Michigan Finding

[BillCutting4585]

Now why would a judge rule that Michigan’s Secretary of State broke state laws when changing election rules?

Maybe because she doesn’t have the authority to do so?

Do the people responsible get prosecuted? Does she lose her position? Technically, changing election rules without authority could be looked at as over throwing an administration. Could she be charged with treason? What about the co-conspirators? Did Whitmer know this was going on in her state?

Things that make you go hmm 🤔

@LizardGrad89, care to comment on this? This judge debunks your article 1 section 4 of the US constitution argument.

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Now why would a judge rule that Michigan’s Secretary of State broke state laws when changing election rules?

Maybe because she doesn’t have the authority to do so?

Do the people responsible get prosecuted? Does she lose her position? Technically, changing election rules without authority could be looked at as over throwing an administration. Could she be charged with treason? What about the co-conspirators? Did Whitmer know this was going on in her state?

Things that make you go hmm 🤔

@LizardGrad89, care to comment on this? This judge debunks your article 1 section 4 of the US constitution argument.

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.

www.breitbart.com

Several states broke state election laws. See Article II of our Constitution. See Mark Levin, one of the nation's leading constitutional lawyers.

Many analysts believe many judges fear the BLM and Antifa arms of the Communist Party. See Portland, Seattle, Kenosha and Minneapolis.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Now why would a judge rule that Michigan’s Secretary of State broke state laws when changing election rules?

Maybe because she doesn’t have the authority to do so?

Do the people responsible get prosecuted? Does she lose her position? Technically, changing election rules without authority could be looked at as over throwing an administration. Could she be charged with treason? What about the co-conspirators? Did Whitmer know this was going on in her state?

Things that make you go hmm 🤔

@LizardGrad89, care to comment on this? This judge debunks your article 1 section 4 of the US constitution argument.

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.

www.breitbart.com

No it doesn't, not one little bit.

What did I say? That election laws are just laws. Legislatures write them, Governors sign or veto them (and write executive orders to amend them at times), and Supreme Courts rule on their constitutionality and interpret them.

Where, in all of that, did I say anything about Secretaries of State?

 

[BillCutting4585]

No it doesn't, not one little bit.

What did I say? That election laws are just laws. Legislatures write them, Governors sign or veto them (and write executive orders to amend them at times), and Supreme Courts rule on their constitutionality and interpret them.

Where, in all of that, did I say anything about Secretaries of State?

You are correct, I searched your previous posts and you did not say anything that I was alluding to. I apologize.

My question is to you then is this, Michigan has now come forward and found the Secretary of State for Michigan is guilty, now if other swing states come forward with similar cases where judges are ruling in the favor of Trump, does that tell you that the US has a voting fraud issue on a massive scale?

I am not suggesting the election being over turned. Repeat, I am not asking for the election to be overturned. I’m simply asking if this is a multi state issue, specifically the swing states and you know what you know now, would this be considered wide spread?

 

[LizardGrad89]

You are correct, I searched your previous posts and you did not say anything that I was alluding to. I apologize.

My question is to you then is this, Michigan has now come forward and found the Secretary of State for Michigan is guilty, now if other swing states come forward with similar cases where judges are ruling in the favor of Trump, does that tell you that the US has a voting fraud issue on a massive scale?

I am not suggesting the election being overturned. Repeat, I am not asking for the election to be overturned. I’m simply asking if this is a multi state issue, specifically the swing states and you know what you know now, would this be considered wide spread?

Well, Pennsylvania had things changed by the Supreme Court, not sure that would qualify, because that body does have some authority over the law, unlike a secretary of state. So "widespread" may be a matter of interpretation.

Thing is, fraud requires intent to deceive. You show me proof of something like fake votes being counted, I'm all in on fraud. But you show me someone who realized there was going to be a huge increase in mail-in votes (for whatever reason) and changed some rules to get those votes counted, because they could see the system would be overwhelmed, is that fraud? I, personally, don't know. I'd think that case would have to go to court.

Now, if major fraud cases start going to trial all over the place over the election, I'll agree there is a widespread fraud problem. I don't even need them to be found guilty; if there are a lot of them I will accept "where there's smoke there's fire". I think that it's going to be tough to get convictions even with strong cases (the COVID excuse will sway juries), so if the prosecutors think they have enough evidence to go to trial for fraud, that'll do it for me. (I'm not talking about accusations, mind you, we've heard a lot of accusations these past few months that had nothing behind them. Has to be trials. But, I'll have to think about plea bargains. Those might count, depending on the circumstances.)

