Tell us more, where are the details of that legal case?
Tell us more, where are the details of that legal case?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/us/politics/trump-electio...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-06/supreme-court-probabl...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/lawsuits-trump-gop-p...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judges-evidence-trump-campai...
I'm tired of it.
Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discourse by denying that any opposed ideas can have any validity. That is a fallacy in an argument. In a democratically elected leader, or his followers, it is a direct attack on the foundations of the country. Please stop.
Barry Richard, an election lawyer who served as a lead attorney for President George W. Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, criticized the campaign’s efforts. “I wouldn’t call it a strategy,” he said. “There isn’t any legal basis for anything I’ve seen so far.”
Other election law experts have questioned the multipronged attack. Richard Hasen, professor at UC Irvine School of Law and author of “Election Meltdown,” said the lawsuits, even if partially successful, were smaller-scale and didn’t threaten the results. “If they’re not being filed to change the election outcome, what’s the point?” he said.
It's a conspiracy against Donald Trump because he's a man of the people!
Trump is definitely an outsider.
It's both a contradictory argument and obviously illegal: you can't stop a state's election board from counting the already cast ballots.
This is just announced today so I’m not sure how “experts” could have weighed in already, whatever that means.
> These aren’t serious people. They never have been, they never will be.
Well, Giuliani prosecuted the NY mafia and won, so part of this statement is a little far fetched.
And yes that is a prediction. But it is an informed prediction. It is informed by the fact that so far, every case has been tossed for lack of evidence. I can go around making false assertions and filing false lawsuits all day too, it doesn't mean that anyone should take them seriously, and no one would. The only reason that we give these assertions oxygen is out of deference to the power these people hold.
"Get Rudy Giuliani off TV."
Even the Post doesn't give Giuliani credence. Trump will get recounts, none of them will move the numbers in a meaningful way, just like every other recount in the history of Presidential recounts.
- Joe Rogan (>10 million listeners)
- Rush Limbaugh (15 million per week)
- Crowder (8 million on election night)
- No Agenda (nobody, this is a joke)
The Post has a circulation of ~250k.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK21F1b5ihc&feature=youtu.be...
List of names: https://controlc.com/c17e91ba
Voter website: https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index
> No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted.
Yet, the voter registration site clearly showed that a ballot was requested, sent to, and received from the elder Mr. Bradley. I'm skeptical that they would have detected the error had this particular case not gone viral. If they had the means to detect the error, then why didn't they do it before sending the ballot? Or, even better, remove the defunct registration in the first place?
2) Ballot also sent to alive person at same address with same name -> good
3) Living person fills out their ballot, turns it in -> good
4) Living person throws out dead person's ballot -> good
5) Vote counting accidentally records Living person's vote under Dead person's entry -> bad, but pretty easy to imagine as clerical error
6) Living person's entry never has a vote counted -> good (sort of, as living person's vote only gets counted once, just under wrong name
Result: A) No change in voting results (living person's vote gets counted once)
But B) Is this fraud? -> my opinion, no. There was no difference in vote count, likely no intention to make the mistake. If it was intentional fraud that's pretty useless
C) Is this system? -> Not sure, the list of thousands of 'possible dead people' certainly looks like worth investigating, but unless some real reports are gonna go look at every one I'm not sure there's gonna be a real answer for all of them
"If they had the means to detect the error" -> quite possibly because they're busy doing other things, like counting the votes. "skeptical that they would have detected the error" is pretty speculative, but again an error that results in no vote count difference is not the kind they should be correcting. They should focus on correcting errors that affect the vote count, right? (ie, execute the main thread rather than spend cycles garbage collecting. Garbage collect when the main thread is idle.)