Message from @realz
Discord ID: 775074280517140521
"What is your assessment of this analysis?👇🏻
This is NOT a “voter fraud” issue as much as it is a “voting fraud” issue perpetuated by Democrat-controlled states to circumvent the requirements of USC 3 Sec 1 - Appointing Electors.
USC 3 Sec 1 requires Electors to be appointed ON Election Day. For Electors to be appointed ON Election Day, votes must be RECEIVED (NOT MERELY POSTMARKED) BY Election Day.
This is codified in FEDERAL LAW!
USC 3 Sec 2 provides that a State which has HELD such an election (for the appointment of Electors ON Election Day) can subsequently count votes that are RECEIVED (not merely postmarked) BY Election Day if they cannot count them on Election Day.
The states have the prerogative to run their own elections (procedural issue) and have their citizens waste their votes by allowing votes to be POSTMARKED BY Election Day - but the only ones that count (substantive issue) are the ones RECEIVED BY Election Day!
The State can run its elections procedurally however it likes as long as it does not conflict with the federal requirement that Electors be appointed ON Election Day.
Classic Federalism /Federal Preemption.
There is no articulable way that an Elector can be appointed ON Election Day on the basis of votes RECEIVED AFTER Election Day.
NET RESULT:
Any votes RECEIVED after the polls close on Election Day are NOT COMPLIANT for the purpose of appointing Electors under FEDERAL LAW (USC 3 SEC 1) EVEN IF the they are’s compliant under applicable STATE LAW - REGARDLESS of whether the State Legislature legislatively extended the deadline or not.
Disqualify ALL mail-in ballots received AFTER Election Day - (1) regardless of its postmark date and (2) regardless of whether the State Legislatire extended the deadline or not.
Either one is violative of the governing FEDERAL statute (USC 3 Sec 1) regarding the appointment of Electors for the purpose of electing the President of the United States."
Votes archived on-line with anonymous identifiers so EVERY person can check and do their own recounts.
It uses law.cornell.edu as the source for federal law cited
Republicans "dominated" almost everything except POTUS. It is easy to narrative that away, but it is certainly sketchy.
So they are now admitting they sent ballots to the dead
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-evidence-widespread-dead-voting/507-84e1561d-0d38-49eb-889f-3d3012a88a2c
>Politifact reached out to that William Bradley and found out it was the deceased Bradley’s son. He said he received two absentee ballots, one for himself and one for his deceased father. He threw out his father’s and mailed his own ballot in. He said an error incorrectly attributed the vote to the elder Bradley rather than him.
Am I supposed to believe everyone is a good samaritan and threw their deceased relative ballot away?
You're supposed to believe people are innocent until proven guilty, yes.
That's how our legal system works.
And it works both ways in politics.
> You're supposed to believe people are innocent until proven guilty, yes.
@Maw our legal system is not like that and to my knowledge when someone has gone to trial they’re only found either not-guilty or guilty. They are never found innocent. When the state nolle prosequi’s a case against someone I.e. dismisses the charges there is nothing entered as an actual finding of innocent.
It is true that rarely people are exonerated of crimes to my knowledge, we still work with the presumption of innocence however.
Presumption of innocence does not mean that you are innocent, of course.
But there are cases where you are found exonerated due to evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are innocent.
Although that's semi-rare.
Exculpatory evidence, for instance.
> https://twitter.com/shylockh/status/1325120312455749634?s=19
@Elias Diaz mmm a collection of stuff like this would be interesting
(and any responses)
@Maw not to argue with your overall point, this isn't a matter of convicting an individual, but rather having suspicion
The standards of having faith in an election and convicting an individual of a crime are not the same
The former has to happen naturally, otherwise it is a failure no matter how it failed
Just like someone's gut about what a presidential candidate may or may not do, judges who one votes for, no matter if that person can prove it or not
Some things are judged on intuition
And faith in the election is one of those things, and the consequences of lack of faith are not great, regardless of why
In other words, if I see enough hair raising unanswered questions, that gets vetted and so on, I won't personally need proof (on the level of proving guilt) to lose faith in the election process
I don't think anyone would sincerely suggest that you don't hold personal dominion over to what your faith is applied and what methods you employ to get there. Expect to see a presumption of innocence, in a legal sense, from many others who are also employing methods of their choosing.
YOu guys noticedhow Fox just turned anti-trump? Even banning that judge for supporting Trump? WTF?
Only boomers watch cable
;p
Fox news tied their own noose when they initially hitched their wagon.
But to be fair, they made a lot of money from pandering in the interim.
Why the hell do we require ID to get on an airplane but not to vote?
Some states require it I think
They asked me for id
Also I don't want to judge everything by how shitty we treat airline passengers
Don't give anyone any dumb ideas now
If I gave to take off my damn shoes to vote next election ... _squinty eyes_
> Why the hell do we require ID to get on an airplane but not to vote?
@leftingfighter33 because the left will tell you voter ID laws are voter suppression.
Which is ridiculous @TheParamedicGamer
But accurate