 

[BillCutting4585]

Well, Pennsylvania had things changed by the Supreme Court, not sure that would qualify, because that body does have some authority over the law, unlike a secretary of state. So "widespread" may be a matter of interpretation.

Thing is, fraud requires intent to deceive. You show me proof of something like fake votes being counted, I'm all in on fraud. But you show me someone who realized there was going to be a huge increase in mail-in votes (for whatever reason) and changed some rules to get those votes counted, because they could see the system would be overwhelmed, is that fraud? I, personally, don't know. I'd think that case would have to go to court.

Now, if major fraud cases start going to trial all over the place over the election, I'll agree there is a widespread fraud problem. I don't even need them to be found guilty; if there are a lot of them I will accept "where there's smoke there's fire". I think, though, that it's going to be tough to get convictions even with strong cases (the COVID excuse will sway juries), so if the prosecutors think they have enough evidence to go to trial for fraud, that'll do it for me. (I'm not talking about accusations, mind you, we've heard a lot of accusations these past few months that had nothing behind them. Has to be trials. But, I'll have to think about plea bargains. Those might count, depending on the circumstances.)

Fair enough, I agree with you on all of that. You are correct about PA and I am shocked that the state legislature was circumvented to allow mail in ballots and 10 day vote count after November 3rd. To me, whoever filed the cases in court instead of bringing to the floor of the PA legislature knew exactly what they were doing. To me, that’s not fraud but that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. I’m not sure how you feel about HR1 but to me, it’s a disaster when the federal government wants to circumvent state legislatures. The federal government is big enough as it is and adding elections to their power is seriously dangerous.

 

[BCSpell]

You are correct, I searched your previous posts and you did not say anything that I was alluding to. I apologize.

My question is to you then is this, Michigan has now come forward and found the Secretary of State for Michigan is guilty, now if other swing states come forward with similar cases where judges are ruling in the favor of Trump, does that tell you that the US has a voting fraud issue on a massive scale?

I am not suggesting the election being over turned. Repeat, I am not asking for the election to be overturned. I’m simply asking if this is a multi state issue, specifically the swing states and you know what you know now, would this be considered wide spread?

That is why it’s starting to come out. They know it’s too late to do anything about it.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Fair enough, I agree with you on all of that. You are correct about PA and I am shocked that the state legislature was circumvented to allow mail in ballots and 10 day vote count after November 3rd. To me, whoever filed the cases in court instead of bringing to the floor of the PA legislature knew exactly what they were doing. To me, that’s not fraud but that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. I’m not sure how you feel about HR1 but to me, it’s a disaster when the federal government wants to circumvent state legislatures. The federal government is big enough as it is and adding elections to their power is seriously dangerous.

Well, you know we aren't going to agree on HR1, we face a philosophical difference there. But I will say HR1 falls far short of what I think is needed.

I would like to see some of HR1 put into effect, such as curbs put into place for gerrymandering and requiring states to provide ample opportunities to vote, But I don't think it does enough for voting security. Not that I think the vote is insecure, but because so many people do, and lack of faith in the voting process is so harmful to the Democratic process.

For example, I believe there should be a paper ballot for everyone, and that's what gets used in a recount. If we use voting machines (which I have no problem with), we should have some checks and balances there, like random districts have their paper ballots pulled and counted against the machine totals. (You have to excuse me, I've been a CPA a long time, that's just how my mind works. Random sampling and suchlike.) And as long as every eligible voter is able to get an ID that allows them to vote, without bar or hindrance, while still being secure enough to keep those not allowed to vote from voting (yes, it's a tall order), I am in favor of ID's. (when I say without bar or hindrance, I mean that everybody can reasonably get one.)

But I REALLY feel a bipartisan federal law about voting is needed. The problem isn't that people don't trust the voting process, they don't trust OTHER STATES voting processes. So IMO we need a single standard that both sides agree will fix the problems, that they can take to their sides and say "look, we got what we wanted". Dems will be saying they got accessibility and Reps will be saying they got security. There is a win-win out there, if the pig headed idiots on both sides can just stop the games for 5 minutes and think about what's best for the country.

 

[BillCutting4585]

Well, you know we aren't going to agree on HR1, we face a philosophical difference there. But I will say HR1 falls far short of what I think is needed.

