The Democrats are going to rig the next election the same way they cheated last time

[ZiprHead]

Conceptually possible, OK, but practically nearly impossible. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation found 24 instances of noncitizens voting in the 20-year period 2003 to 2023. The idea that millions of noncitizen votes put Biden over the top in 2020 is sheer inanity and insanity combined.

But you only provided evidence that no evidence has been found. You didn't prove there is no evidence to be found, and it is impossible for you to because it is unfalsifiable. And unfalsifiablity of a claim in some circles is known as being awfully convenient.

So JD Vance did in fact fuck that couch. I fucking knew it! Also, I guess that Trump pee tape is real now, going by RVonse logic.

I mean, there's actually more evidence that Trump fucked a girl wearing a wig so as to look more like his daughter, and that JD Vance chronically fucks couches than there is of Democrats rigging elections.

Heard on TV: JD Vance is a homosectional.

 

[Bronzeage]

Conceptually possible, OK, but practically nearly impossible. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation found 24 instances of noncitizens voting in the 20-year period 2003 to 2023. The idea that millions of noncitizen votes put Biden over the top in 2020 is sheer inanity and insanity combined.

But you only provided evidence that no evidence has been found. You didn't prove there is no evidence to be found, and it is impossible for you to because it is unfalsifiable. And unfalsifiablity of a claim in some circles is known as being awfully convenient.

So JD Vance did in fact fuck that couch. I fucking knew it! Also, I guess that Trump pee tape is real now, going by RVonse logic.

I mean, there's actually more evidence that Trump fucked a girl wearing a wig so as to look more like his daughter, and that JD Vance chronically fucks couches than there is of Democrats rigging elections.

Heard on TV: JD Vance is a homosectional.

The bigger the cushion, the better the pushin'.

As I have pointed out in another thread, lack of evidence in a conspiracy theory is evidence of how good the conspirators are at hiding evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[scombrid]

Conceptually possible, OK, but practically nearly impossible. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation found 24 instances of noncitizens voting in the 20-year period 2003 to 2023. The idea that millions of noncitizen votes put Biden over the top in 2020 is sheer inanity and insanity combined.

But you only provided evidence that no evidence has been found. You didn't prove there is no evidence to be found, and it is impossible for you to because it is unfalsifiable. And unfalsifiablity of a claim in some circles is known as being awfully convenient.

So JD Vance did in fact fuck that couch. I fucking knew it! Also, I guess that Trump pee tape is real now, going by RVonse logic.

I mean, there's actually more evidence that Trump fucked a girl wearing a wig so as to look more like his daughter, and that JD Vance chronically fucks couches than there is of Democrats rigging elections.

Heard on TV: JD Vance is a homosectional.

The bigger the cushion, the better the pushin'.

As I have pointed out in another thread, lack of evidence in a conspiracy theory is evidence of how good the conspirators are at hiding evidence.

I heard something about rubber boots and goats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FUCK YOU BILL FUCKING BARR!!!

 

[LoAmmo]

Republicans in action:

“A former county election official was found guilty by a Colorado jury on Monday of allowing a supposed computer expert to copy highly sensitive voter data from her office in 2020 in an effort to prove Donald Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.

Republican Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, was convicted of tampering with voting machines under her control to try and make it seem like they had been used to rig against Trump in the 2020 election, The Washington Post reported.

Peters was found guilty on seven of 10 counts, including several charges of attempting to influence a public servant and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.

The jury in Grand Junction took nearly five hours to determine that Peters was involved in trying to breach a machine manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems by helping an outsider gain unauthorized access to the machine in May 2021. The stolen data was later presented publicly at a conspiratorial event hosted by election denier, Mike Lindell, a Trump ally and CEO of MyPillow, The New York Times reported.”

