simply duplicates the popular vote by state. So what's the point of the Electoral College?


There is also a move to abolish or to reduce the power of the Senate . So much for protecting the interests of small states .

California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.

Electoral college votes are based on the number of reps a state has in the House in addition to the number of senators. Thus Cali has 55 while Wyoming has...3. So not real sure what disparity is being looked at.

I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?

Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .


The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.

go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments . Of course they will not happen the more traditional way with them being initiated by the swamp 'big state' Congress that has a stake in the status quo . Good thing the framers saw that eventually there could be a need for a convention of the states to introduce and pass amendments .


Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation. The electors are appointed by the states to do the state's bidding as expressed in the laws of the states Every elector is certified by the state before the college meets in mid December after the election. Stolen or otherwise ,Trump officially lost when the electors met in December . Electors are NOT free agents and never have been . In rare cases an elector goes off the reservation and becomes "faithless" . Faithless electors can be punished by the states depending on their laws . SCOTUS already decided in 'Chiafalo v Washington' that states laws that punish or replace faithless electors is constitutional .

California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.
Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.

I did not say that the electoral college protects the small state . I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does. Not as much as it used to before the Federal system began to be diluted with the 17th amendment .

Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .

Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.


go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments .

go for it.


Electors are NOT free agents and never have beenThat was the original intention.

Justice Robert H. Jackson - "No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.

and


However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."

According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."Hamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector in violation of the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates.



Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.

Yes. I'm aware of that. I didn't think it was necessary to write that. I was comparing the senatorial disparity. I should have phrased it more clearly.


I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does (protects the small state).

That was my point. Leave the senate as is, but amend or eliminate the Electoral College.

Justice Jackson's remarks were written in the dissenting opinion. But writing for the Court, Justice Reed said this. "“We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge."

He also wrote, “It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors— contemporaries of the Founders—would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept. History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees. Experts in the history of government recognize the longstanding practice. Indeed, more than twenty states do not print the names of the candidates for electors on the general election ballot. Instead, in one form or another, they allow a vote for the presidential candidate of the national conventions to be counted as a vote for his party’s nominees for the electoral college. This long-continued practical interpretation of the constitutional propriety of an implied or oral pledge of his ballot by a candidate for elector as to his vote in the electoral college weighs heavily in considering the constitutionality of a pledge, such as the one here required, in the primary.”“However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4/electoral-college

Justice Robert H. Jackson ? appointed in the Truman years .I'll raise you Article 2 Sec 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The word appoint confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination. " "Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the State to appoint, in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. (McPherson v Blacker 1892)

Justice Robert H. Jackson ? appointed in the Truman years .I'll raise you Article 2 Sec 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The word appoint confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination. " "Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the State to appoint, in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. (McPherson v Blacker 1892)


The difficulties Jackson and Hamilton raised continue to exist. Hamilton considered Article 2 being violated by pre-pledged electors. I agree with Hamilton. We'll have to leave it at that.

Hamilton was also a monarchist who wanted an elected royal executive .His vision of a strong central government is what eventually evolved in the 20th century .Oh he made the case for the Consititution in his prolific authorship of most of the Federalist Papers . But at the convention he argued for what he called a “governor,” one with far reaching powers and a lifetime appointment as long as he remained in “good behavior.” (They skip that part in the play. )

Yes the debate we have is as old as the founding ,

Yes the debate we have is as old as the founding ,

I believe the American experiment in representative democracy is at crisis stage.

As an Independent and observer of both parties, it's pretty clear that the Republican Party has consistently put party over country. I first noticed this in the 90's when Clinton was impeached on foolish grounds re his personal sex life.

From McConnell's position on Merrit Garland to the present filibuster deadlock, it gets worse over time. I won't go into further details. They're well-known to anyone paying attention.

The main culprit is the Repub party, but I won't deny the Dems are equally capable of bad governance when the shoe fits.

Has Churchill's famous statement proven to be correct? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?

A parliamentary form has the advantage of reducing the personality factor of a presidential candidate in favor of forcing the voter to consider the issues as represented by the party. However, there are disadvantages also.

