US truckers, Texas and civil war

[truthpls]

Of course there is.

Not generally, if we are talking about people voting from other countries in big numbers. Since we can't trace them after the election, how could anyone prove anything? If many states have no ID requirement, how do you propose looking at ballots and going to find the people and ask if they really voted that way or not?

"The" machines. More than one type and brand of machine were used in the election. Not a single one was shown to have been hacked. This was extensively reviewed post-election.

As another poster explained all machines do is count votes. If true, and this is able to be checked in a recount, then why even bother to hack a machine? Unless someone knowledgeable on that issue explains why hacking a machine would make a huge difference I see no reason to discuss machines any more.

This is clearly disinformation. No one was proven to have been "ushered into the country" and only registered citizens can vote in federal elections.

If no ID is required, how would I determine a voter with a ballot was registered?

Do you think it is hard to get a forged photo ID? Ask your local seventeen year-old.

Many states require NO photo ID. Many states require non photo ID. Who cares how hard it may be to get photo ID?

Yes, my state is one such. We still needed to prove residence and citizenship to register, but the signature is good enough to vote.

So if a list of citizens that never vote or were almost certain not to vote existed, would that not bugger the whole thing up? If I came in with no ID saying I was one of those people, I would be caught...how?

Well, weirdness! Each claim of "weirdness" was investigated and found to have a normal explanation, but you nevertheless keep posting the same accusations over and over.

Yet many do not consider the events normal. If observers, for example were not allowed to actually observe and a judge said that was ok, that does not make it normal.

"Giuliani alleged that a systematic effort by the "Democratic machine" in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties served to deny poll watchers the chance to observe the vote counting up close, with the result that "1.5 million votes were entered illegally" -- "way more than enough to overturn the results of the election," Giuliani said."

--On Nov. 21, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. Brann wrote that he would not "disenfranchise almost seven million voters," as the Trump campaign had sought."

Election 2020: A look at Trump campaign election lawsuits and where they stand

Here's a look at the latest on the election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

A lot of people were outraged they were kept away from being able to observe. Rather than addressing that issue, apparently the judge avoided it, appealing to inconveniencing (or whatever) voters. With a slew of seemingly unfair judgments and happenings how is it any wonder that many people remained suspicious?

It was proven to be NOT fraud-ridden and none of the fraud found would have been anywhere close to affecting the outcome. Which you know.

In the example above, the issue was not even addressed let alone 'proven to be not fraud'.

No one has claimed the whole process was pure and true and trusted, so cute but flimsy straw man. People with common sense understand that unless fraud can be shown after exhaustive investigation, then the process must be trusted or there is no point to having a process. If all it takes to throw out a highly scrutinized result is "eh, I dunno, seems suss" then why bother.

The issue seems to be that integrity of the election cannot be proven.

Non sequitur. If someone has no realistic basis for doubt then they most definitely can be blamed for clinging to said doubt past the point of reason.

In the case of the folks treated like dirt and kept from being able to observe (they claim) in any real way, and a judge dismisses it not to bother millions of voters, I would not say they have no reason to feel that it was wrong.

That mystery, nonidentified voters (who?)

Well, if many states do not require any ID to vote how do you prove who voted precisely?

and hacked machines have not been demonstrated

As discussed, unless someone offers evidence or reasons that it would matter much if they were hacked, there is no reason to discuss machines.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not generally, if we are talking about people voting from other countries in big numbers. Since we can't trace them after the election, how could anyone prove anything? If many states have no ID requirement, how do you propose looking at ballots and going to find the people and ask if they really voted that way or not?

As another poster explained all machines do is count votes. If true, and this is able to be checked in a recount, then why even bother to hack a machine? Unless someone knowledgeable on that issue explains why hacking a machine would make a huge difference I see no reason to discuss machines any more.

If no ID is required, how would I determine a voter with a ballot was registered?

Many states require NO photo ID. Many states require non photo ID. Who cares how hard it may be to get photo ID?

So if a list of citizens that never vote or were almost certain not to vote existed, would that not bugger the whole thing up? If I came in with no ID saying I was one of those people, I would be caught...how?

Yet many do not consider the events normal. If observers, for example were not allowed to actually observe and a judge said that was ok, that does not make it normal.

"Giuliani alleged that a systematic effort by the "Democratic machine" in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties served to deny poll watchers the chance to observe the vote counting up close, with the result that "1.5 million votes were entered illegally" -- "way more than enough to overturn the results of the election," Giuliani said."

--On Nov. 21, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. Brann wrote that he would not "disenfranchise almost seven million voters," as the Trump campaign had sought."

Election 2020: A look at Trump campaign election lawsuits and where they stand

Here's a look at the latest on the election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

A lot of people were outraged they were kept away from being able to observe. Rather than addressing that issue, apparently the judge avoided it, appealing to inconveniencing (or whatever) voters. With a slew of seemingly unfair judgments and happenings how is it any wonder that many people remained suspicious?