I would like to see some of HR1 put into effect, such as curbs put into place for gerrymandering and requiring states to provide ample opportunities to vote, But I don't think it does enough for voting security. Not that I think the vote is insecure, but because so many people do, and lack of faith in the voting process is so harmful to the Democratic process.

For example, I believe there should be a paper ballot for everyone, and that's what gets used in a recount. If we use voting machines (which I have no problem with), we should have some checks and balances there, like random districts have their paper ballots pulled and counted against the machine totals. (You have to excuse me, I've been a CPA a long time, that's just how my mind works. Random sampling and suchlike.) And as long as every eligible voter is able to get an ID that allows them to vote, without bar or hindrance, while still being secure enough to keep those not allowed to vote from voting (yes, it's a tall order), I am in favor of ID's. (when I say without bar or hindrance, I mean that everybody can reasonably get one.)

But I REALLY feel a bipartisan federal law about voting is needed. The problem isn't that people don't trust the voting process, they don't trust OTHER STATES voting processes. So IMO we need a single standard that both sides agree will fix the problems, that they can take to their sides and say "look, we got what we wanted". Dems will be saying they got accessibility and Reps will be saying they got security. There is a win-win out there, if the pig headed idiots on both sides can just stop the games for 5 minutes and think about what's best for the country.

I do think there are a few ways to secure elections.

1. All paper ballots, no voting machines, period. If it takes a few days to count votes, fine by me, at least it’s accurate.

2. I am ok with tabulator machines as long as the machines cannot physically connect to the internet. No hard wires, no WiFi access. All the tabulator machine does is some sort of signature verification and tabulate the vote totals and adjudicate.

3. Since there are trust issues between the left and right, let the military handle chain of custody on tabulator hard drives or memory sticks. I’d also be all for the military to store ballots for the states.

4. Poll watchers for the left and right overseeing every person running a tabulator or hand counting. I want that poll watcher for both parties so far up these people’s asses that it’s impossible to pull any shit.

5. Adjudicated votes need separate handling, not determined at a tabulator station with no over watch.

6. Voter ID. I don’t buy that colored people can’t get ID’s, that’s pretty racist to believe that. I’m all for having people assist others to get registered as long as they can prove they are a citizen, a resident of the state and the address they list is an actual address.

7. Block chain codes on all ballots as well as block chain codes for what printer was used to print the ballot. Eliminates all paper ballot fraud and prevents anyone from just printing a ballot.

8. All addresses need to be verified as legal addresses. States shouldn’t have an issue verifying every address prior to Election Day. If the address can’t be verified, calls are placed, still can’t verify it then that person has to bring two pieces of mail to verify the address before voting.

9. All voting done in person unless you have a damn good reason to use absentee ballots. If people during a pandemic can get off their asses and go to work or a grocery store, they can vote in person. I personally don’t like absentee but it is what it is.

I know this is a lot to ask for and would cost a ton of money but I’d be more than happy to return the $1400 I just received to ensure this country isn’t torn apart due to shady election practices. I’m sure you’d be happy to return your money assuming you did get a payment.

P.S. dark money has to go along with pacs and super pacs. These elections are for the people, not for a select few who can donate unlimited amounts of money to push an agenda. It would also hurt the 525 shit bags in DC currently who are not for the people.

 

[fatman76]

Well, Pennsylvania had things changed by the Supreme Court, not sure that would qualify, because that body does have some authority over the law, unlike a secretary of state. So "widespread" may be a matter of interpretation.

Thing is, fraud requires intent to deceive. You show me proof of something like fake votes being counted, I'm all in on fraud. But you show me someone who realized there was going to be a huge increase in mail-in votes (for whatever reason) and changed some rules to get those votes counted, because they could see the system would be overwhelmed, is that fraud? I, personally, don't know. I'd think that case would have to go to court.

Now, if major fraud cases start going to trial all over the place over the election, I'll agree there is a widespread fraud problem. I don't even need them to be found guilty; if there are a lot of them I will accept "where there's smoke there's fire". I think that it's going to be tough to get convictions even with strong cases (the COVID excuse will sway juries), so if the prosecutors think they have enough evidence to go to trial for fraud, that'll do it for me. (I'm not talking about accusations, mind you, we've heard a lot of accusations these past few months that had nothing behind them. Has to be trials. But, I'll have to think about plea bargains. Those might count, depending on the circumstances.)

The state SC has absolutely no constitutional right to change election rules, especially if they contradict the laws on the books.