The level of freedom we are able to exercise has produced the most powerful economy on the planet, and yet there is complaining, complaining, complaining. It's perplexing. The lib dems are the party of 900K dead babies every year. Nuff said.

The lib dems are the party of 900K dead babies every year. Nuff said.
That should make you happy! -- the lib dems are erasing themselves.

It makes you happy. It distresses me.

It makes you happy. It distresses me.
You're jumping up and down with joy that the dems are so stoopid to kill themselves, whereas the repubs refuse abortion.

Unsurprisingly, that makes no sense whatsoever other than your admission that a procedure you refuse to stand against is "killing". What a confession. The truth usually comes out eventually.

Unsurprisingly, that makes no sense whatsoever other than your admission that a procedure you refuse to stand against is "killing". What a confession. The truth usually comes out eventually.
Wasn't my admission. I was quoting you. 'Bye.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3874696#post3874696)
Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .



Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.

I have no idea what QANON does or says . I have presented the facts about the 2016 election many times . It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .

It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory by a
"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary . These powerful elites, funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, embeded left-wing activists into election offices to assist the Dems with their 'get-out-the-vote' efforts ,change election rules in the middle of the campaign , and the Dems’ push for mail-in balloting. Zuckerberg's behind the scenes efforts were not just to influence the outcome but was in fact an effort to put people from Quid's camp or who favored his campaign into state government positions that administer the vote . Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging ,

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/)

"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”There is nothing more dangerous for our future than what you have just described. The liberal takeover of both the news media and most universities is alarming. The Biden admin's recent announcement of a campaign of intimidation against parents who have the temerity to question school board policies by pointing out, for instance, that a school library has books promoting the sexual exploitation of boys by grown men is another step in the direction of a heavy handed central government.


It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .The evidence is so clear that only the intentionally blind still question it.

I have no idea what QANON does or says . I have presented the facts about the 2016 election many times . It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .

You may remember QANON as the far right wacko outfit that claimed Clinton ran a cannibalistic child-kidnapping ring out of a DC pizza shop. Only a Trump cultist could swallow such a yarn.

You have NOT "presented facts many times about the 2016 election". If you had, a simple link would have been provided. What you did was state your OPINION which was inaccurate.

You further state/claim that "It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election." Of course, it's debatable. Only the fringe right claims it's not debatable. Here's an excellent link describing the events from back then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/09/did-hillary-clinton-collude-with-the-russians-to-get-dirt-on-trump-to-feed-it-to-the-fbi/ Unfortunately, it's a fact-checker so I presume you will not bother reading it.


It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory

Indisputable? You must be kidding! I had no idea you were part of the Trump BS about the election being rigged. And here I thought these exchanges might provide some light on our respective positions but your belief in something so untrue - having been disproven by 60+ courts, the SC, Trump's followers like AG Barr, McConnell, unhinged lawyers like Giulianni and Powell, and many, many audits and recounts - that it staggers the imagination.


..."well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary

That quote, that you claim was "detailed" by a post-election summary, is so misleading that you again surprise me. Anyone who reads your link, as I did, will discover that the Time article criticizes Trump for all his dissembling and lying - hardly supporting his false contention that the election was stolen.

What the article accomplishes is a detailed analysis how the Democrats planned to defend a fair and honest election from Trump's pre-election announcement that he wouldn't accept a defeat since that was proof of Democratic rigging. We all know how Trump illegally tried to reverse the vote counts in Georgia and elsewhere. Without planning to ensure a fair election, Trump might have succeeded.


Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging

No comment.

The link below is included here for anyone interested.

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/)[/QUOTE]

yeah the author puts lipstick on a pig . I stand by my interpretation. She unconvincingly whitewashes what the cabal did ;calling what they did “fortifying” instead of rigging . word play . What she confirmed was that the election was neither free nor fair . Many of the changes made to state laws were unconstitutional ;especially in the key battle ground state of Pennsylvania

yWhat she confirmed was that the election was neither free nor fair

Don't you think the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, Trump's flunkie, would have noticed that? Attorney General Barr denied it was rigged or stolen believing it to be free and fair.

