The Proof Is In: The Election Was Stolen

[Dukasaur]

Understood, and mostly agreed.

[ConfederateSS]

Look guys, I have read enough of the fraud reports,...
Not enough...

Consider that Biden won despite the Democrats losing representation in the House.

You missed...that fake ballots where printed up and ran through...3 times...With just Biden on the ballot...no down ticket...I guess they thought they had the House of Reps locked up..Like they thought they had 2016 locked up for Hillary.. .

you'd know it's because the election was rigged!

------It sure was... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[riskllama]

random altered quotes typed in all caps aren't exactly proof now, are they?

[DBandit70]

The “Election Was Stolen” crowd keep coming up with new ways they think the election was stolen.
First it was all the mail-in ballots.
Then early votes.
Dead people voting.
Ballot box stuffing for Biden.
Trump votes thrown out.
etc.
Now it’s rigged voting machines.

They cheated using all of these, there just finding out more ways they cheated.

[jusplay4fun]

And where is the evidence? Allegations mean nothing if they cannot be proven, especially in a court of Law.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

The “Election Was Stolen” crowd keep coming up with new ways they think the election was stolen.
First it was all the mail-in ballots.
Then early votes.
Dead people voting.
Ballot box stuffing for Biden.
Trump votes thrown out.
etc.
Now it’s rigged voting machines.

They cheated using all of these, there just finding out more ways they cheated.

[jimboston]

The “Election Was Stolen” crowd keep coming up with new ways they think the election was stolen.
First it was all the mail-in ballots.
Then early votes.
Dead people voting.
Ballot box stuffing for Biden.
Trump votes thrown out.
etc.
Now it’s rigged voting machines.

They cheated using all of these, there just finding out more ways they cheated.

I guess you missed the rest of my post?


They (Trump supporting Conspiracy Theorists) think that all these different ways is somehow proof or evidence in favor of their theory.
I mean... “there are so many stories at least some must be true right?”

In fact this is faulty logic, and having “multiple methods” is a flaw... and actually evidence that this is all just baloney.

Think about it... if Biden supporters could rig the voting machines... why would they bother with all the other methods?
They wouldn’t. The rigged voting machines would be sufficient. Having alternate methods in this case is not a good form of redundancy.
In fact having multiple methods would only increase the possibility of exposure. So in a black-hat opera like this you prefer one single surefire method to a scattershot method that conspiracy theorists are suggesting.

[thegreekdog]

The “Election Was Stolen” crowd keep coming up with new ways they think the election was stolen.
First it was all the mail-in ballots.
Then early votes.
Dead people voting.
Ballot box stuffing for Biden.
Trump votes thrown out.
etc.
Now it’s rigged voting machines.

They cheated using all of these, there just finding out more ways they cheated.

You forgot Venezuela, China, Elvis, Tupac, and Big Foot.

[HitRed]

Every state has laws on the books that regulate elections. Setting days, hours, early voting, absentee voting, oversite and on and on. My best result is the Supreme Court says states must enforce their election laws that are on the books. Meaning governors and local judges don't have the power to change/modify/alter state election laws unless the law says so.

Example: Texas law says all voting stations close at 8:00 pm on election day. When a local Judge says his can stay open to 10:00 pm due to COVID-19 he isn't following the law it's changing or disregarding it.

HitRed

[Dukasaur]

Every state has laws on the books that regulate elections. Setting days, hours, early voting, absentee voting, oversite and on and on. My best result is the Supreme Court says states must enforce their election laws that are on the books. Meaning governors and local judges don't have the power to change/modify/alter state election laws unless the law says so.

Example: Texas law says all voting stations close at 8:00 pm on election day. Local Judge says his can stay open to 10:00 pm due to COVID-19. 10:00 isn't following the law it's changing or disregarding it.

HitRed

I would tend to agree with you. Laws should be enforced as written. If they are written badly, they need to be changed. When judges make rulings to put band-aids on bad laws, they're allowing legislators to escape responsibility for fixing the mess they've made.

I don't think this would have any effect on the election, though. There's no reason to assume that someone voting after 8 pm would be more likely to vote for Biden or for Trump.

[HitRed]

Every state has laws on the books that regulate elections. Setting days, hours, early voting, absentee voting, oversite and on and on. My best result is the Supreme Court says states must enforce their election laws that are on the books. Meaning governors and local judges don't have the power to change/modify/alter state election laws unless the law says so.

Example: Texas law says all voting stations close at 8:00 pm on election day. Local Judge says his can stay open to 10:00 pm due to COVID-19. 10:00 isn't following the law it's changing or disregarding it.

HitRed

I would tend to agree with you. Laws should be enforced as written. If they are written badly, they need to be changed. Judges shouldn't put band-aids on bad laws to cover the fact that they're badly written.

I don't think this would have any effect on the election, though. There's no reason to assume that someone voting after 8 pm would be more likely to vote for Biden or for Trump.