I’d love to see where Sec 2 states that.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Now why would a judge rule that Michigan’s Secretary of State broke state laws when changing election rules?

Maybe because she doesn’t have the authority to do so?

Do the people responsible get prosecuted? Does she lose her position? Technically, changing election rules without authority could be looked at as over throwing an administration. Could she be charged with treason? What about the co-conspirators? Did Whitmer know this was going on in her state?

Things that make you go hmm 🤔

@LizardGrad89, care to comment on this? This judge debunks your article 1 section 4 of the US constitution argument.

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.

www.breitbart.com

Recall that this is the same SOS that tried to block public disclosure of the audit results of Dominion machines in MI.

Because those audit results showed voter fraud. @LizardGrad89 made a fool of once again.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

The state SC has absolutely no constitutional right to change election rules, especially if they contradict the laws on the books.

I’d love to see where Sec 2 states that.

Let's cut to the chase: Anything that moves us closer to 'one person, one vote', the dems oppose. Anything that secures the election process and moves us closer to a free and fair election and that reduces the chance for voter fraud, the dems oppose.

We can all guess why. Any child that thinks logically gets it.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Let's cut to the chase: Anything that moves us closer to 'one person, one vote', the dems oppose. Anything that secures the election process and moves us closer to a free and fair election and that reduces the chance for voter fraud, the dems oppose.

We can all guess why. Any child that thinks logically gets it.

Bingo! The Republicans are dealing with an organized crime syndicate. You and most here gets it.

 

[LizardGrad89]

The state SC has absolutely no constitutional right to change election rules, especially if they contradict the laws on the books.

I’d love to see where Sec 2 states that.

As I said, election laws are not special. There is nothing in the constitution that makes them special. The only extra thing legislatures get is the ability to decide how electors to the College get chosen. They have all chosen elections. Well and good. But there, they chose, that's where it ends. Now, elections are governed by laws, and each state creates election laws. But they are just laws, like any other law. There is no special constitutional protection for election laws, and it would be great if y'all would stop spouting that inaccuracy. (I'd call it a lie, but "lie" implies intent to deceive, and I think you are not lying, but believe the lies you have been told.)

The state SC has the same right to alter, change, adjust, reinterpret, whatever, election laws that they have with any other law. Now, you want to argue whether they had the right to make the changes they made, ok, that's a fair point of discussion. But if you want to say they were blocked by the Constitution from making those changes, just, no.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Let's cut to the chase: Anything that moves us closer to 'one person, one vote', the dems oppose. Anything that secures the election process and moves us closer to a free and fair election and that reduces the chance for voter fraud, the dems oppose.

We can all guess why. Any child that thinks logically gets it.

What a fudging joke.

Republicans have done nothing for the past 30 years but try to keep eligible voters from voting. You don't want one person one vote, you want one Republican, one vote. Otherwise, the Republican party would be all about early voting, access for voting, registering for voting (and you can do all these things and still have security), BUT YOU ARE NOT. Republicans work very hard to do the exact opposite, and make voting as difficult and restrictive as possible, because they believe they do better with low turnout.

You want one person one vote?

Ok, first, increase ease of registration. You want picture ID's? Fine. But put in place plans to make sure everybody can get one. Second, expand early voting and have roundups for voters using mass transit. These can be government sponsored, and rural areas can do them on the weekend with school buses. Fourth, ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The spirit of "one person one vote" is that everybody has a vote, and all votes are equal. When a Wyoming vote is worth twice what a California vote is worth, all votes are not equal. We need to get over the fiction that states elect the President. The PEOPLE elect the President.

And you also need to get over the idea that mail in voting is bad. We have 5 states that do almost all mail in voting and have for a long time. Was never an issue until Republicans decided to use it as a red herring so they could pass even more restrictions on voting. This is why we need (a better version of) HR1. It's past time to stop the Republican assault on voting rights.

 

[NavigatorII]

No it doesn't, not one little bit.

What did I say? That election laws are just laws. Legislatures write them, Governors sign or veto them (and write executive orders to amend them at times), and Supreme Courts rule on their constitutionality and interpret them.

Where, in all of that, did I say anything about Secretaries of State?

What the hell were you saying exactly? Laws were meant to be broken? 😂

 

[NavigatorII]

Ok, first, increase ease of registration. Fourth, ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The spirit of "one person one vote" is that everybody has a vote, and all votes are equal. We need to get over the fiction that states elect the President. The PEOPLE elect the President.