Barr is one of the better swamp critters . But he is still a swamp critter . Also he can only act on Federal Law in elections and those mostly are about 14th amendment issues . An election can be unfair and rigged and still fall into what is technically legal by the books . As mentioned Pennsylvania made a slew of changes in their laws at the 11th hour . So their statutes ,rigged to help the Dem candidate , was legal but unfair and rigged .

This new VA Guv race is a perfect example . Everything is being done technically by the books . But is it fair ? Who does a 47 day early voting favor ? Conservatives are perfectly happy with election day being election DAY . They know what day the election is and plan accordingly . Show up at the polls and vote or in RARE cases, with good reason, arrange to fill out an absentee ballot. Should concessions be made to address long lines at some polling places ? Yes ..... maybe have a 1 week early voting allowance. But 47 days ? Absurd !!

This last election all I heard all night was Trump has a lead BUT we have to wait for mail in ballots to be counted . Then all night long his lead whittled down as more ballots were "found " " Get my boys to bring the voters out. And then count the votes over and over again 'til they added up right, and he was elected." (Key Largo)

The race is not over 47 days before election day. Terry McAuliffe said this on a Sept 28 debate ; “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” ... “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
A stupid remark like that could be a game changer in an election . But how many people who had already voted now regret the way they voted ?

I support all these audits to find all the weaknesses in the process and to correct them state by state ..... red state ,blue state ,purple state .

The way elections are conducted is not fair . Your concerns about the divide in the country will never be settled if either side believes elections are rigged . Instead of blaming them for having that view ,address the issues as was done in the past when poll taxes were legal but unfair .

The race is not over 47 days before election day. Terry McAuliffe said this on a Sept 28 debate ; “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” ... “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
A stupid remark like that could be a game changer in an election . But how many people who had already voted now regret the way they voted ?A really good point. Why does the average person need to vote six or seven weeks in advance? And to say that he would not allow parents to check books out of the library? What a statement. It's an open admission that they intend to have books which amount to propaganda in libraries and want to conceal that from parents. Terrible.

Really comes down to is voter convenience more important the integrity of the vote ? When I hear of early voting I a reminded of the old Chi Town Dem Daley machine saying "vote early vote often "

Really comes down to is voter convenience more important the integrity of the vote ? When I hear of early voting I a reminded of the old Chi Town Dem Daley machine saying "vote early vote often "

Stop tilting at windmills, tomder. You're defending a weak position.

The vote has been audited and counted again and again and again and it results every time with Biden as the clear undisputable winner. Trump wasn't even close.

Not only has this been verified by dozens of courts including the Supreme Court, but even by the hit man hired by the Arizona Repub Trumpites, CyberNinja.

When you go so far as to redefine words in English to mean what they don't mean - such as "rigged" now meaning "legal"- it is time to hang it up and go home.


I support all these audits to find all the weaknesses in the process and to correct them state by state ..... red state ,blue state ,purple state

Do you support all those audits that find NO fraud, state by state, or just the fraudulent ones that find no fraud and yet insist there WAS fraud?

New rules designed to rig the vote to favor a candidate were rampant . Legal or otherwise fraud was rampant . SCOTUS has limited authority in the process as I already have mentioned . I never said Quid did not win. Elections need to be scrutinized to insure the integrity of the franchise .

And don't tell me the Dems don't do it . Stacey Abrams was shouting from the highest mountain that she thought she was cheated in 2018 and has been leading a successful fight to change the way Georgia votes ,She never conceded defeat to this day. Abrams’ 'Fair Fight Action' was one of the largest supporters of the 'Coalition for Good Governance', a group that aggressively pushes conspiracy theories about voter fraud in Georgia. The group frequently suggested that Georgia’s election system is unsecure and corrupt. It even attacked Georgia’s Dominion Voting System as “unauditable and unconstitutional "as Trump did .
So if I am tilting at windmills then so are Dems . The Dems word play is ensuring that only eligible citizens vote ="voter suppression "

Legal or otherwise fraud was rampant

Fraud is never legal!