In the example above, the issue was not even addressed let alone 'proven to be not fraud'.

The issue seems to be that integrity of the election cannot be proven.

In the case of the folks treated like dirt and kept from being able to observe (they claim) in any real way, and a judge dismisses it not to bother millions of voters, I would not say they have no reason to feel that it was wrong.

Well, if many states do not require any ID to vote how do you prove who voted precisely?

As discussed, unless someone offers evidence or reasons that it would matter much if they were hacked, there is no reason to discuss machines.

This is MAGA malarkey. You make naked allegations with no evidence, just repetition.

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe they could not prove what they think they knew happened?

In many cases they were even reluctant to claim that it even happened, much less try to present evidence.

 

[truthpls]

In many cases they were even reluctant to claim that it even happened, much less try to present evidence.

OK. So maybe they should agree with the topic here? (right to stop invasions)

 

[Hans Blaster]

To be clear, they have nothing to do with me or I them. It is not 'my own' leadership by any stretch of the imagination, I am not even in the same country. I suppose the equivalent in Canada of the Republicans would be the conservatives.

Oh great, another right-wing Canadian telling Americans how are things are wrong. This time it's how our elections are broken and corrupted. Good grief.

They are not my own either. I am not political.

You sure look political. This is a political thread on a political sub-forum and you are commenting on political topics.

If any party or person aligns themself with the bible and Jesus, I am with them in that point. Even Putin has some opinions that are more biblical than any Canadian party.

Going to go for Putinism too? Really?

 

[BPPLEE]

Oh great, another right-wing Canadian telling Americans how are things are wrong. This time it's how our elections are broken and corrupted. Good grief.

You sure look political. This is a political thread on a political sub-forum and you are commenting on political topics.

Going to go for Putinism too? Really?

There is someone from the UK telling us what’s wrong with our country and our elections and he claims to be neutral but he trashes the right and embraces the left and no one seems to mind.

 

[truthpls]

Oh great, another right-wing Canadian telling Americans how are things are wrong. This time it's how our elections are broken and corrupted. Good grief.

Bible believers are not right wing. And discussion is not limited to what Americans think.

You sure look political. This is a political thread on a political sub-forum and you are commenting on political topics.

Having sane comments on political issues does not make one political. Being aware that an invasion is happening and some states are standing against it is interesting.

Going to go for Putinism too? Really?

Pointing out how Putin has some good points is not Putinism any more than pointing out Biden has some bad policies is Bidenism.

 

[truthpls]

The R word is considered flaming. If you’ve used it you should go back and edit the post.

OK tks. I'll take a look. I wonder if it is allowed to use the word christians? (small c meaning name only)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bible believers are not right wing. And discussion is not limited to what Americans think.

I didn't mention any bible or believing in it at all, but *you* are definitely right wing.

 

[truthpls]

I didn't mention any bible or believing in it at all, but *you* are definitely right wing.

If not wanting home invasion or open invasions of nations is right wing in your mind, fine. Perhaps people who believe in the sexual standards of God and life are right wing as well in your head? I prefer to stick to the old terms, that are clear. Good and evil

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Let's knock it off with the flaming!

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Another poster pointed out that all machines do basically is count votes already submitted. So, unless someone has reason to think that this actually is seldom checked, or can't be if needed, I see no use talking about machines. You see if the issue becomes not whether they theoretically could be hacked, but whether hacking them would even make any difference, why discuss them? In the case you mention, I assume whoever tried to manipulate a machine after an election was primarily trying to get to the truth, no?

Create a "truth" perhaps. Investigate following the delusions she suffered from (Massive election conspiracies), yes.

 

[truthpls]

Create a "truth" perhaps. Investigate following the delusions she suffered from (Massive election conspiracies), yes.

It is no conspiracy that millions have and are coming into the US. Among them criminals cartel, terrorists etc. The idea in this thread is to discuss that and say whether you agree or not. As for election issues I have said we do not know either way as far as proof of fraud. Where do you stand?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is no conspiracy that millions have and are coming into the US. Among them criminals cartel, terrorists etc. The idea in this thread is to discuss that and say whether you agree or not.

This didn't have anything to do with my post, why did you write it.

As for election issues I have said we do not know either way as far as proof of fraud. Where do you stand?

Yes we do. If you can't be familiar with what went on in another country, maybe you should stay out of it.

 

[truthpls]

This didn't have anything to do with my post, why did you write it.

Guess your post was neither memorable or topical

Yes we do. If you can't be familiar with what went on in another country, maybe you should stay out of it.

No you don't. Your game is to ask for proof against something that cannot be supported or proven. How unique.