martsiva

Oh yes there was a steal! Or maybe you think that watching poll workers pull out boxes of ballots out from under tables after most of the others were gone is was legal!! Accept that reality!!

martsiva

'White trash buddies'??? YOU are nothing but a nasty racist!! What do you call BLM who rioted, looted and burned down businesses ( many of them owned by blacks)??

American Vet

You are right - it is off the subject. And it is presumptuous to tell me 'it would do me good'. I have not made any comments/etc. regarding a 'stolen election'. I believe that president Trump lost. Many people disagree. Enough so that I believe the whole process needs to be scrutinized carefully AND, most importantly, the sanctity of elections be assured.

There have been some election lost because of voter fraud - small scale (city council, stuff like that). But that is problematic because it casts doubts on all elections.

And the insane rhetoric coming from democrat leaders like schumer is horrible; and simply adds fuel to the fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP-BGLfFoDM

If you are 'pure of heart' then you would want to protect the integrity of elections - no party affiliation needed to agree on that.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

No shit, Sherlock. Article I, Section 4, US Constitution.

Bloody shame state governors, legislators, courts and election boards violated that Constitutional requirement during the last election.

moldyoldy

When the expanded full video was shown there was nothing wrong. Just a holes trying to fool the public.

martsiva

The 'full expanded version' cannot erase what was shown!

moldyoldy

They showed a few people and claimed that the place was empty, when it was full of workers.


https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27M236

American Scene

Clean the sh*t out of your little brain, since only 7 states have a strict photo ID requirement to vote.

Take your sissified whining, crying, bitching and moaning to all of the other states that you want to control, and see how far you get with that.

You are so lost regarding this topic that even your god couldn't find you and bring back to reality

Ricktloml

Comrades?

Ricktloml

There is a big difference between a case being thrown out, and the courts refusing to hear it. The hypocrisy is staggering. The left took their challenge of Bush/Gore results all the way to the Supreme Court...they lost, and are still complaining. At least they got their day in court

Gman65

This is not nothing but a response from the lefties , being upset that you are in the process of being shut down on one of the slick tricks that you used to steal the last election. Ain't going to happen this time. Your little trick is up. Better get your I.D. current for 2022 , because I believe you are gonna need it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You are a riot when someone pushes your buttons and you get your panties in a twist.

American Scene

I can get you to to make a stupid comment in between your slobbering and drooling just like a Pavolvian dawg.

Go fetch a bone geezer troll

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

not quite correct. it must be shown to the judge that a case can be made and evedence will be presented to prove the point..

IN the SC case the obvious ruling as expected was that Texas or any state has no business in how another state runs their elections.. and that was the end of that.. clear and expected.

Each of the others 60 or 80 or whatever, also had to present reasons why the court should handle the case.. they failed..

It would be nice if courts talked in language that I could understand but they never will. have to show how much more they know then the low life of america..

One example..

The Trump campaign asked the court to halt the counting of absentee ballots. As proof that misconduct was occurring, it provided an affidavit from one of its election observers, Jessica Connarn.

She said an unnamed poll worker had told her the dates on some mail-in ballots were being changed, leading to invalid votes being counted.

Judge Stephens ruled that Ms Connarn’s testimony, based on third-hand information, was hearsay and therefore inadmissable.

“This evidence is inadmissable as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissable hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay,” she said.

That’s what a judge sounds like when they are being sassy, by the way. Judicial slapdowns tend to be dry and very, very nerdy. You’ll be reading more of them as we continue.

The campaign’s complaint also alleged that Eric Ostegren, another observer, was “excluded” from the ballot review process. Judge Stephens said the claim was too vague.

“The complaint does not specify when, where or by whom plaintiff was excluded. Nor does the complaint provide any details about why the alleged exclusion occurred,” she wrote.

Gman65

Yeah that states that are trying to make their election laws , are getting backlash and riff Raff , even from the doj , that has absolutely no business or legality questioning or sticking their nose into a state's election requirements. Just another big arm of the Democratic party Miss using their authority again why they're still in office , which they better enjoy it and take advantage of it now , because they will not be in charge for very long.