Elections need to be scrutinized to insure the integrity of the franchise

No election in the history of the nation has ever been scrutinized as much as this one. The conclusion of all that scrutiny? NO FRAUD!


And don't tell me the Dems don't do it

The Dems have never, ever, incited by their losing candidate for president, attempted to overthrow the government of the United Stares of America. THAT'S A FACT, JACK!


So if I am tilting at windmills then so are Dems . The Dems word play is ensuring that only eligible citizens vote ="voter suppression "

The Dems don't change the plain meaning of words like you did.

and the last time the Dems did not question the legitimacy of their candidate's defeat was in 1988 . Even in 2004 when Lurch lost to Bush Jr they claimed the voting machines in Ohio were rigged . Back then they were running HBO documentaries about how voting machines could be rigged without a trace ,
Hacking Democracy - The Feature Documentary, Official Website (http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/)

So then after Evita lost the claims went to the absurd and ridiculous with charges that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election that included electronic hacking of machines and manipulating voter rolls ,

Then came 2020 .Things the Dems complained about became sacrosanct and incorruptible even though political actors had rammed through hundreds of structural changes to the manner and oversight of elections .Time magazine would later call it a "a revolution in how people vote." Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, rammed through unconstitutionally by courts, and others by state and county election officials. These changes were justified due to the covid pandemic. They also just happened to be changes that Dems had long desired. The crisis was their chance to sneak in contentious policies through the back door. Never let a crisis go to waste.

So again the election needs extensive audits to weed out the real fraud that I will concede ,and as most election experts agree ,are almost impossible to detect after elections . The more backlash by the Dems and the compliant press suggests to me there is merit in the audit process. WHY DO THEY OBJECT WHEN AS THEY CLAIM IT ONLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ELECTION WAS FAIR ? What exactly are they afraid of ?

WHY DO THEY OBJECT WHEN AS THEY CLAIM IT ONLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ELECTION WAS FAIR ? What exactly are they afraid of ?Good point. If true, then you'd think the liberal dems would embrace and even celebrate the idea of audits. That they don't is telling.

So then after Evita lost the claims went to the absurd and ridiculous with charges that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election that included electronic hacking of machines and manipulating voter rolls

There is no question Russia preferred Trump to Clinton and acted accordingly.


Then came 2020 .Time magazine would later call it a "a revolution in how people vote." Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, rammed through unconstitutionally by courts, and others by state and county election officials. These changes were justified due to the covid pandemic. They also just happened to be changes that Dems had long desired. The crisis was their chance to sneak in contentious policies through the back door. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Yes, 2020. An election that Biden won hands down and Trump continues to whine that it was stolen. Why did those courts reject the fraud lawsuits over 60 times? It was the largest turnout and fairest in US history. No one doubts that except the fringe right-wing. '


So again the election needs extensive audits to weed out the real fraud that I will concede ,and as most election experts agree ,are almost impossible to detect after elections

It HAS had extensive audits. If they're almost impossible to detect fraud, why are you insisting on having more?


The more backlash by the Dems and the compliant press suggests to me there is merit in the audit process. WHY DO THEY OBJECT WHEN AS THEY CLAIM IT ONLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ELECTION WAS FAIR ? What exactly are they afraid of ?

Good grief - you'll say anything, no matter how illogical. After so many audits, recounts, court cases, there is still NO fraud. Dems are concerned that the corrupt Trump cult will eventually find an outfit so corrupt that they will claim anything for Trump and his base - and the cultists will believe every word even tho' lacking a scintilla of proof. If you doubt that, that is EXACTLY what the cultists have done so far!