Example: Most states allow voters to request an absentee ballot. If I heard correctly, the Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered every voter to receive one if they requested it or not. That's fine IF it is allowed by state law. If not allowed by state law they shouldn't be counted.

[Dukasaur]

Every state has laws on the books that regulate elections. Setting days, hours, early voting, absentee voting, oversite and on and on. My best result is the Supreme Court says states must enforce their election laws that are on the books. Meaning governors and local judges don't have the power to change/modify/alter state election laws unless the law says so.

Example: Texas law says all voting stations close at 8:00 pm on election day. Local Judge says his can stay open to 10:00 pm due to COVID-19. 10:00 isn't following the law it's changing or disregarding it.

HitRed

I would tend to agree with you. Laws should be enforced as written. If they are written badly, they need to be changed. Judges shouldn't put band-aids on bad laws to cover the fact that they're badly written.

I don't think this would have any effect on the election, though. There's no reason to assume that someone voting after 8 pm would be more likely to vote for Biden or for Trump.

Example: Most states allow voters to request an absentee ballot. If I heard correctly, the Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered every voter to receive one if they requested it or not. That's fine IF it is allowed by state law. If not allowed by state law they shouldn't be counted.

Well, like you said, it's fine if it is allowed by state law. Just because it's not mandated by state law, however, doesn't mean it's forbidden. Most bodies of law allow governors a great deal of discretionary latitude between what they must do and what they mustn't. It's entirely possible that the courts will rule that it was within the governor's realm of discretion to decide whether to send out the extra ballots or not.

[jimboston]

Every state has laws on the books that regulate elections. Setting days, hours, early voting, absentee voting, oversite and on and on. My best result is the Supreme Court says states must enforce their election laws that are on the books. Meaning governors and local judges don't have the power to change/modify/alter state election laws unless the law says so.

Example: Texas law says all voting stations close at 8:00 pm on election day. Local Judge says his can stay open to 10:00 pm due to COVID-19. 10:00 isn't following the law it's changing or disregarding it.

HitRed

I would tend to agree with you. Laws should be enforced as written. If they are written badly, they need to be changed. When judges make rulings to put band-aids on bad laws, they're allowing legislators to escape responsibility for fixing the mess they've made.

I don't think this would have any effect on the election, though. There's no reason to assume that someone voting after 8 pm would be more likely to vote for Biden or for Trump.

In person voting weighed more towards Trump. So that change likely helped Trump.

I don’t think the Judge made the change to extend the hours. Elected officials and election officials made the change in order to accommodate the increased turnout... a judge ruled that Covid justified the changes. That may seem like splitting hairs but it’s not. Especially when you realize that in TX the officials making those decisions were likely Republican.

Either way this rule change is not “fraud”. It’s not changing anyone’s vote... just making voting more accessible given the current state of emergency and higher than normal turnout.

Hitred if you’re gonna point something out like this a link from a valid source would be great.

[HitRed]

So anyone can change a law at any time? Jim says you just need a reason that pulls at the hearts strings. If votes are counted that should have never been counted that is fraud.

[jimboston]

So anyone can change a law at any time? Jim says you just need a reason that pulls at the hearts strings. If votes are counted that should have never been counted that is fraud.

No.

I didn’t say that.

You need to READ what I type and process the info to understand it.

1) You make a statement about “changing voting laws” in TX. Yet you provide no links that support your statement.

2) You stated that “a local judge” said they can stay open late... implying that the judge just came and changed the law.
This is not how the legal system works... if anyone decided to keep polls open late it would’ve been...
- Governor
- Secretary of State
- Local Election Official at Specific Polling Site

Then there would’ve been a dispute... and a judge would listen to both sides and make a ruling BASED ON THE CASE LAW.

3) Without you providing a link we don’t know what the law says and what powers the law provides to the...
- Governor
- Secretary of State
- Local Election Official at Specific Polling Site

Without reading the case law we don’t know if the action was legal or illegal.
It may very well be the case that the law allows for those persons to extend hours LEGALLY.

Obviously the judge thought the extension was legal... but perhaps you personally have a better understanding of Texas law that a sitting Texas judge?

I have spent about 3 minutes just now Googling your claim. I found lots of stuff about Texas, mostly about the requirement (or lack thereof) for the wearing of masks... and some about early voting. I DID NOT find any specific addressing your point.

Finally... a judge making a decision can be appealed. An individual judge deciding that polling stations can legally stay open later than normal IS NOT FRAUD. It changes no ones vote. This decision in NO WAY can be legitimately said to favor one candidate over another. It only allows enough time for people in line to vote. Why would you assume that these votes would go against your will? Why would you want to disenfranchise people who show up to vote but fine a 3hr line? Why should a vote for a legal voter “never be counted”.

Finally... you ignore the points that...
- Trump won Texas, so even if this was real it has no impact on the outcome of the election.
- In person votes tended to favor Trump over mail-in votes... so shutting down the polls earlier in TX might actually flip the state to Biden.