Gotta watch them Democrats, boy. They can’t be trusted.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, I came over to this thread to post the following, but I see LoAmmo beat me to the punch. I'll post mine anyway as there are a few more links provided. The hypocrisy of it all! It's not just that she's a Republican, she's a committed election conpiracy theory hawker who made a brief but bright media career out of acussing others of the very crimes she herself was concurrently committing!


-------
In the news today: an actual criminal conviction for a Republican voting official, Tina Peters, who committed a half-dozen crimes in her attempt to delegitimize the previous election:

Former Pro-Trump County Clerk Is Found Guilty of Tampering With Voting Machines

She could face multiple years in prison when she is sentenced in October.

www.nytimes.com

Ex-county clerk found guilty of tampering with voting machines

Tina Peters was found guilty of four felony charges related to the election interference case.

www.bbc.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/12/tina-peters-colorado-election-guilty/

 

[Ford]

Ah, I was going to post the following, but I see LoAmmo beat me to the punch.

In the news today: an actual criminal conviction for a Republican voting official, Tina Peters, who committed a half-dozen crimes in her attempt to delegitimize the previous election:

The right: "Why are Democrats committing crimes trying to steal the election?"

Seriously, they'll double-down on their claims after this story comes across their desks.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, I was going to post the following, but I see LoAmmo beat me to the punch.

In the news today: an actual criminal conviction for a Republican voting official, Tina Peters, who committed a half-dozen crimes in her attempt to delegitimize the previous election:

The right: "Why are Democrats committing crimes trying to steal the election?"

Seriously, they'll double-down on their claims after this story comes across their desks.

You know they will. "This just proves that the conspiracy is real, why else would they arrest this woman for doing her job, investigating fraud in her county?"

We can only hope that this line of reasoning only holds water with those who've drunk the Kool-Aid and not the public general. It certainly does not seem to have impressed the judge.

 

[Politesse]

Mesa County is very beautiful, one of the country's finest, but too many of the people who live there are only two or three steps from insanity. Paleontologists, Bibliolaters, miners, ranchers, and crazed libertarians. Fruita is of the only places in the country I've ever been refused service on account of my romantic preferences. I wasn't actually on a date at the time, but the owner sure thought I was...

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ah, I came over to this thread to post the following, but I see LoAmmo beat me to the punch. I'll post mine anyway as there are a few more links provided. The hypocrisy of it all! It's not just that she's a Republican, she's a committed election conpiracy theory hawker who made a brief but bright media career out of acussing others of the very crimes she herself was concurrently committing!


-------
In the news today: an actual criminal conviction for a Republican voting official, Tina Peters, who committed a half-dozen crimes in her attempt to delegitimize the previous election:

Former Pro-Trump County Clerk Is Found Guilty of Tampering With Voting Machines

She could face multiple years in prison when she is sentenced in October.

www.nytimes.com

Ex-county clerk found guilty of tampering with voting machines

Tina Peters was found guilty of four felony charges related to the election interference case.

www.bbc.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/12/tina-peters-colorado-election-guilty/

Does give me a bit of hope that the Republicans won't be able to rig the election.

 

[Ford]

Does give me a bit of hope that the Republicans won't be able to rig the election.

I'm sure that they'll try at the state level. If Trump loses the popular vote (almost certain) and the electoral vote (looking more likely), the only hope for the GOP is for the latter to be rejected so the decision can be thrown into the House. Given that there are a couple big cases working their way through the courts on the fake electors front, I don't know that presenting a slate of "alternate electors" in a contested state is going to be a winning strategy. Could state legislatures simply throw out ballot results that don't go Trump's way? Can they just say "we don't care what the voters said, we're giving it to Trump?"

I dunno. I'm mildly comforted by a couple things. One, Trump is not President like he was in 2020. He can't leverage the power of the White House to flip the election like he tried to do before. Two, Harris is Vice President and will be in charge of certifying the electoral results. Her Secret Service detail isn't going to try and get her out of the building so someone else can preside over the count like happened to Pence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I miss RVonse. His take on the convictions of Republicans for violating election law was always a breath of fresh air from the truther movement.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I miss RVonse. His take on the convictions of Republicans for violating election law was always a breath of fresh air from the truther movement.