Investigators in Racine County Wisconsin have presented extensive evidence that the Wisconsin Election Commission committed a felony by telling nursing home staff members to illegally cast ballots for residents. Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling held a press conference saying he had found evidence of felony crimes involving ballots sent to nursing home residents..... In many cases cognitive impaired patients. The probe was prompted by one family who discovered their loved one had voted in the November 2020 election despite having died a month earlier after a long period of mental decline. Schmaling accused the Wisconsin Elections Commission, of creating the conditions by mailing absentee ballots to nursing home residents who didn't request them and empowering nursing home staff to fill out ballots .
County sheriff in Wisconsin reveals evidence of felony election law violations | Just The News (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/wisconsin-county-sheriff-reveals-findings-investigation-election-law)


Quid won Wisconsin by 20,000 votes .

But that's not all . An independent Legislative Audit Bureau released a report last month that accused election officials of engaging in "inconsistent administration" of election laws, troublesome management of drop boxes , ineffective investigation of fraud complaints, and a number of other problems.
Elections Administration | full report (justthenews.com) (https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/21-19full.pdf)

Investigators in Racine County Wisconsin have presented extensive evidence that the Wisconsin Election Commission committed a felony by telling nursing home staff members to illegally cast ballots for residents.

The Investigators found a TOTAL OF VERIFIED ILLEGAL VOTES CAST = 1. That's 1 as in ONE.

Tomder is up to his old tricks, folks. Like Trump, he does his obfuscating with little or no substance.



But that's not all

I'll say it's not all - it gets worse,. Read on.


An independent Legislative Audit Bureau released a report last month that accused election officials of engaging in "inconsistent administration" of election laws, troublesome management of drop boxes , ineffective investigation of fraud complaints, and a number of other problems.

Naturally, the usual recommendations for improvement but any fraud was "alleged".

Let's look at the numbers -- there were 23 complaints of ALLEGED fraud. Not a single one was verified.

Of 3.3 million votes cast, 23 (TWENTY-THREE!) fraud cases were ALLEGED. Even if the allegations prove to be true, that's not even a drop in the bucket as a percentage of the total. And, judging by other states, the fraud probably favored Trump.

So far, if memory serves, there have been a miniscule number nationwide of verified fraud, most of which have been votes cast for TRUMP. One moron has been caught and is facing prosecution for voter fraud and is facing serious jail time. He complained about a false ballot and investigators discovered HE had cast the false ballot. He was a registered Republican.

So are you denying that mail in ballots were mailed to impaired patients at nursing homes ,and that in many cases aides filled them out for the patients ? No allegation of fraud because the corrupt election board made such activity legal . So yes no crime was committed . But fraud can be legally committed if it is sanctioned by the government . The sheriff found EVIDENCE of felony crimes . He did not say any of them were VERIFIED ....... yet Let's go Brandon

I don't know if voter fraud had any genuinely significant impact on the past election. I still think Trump's terrible practices as a campaigner was the biggest problem. Still, the whole business of the mass use of mail-in ballots and the associated business of ballot harvesting are ideas ripe for fraud, and in close elections, a few thousand votes can tip the scales. If you want to vote, get your rear end down to a voting booth and have at it.

WaPo poll shows Youngkin, McAuliffe in dead heat at end of governor’s race | Just The News (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/wapo-poll-shows-youngkin-mcauliffe-dead-heat-end-governors-race)


stop the count ;Republican counters go home .... we have to pull out all those extra ballots we have hidden under the table .

If you want to vote, get your rear end down to a voting booth and have at it.
And if you can't because of a very legit reason?

those issues were dealt with long before the Dems exploited covid for electoral gain

The Repubs would never exploit anything or anybody to gain votes?

Whataboutism ?

Thus widespread audits are needed . My aim is the restoration in trust in elections .

There is no trust . Ask yourself why suddenly the government announces "credible terror threats " next week during the Virginia Guv election and plans to "beef up security " . Are the Dems attempting to suppress in person voting Tuesday in VA ??? Or maybe it is a legit threat because of all the unvetted Afghan refugees that were relocated in VA ? Let's go Brandon .

