@Albion
There are a lot of people, including elected officials, who are absolutely determined not to allow safeguards on illegal voting to be reinstituted, so I cannot agree with that view.
I'm curious to know what you believe to be 'safeguards' that we could put in place that we don't already have in place. And please, don't bring up the signature verification process. The process currently in place has been in place for dozens of years, and as yet, there are no findings that over all those years there has been any fraud to amount to a hill of beans.
And when there is not even an attempt at explaining away what apparently are changes that invite fraud,
I'm just as curious to know 'what' changes have been made that invite fraud, and whether there is any proof that such changes actually 'allowed' fraud.
You and I, as I have mentioned earlier have been in discussion before. Sometimes on the same side and sometimes not, but you do have a tendency in a lot of your rebuttal posts to just make claims that you can't seem to support with any factual findings. You've just heard someone say...kind of like the 'former guy' always telling his true believers that "...a lot of people say." "There are people telling me..." But he never really identifies who any of those people are. It's just a phrase that he's learned makes a lot of his diehard fans repeat and repeat and repeat the claims, also without ever making any determination as to whether the claim is true or just bluster to bolster a position that can't be bolstered in any other way than to say that "There are people out there who say..."
I believe you to be a nice person with a reasonable intelligence, but I have to say that all of your posturing without evidence gets old. There have been some 60 legal cases brought by Trump and crew and every one of them has come to naught. Now I know that for his loyal co-conspirators, the claim is that the evidence was never even heard. That's true as to its not being heard by a jury, but often times a judge looks at what is claimed to be evidence and knows that it is prima facia false or untrustworthy.
For example: There was a claim that they had the testimony of someone who saw a truck being loaded with ballots to supposedly be taken out and burned. But there is no hard evidence that what the testimony says by some stranger who has no hand in the process, is actually true. And any evidence that the legal team presenting the case is able to bring forward is just hearsay verbal telling. There are no pictures that show the boxes are ballots. There are no pictures of following the same truck to the burn site and seeing the ballots burned. It's just a claim by someone who saw something that they thought was suspicious, but can't actually prove that what they think the alleged suspicious activity was about. On further examination it turns out that the person was right...except that the ballots in question were not actual ballots from the election, but rather practice ballots used to train the election staff as to how a ballot had to be filled out and how it would be handled, etc. So the judge has the authority, before trial, to discredit such evidence.
Most of the charges however have been outright 'proved' to be false and we're now finding some evidence, which will be investigated, that the Trump team knew all along that all these charges were false, but they had to keep the game going. Friend, this is a president of the United States that we're talking about here. A president involved in one of the largest election conspiracy theories to have ever been foisted upon a people. And every time that you put up such arguments against the facts, you're just feeding the ego of a man who honestly all of his life would stop at nothing...
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to win. There is no lie or dishonesty or cheat that he will not stoop to make himself a winner.
Come on. Do some digging. Look at the real actual evidence and not just consider that stories you've heard qualify as evidence. Be a man of God and seek for truth.
God bless,
Ted