He's busy volunteering for Project 2025.

 

[jonatha]

Could state legislatures simply throw out ballot results that don't go Trump's way? Can they just say "we don't care what the voters said, we're giving it to Trump?"

Apparently not.

 

[Politesse]

Does give me a bit of hope that the Republicans won't be able to rig the election.

I dunno. I'm mildly comforted by a couple things. One, Trump is not President like he was in 2020. He can't leverage the power of the White House to flip the election like he tried to do before. Two, Harris is Vice President and will be in charge of certifying the electoral results. Her Secret Service detail isn't going to try and get her out of the building so someone else can preside over the count like happened to Pence.

Ha! Think the Republicans will throw in a phony lawsuit claiming that Harris can't certify the results of her own election? It'd be nonsense, but they love nonsense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Could state legislatures simply throw out ballot results that don't go Trump's way? Can they just say "we don't care what the voters said, we're giving it to Trump?"

Apparently not

But could certifications at the county and later the state levels be delayed enough that they essentially aren’t counted in the electoral college?

 

[Ford]

Does give me a bit of hope that the Republicans won't be able to rig the election.

I dunno. I'm mildly comforted by a couple things. One, Trump is not President like he was in 2020. He can't leverage the power of the White House to flip the election like he tried to do before. Two, Harris is Vice President and will be in charge of certifying the electoral results. Her Secret Service detail isn't going to try and get her out of the building so someone else can preside over the count like happened to Pence.

Ha! Think the Republicans will throw in a phony lawsuit claiming that Harris can't certify the results of her own election? It'd be nonsense, but they love nonsense.

Again, they can try, but Vice Presidents have presided over their own departure for a good long while now. Pence most recently said "I don't fucking think so" when Trump demanded he overturn the results, but he's not the first one to put duty over personal ambition. Al Gore presided over his own exit in the wake of the 2000 election, even though he'd won the popular vote and would have perhaps won the electoral if the Supreme Court had made a different choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could state legislatures simply throw out ballot results that don't go Trump's way? Can they just say "we don't care what the voters said, we're giving it to Trump?"

Apparently not.

Actually, that is absolutely false.

As we have seen with SCOTUS and learning that the law is what SCOTUS says the law is, a fair and functional election is ONLY if Congress says so. One-fifth of each House is needed to object. The House and Senate go off to their rooms, decide whether to reject the votes. I can not confirm it, but I think they only need a majority for both houses to reject the votes. This can be sued to Federal Court though. But in the end, what matters is that Congress arbitrarily decides on this. And if they become partisan enough, they can fuck an election... as long as the courts allow it.

However, if EVs are tossed, the 270 number drops with it.

 

[jonatha]

Could state legislatures simply throw out ballot results that don't go Trump's way? Can they just say "we don't care what the voters said, we're giving it to Trump?"

Apparently not.

Actually, that is absolutely false.

As we have seen with SCOTUS and learning that the law is what SCOTUS says the law is, a fair and functional election is ONLY if Congress says so. One-fifth of each House is needed to object. The House and Senate go off to their rooms, decide whether to reject the votes. I can not confirm it, but I think they only need a majority for both houses to reject the votes. This can be sued to Federal Court though. But in the end, what matters is that Congress arbitrarily decides on this. And if they become partisan enough, they can fuck an election... as long as the courts allow it.

However, if EVs are tossed, the 270 number drops with it.

Not clear what you are saying is "absolutely false".

Ford's question and my response deal with the possibility that a state legislature can overrule the decision of the state's voters in Federal elections. According to the article in question various pathways to this appear to have been closed.

Your comment applies to the Federal legislature declining to certify an election, which the law referenced in the article has made more difficult. (Formerly all that was needed was objection by a single Representative and a single Senator, IIRC.)