A new report accuses Pennsylvania Guv Tom Wolf and Sec State Kathy Boockvar of steering Zuck bucks exclusively to Dem leaning counties .No email shows any official in either office providing similar information or assistance to any of the commonwealth’s Republican-leaning counties.

https://31a590o3du8qx0s2m362q1c0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CTCL-grant-comparisons-5-300x187.jpg
An analysis of the grants shows that even when the raw dollar amounts were averaged out on a per-registered-voter basis, “blue” counties were funded at a rate far above their “red” counterparts.
Former Sec. of State Boockvar and Gov. Wolf staffer helped selectively invite counties for election grants (broadandliberty.com) (https://broadandliberty.com/2021/10/19/former-sec-of-state-boockvar-and-gov-wolf-staffer-helped-selectively-invite-counties-for-election-grants/)

The Department of State, the Governor's Office and various lefty groups were working together to ensure private grant money was funneled to Democrat counties

Fraud ? Maybe Illegal ? probably not . Corrupt ? You betcha ! LGB

A new report accuses Pennsylvania Guv Tom Wolf and Sec State Kathy Boockvar of steering Zuck bucks exclusively to Dem leaning counties

A judge ruled otherwise.

Pa. judge throws out lawsuit over $13M in election funds from Zuckerberg group


A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice the bid of a group of Republican lawmakers and candidates who sued Philadelphia County, Delaware County and Centre County, alleging both GOP candidates and voters are being hurt by the use of nonprofit grant funds from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) (https://www.techandciviclife.org/).

“Plaintiffs assert three theories of standing. First, they argue that the CTCL grants disadvantage the plaintiffs because they provide an advantage to progressive and Democrat candidates in the counties where plaintiffs live and vote,” Brann said.
“Second, they argue that, without injunctive relief, the CTCL grants will delegitimize and thus invalidate the elections, consequently resulting in plaintiffs lacking political representation until the election can be re-done. Third, plaintiffs offer the novel theory that they have suffered an injury as a third-party beneficiary to the ‘social contract’ between the federal government and the individual states.”


Brann was not persuaded by any of the three arguments, saying they relied on a “highly attenuated causal chain of events”, and that there was no guarantee that increased voter participating would only be in support of progressive candidates, let alone be enough to decide the outcome of the election.


“Plaintiffs’ appear to allege only that their right to vote has been infringed because it now might be more difficult for them to elect their preferred candidate,” Brann said, adding that the plaintiffs’ case was more accurately termed as a “generalized grievance.”


“Though plaintiffs have done a valiant job of disguising it, the only interest they have identified is of a general nature – that plaintiffs’ ability to influence state and federal elections will be diluted if (Centre County and others) take steps that might result in increased voter turnout,” Brann stated.


“The implication that increased voter turnout is inherently beneficial to progressive candidates is dubious at best,” Brann wrote. “And the court finds this assumption far too dependent on the actions of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters to premise standing.”


Brann then dismissed the plaintiffs’ case.

What Judge Brann (an appointee of the emperor ) decided is irrelevant to the charge that a corrupt Guv steered Zuck bucks to Democrat counties and excluded Republican counties . What Judge Brann did was refuse to block the use of the grants . He made no judgement on the distribution of the grants .

What Judge Brann (an appointee of the emperor ) decided is irrelevant to the charge that a corrupt Guv steered Zuck bucks to Democrat counties and excluded Republican counties . What Judge Brann did was refuse to block the use of the grants . He made no judgement on the distribution of the grants .

The plaintiffs failed to make their case.

and again that has nothing to do with the accusation here . It is a fact that Wolf and Bookvar directed Zuckerberg's election donations exclusively to Dem districts .

Tom, you are completely missing the point. TRUMP was not the one who did it. It is only when TRUMP does, or is alleged to have done, something questionable that the liberal dems on this site get excited. Otherwise, it's just business as usual. So when Trump put kids in "cages", they were apoplectic. Now that Biden has actually increased the number of such kids, it's time to sleep in late.

and again that has nothing to do with the accusation here . It is a fact that Wolf and Bookvar directed Zuckerberg's election donations exclusively to Dem districts .

If the plaintiffs believed your accusation to be factual, why didn't they advance that argument to the court? Apparently, it is not true. Funding was received by 23 counties, 13 of which voted for Trump.

Here's a link to the actual lawsuit. PA-PVA-20201021-dismiss-1.pdf

They did not have access to the emails . This information is in a recent report after open records requests were able to obtain the emails

An honest analysis shows that where Repub counties got any of the Zuck bucks it was pennies on the dollar compared to Dem counties . Mifflin and Mercer got 66 cents and 73 cents per voter, respectively, while Democratic counties like Philadelphia and Centre received $8.87 per voter and $7.70 per vote
CTCL grant$-per-voter analysis - Google Sheets (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WMw-0h2bgK62n1tYzwta2zcPMaPdQUaRdqX2pmoU3Gs/edit#gid=0)

The record is indisputable that counties like Bucks County were invited by the state offices to apply for the grant – but no equivalent emails to Republican counties were sent .

T Mifflin and Mercer got 66 cents and 73 cents per voter, respectively, while Democratic counties like Philadelphia and Centre received $8.87 per voter and $7.70 per vote

The record is indisputable that counties like Bucks County were invited by the state offices to apply for the grant – but no equivalent emails to Republican counties were sent .

According to CTCL, every county was contacted to apply for a grant. That some counties received more than others on a per voter basis depends on what was asked for.

As the Judge said, none of this amounted to a drastic change in voter choices. If the CTCL is a Democrat-leaning outfit, I'm surprised they even offered to Republican counties. That was very nice of them.

As usual, the Democrats are a happy bunch of generous grab-bag sorts while the Republicans are sitting in the Pennsylvania woods minding their corn-mash stills with shotguns in their laps. You could look it up!

yep them thar gun and bible totin hayseeds . That is the contempt that is shown people in flyover country .

Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) is: “a Chicago, Illinois-based center-left election reform advocacy group formed in 2012. The organization pushes for left-of-center voting policies and election administration. It has a wide reach into local elections offices across the nation and is funded by many left-of-center funding organizations

yep them thar gun and bible totin hayseeds . That is the contempt that is shown people in flyover country .

Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) is: “a Chicago, Illinois-based center-left election reform advocacy group formed in 2012. The organization pushes for left-of-center voting policies and election administration. It has a wide reach into local elections offices across the nation and is funded by many left-of-center funding organizations

You got THAT right.

yep them thar gun and bible totin hayseeds . That is the contempt that is shown people in flyover country .
I grew up in such very conservative counties -- in two different states. Yup, guns, the sound of moonshiners traveling at night on mountain roads, homes were wooden shacks, and yup, Bible totin' believers.

yes I did ;a lefty organization distorting the facts .

WG then you know the contempt the ruling class elites have for your kind .

WG then you know the contempt the ruling class elites have for your kind .
They aren't "my kind". I just happened to be living amongst them and know what they believe and how they think.

yes I did ;a lefty organization distorting the facts .

Wanna have a fact distortion contest re that lefty organization?

ok I admit it the Dems stole the 2020 election fair and square . I see in NJ they are "finding " the ballots necessary to put Murphy over the top .

there is hope yet in New York Ballot proposals to give NY the same insane system that is plaguing America ;same day registration ;universal mail in ballots and a 3rd one that would've changed the process for redistricting were crushed by NY voters .

The voters in NYC chose the right mayor . As much as I admire Curtis Sliwa he would not have been a good mayor and Eric Adams is at least going to give NYPD the respect and backing they deserve .....I think

In Seattle the commie defund the police candidate that was running was defeated by a pro -police candidate . The voters had already sent the moron CHOP /CHAZ summer of love mayor Jenny Durkan packing . Voters across the nation rejected 'defund police ..... except in Boston where Michelle Wu who supports slashing the police budget was elected . In Minneapolis they rejected the absurd idea of replacing the entire police dept with a Department of Public Safety .


India Walton running to abolish the police in Buffalo NY was soundly defeated . She's a socialist who called herself a police abolitionist believing police came from slave catchers . The mayor was not even on the ballot . He won a write in campaign