We have 5 states that do almost all mail in voting and have for a long time. Was never an issue until Republicans decided to use it as a red herring so they could pass even more restrictions on voting. This is why we need (a better version of) HR1. It's past time to stop the Republican assault on voting rights.

ALL of that bullshit is just........bullshit.
You want picture ID's? Fine.
You need picture ID to receive welfare, HUD housing, why is that such a hardship again?
When a Wyoming vote is worth twice what a California vote is worth, all votes are not equal.
You hate the Constitution? Fine, just state you are a fvcking commie. Noted. We'll just let NY and CA decide all elections and suspend the other states.
And you also need to get over the idea that mail in voting is bad.
You love the easiest path to fraudulent elections. Remember, the goal of communists is to eliminate elections altogether. Duly noted again!

You aren't about voting rights, you are all about making America Venezuela Again!

 

[BillCutting4585]

What a fudging joke.

Republicans have done nothing for the past 30 years but try to keep eligible voters from voting. You don't want one person one vote, you want one Republican, one vote. Otherwise, the Republican party would be all about early voting, access for voting, registering for voting (and you can do all these things and still have security), BUT YOU ARE NOT. Republicans work very hard to do the exact opposite, and make voting as difficult and restrictive as possible, because they believe they do better with low turnout.

You want one person one vote?

Ok, first, increase ease of registration. You want picture ID's? Fine. But put in place plans to make sure everybody can get one. Second, expand early voting and have roundups for voters using mass transit. These can be government sponsored, and rural areas can do them on the weekend with school buses. Fourth, ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The spirit of "one person one vote" is that everybody has a vote, and all votes are equal. When a Wyoming vote is worth twice what a California vote is worth, all votes are not equal. We need to get over the fiction that states elect the President. The PEOPLE elect the President.

And you also need to get over the idea that mail in voting is bad. We have 5 states that do almost all mail in voting and have for a long time. Was never an issue until Republicans decided to use it as a red herring so they could pass even more restrictions on voting. This is why we need (a better version of) HR1. It's past time to stop the Republican assault on voting rights.

When you say that it’s hard for anyone of color to get an ID so they can vote, you’re saying some racist shit man. It’s the same as it is for white people. I’ve never heard of an express lane to register because I’m white.

You can go online to register to vote, they send you the voter registration, you fill it out, sign it and mail it back. How is this hard? Especially with smartphones.

@kalimgoodman As a black man, has anyone stopped you from registering to vote? Did you get any grief on Election Day when you went to vote? Is it harder for the black community to get a state issued identification card?

What am I missing here?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

When you say that it’s hard for anyone of color to get an ID so they can vote, you’re saying some racist shit man. It’s the same as it is for white people. I’ve never heard of an express lane to register because I’m white.

You can go online to register to vote, they send you the voter registration, you fill it out, sign it and mail it back. How is this hard? Especially with smartphones.

@kalimgoodman As a black man, has anyone stopped you from registering to vote? Did you get any grief on Election Day when you went to vote? Is it harder for the black community to get a state issued identification card?

What am I missing here?

Nancy's intent is voter fraud. Shauna had to show a photo ID to obtain her "free" Obama phone and buy a beer. Texas requires a photo ID to vote. I know no minority who is too stupid to obtain a free state photo ID.

I know some minorities who are stupid enough to vote for a stiff who promises a wide open southern border which harms minorities most. I know plenty of minorities who are much smarter.

 

[kalimgoodman]

When you say that it’s hard for anyone of color to get an ID so they can vote, you’re saying some racist shit man. It’s the same as it is for white people. I’ve never heard of an express lane to register because I’m white.

You can go online to register to vote, they send you the voter registration, you fill it out, sign it and mail it back. How is this hard? Especially with smartphones.

@kalimgoodman As a black man, has anyone stopped you from registering to vote? Did you get any grief on Election Day when you went to vote? Is it harder for the black community to get a state issued identification card?

What am I missing here?

No it is not difficult for black people to register to vote, it is also not difficult to get an ID card. I don't agree that requiring an ID is racist, never understood why some people think that.

As you know, I believe that if you require a state issued ID, then make free, otherwise accept any ID.

There are some targeted laws out there that is trying to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Georgia have same something called "souls to the polls", that's when after church on Sunday, a bus will take black people to go early vote. A republican in Georgia purposed a law to eliminate Sunday voting and make it illegal to bus voters. It has the backing of all state Republicans in Georgia, except Brian Kemp and the LT. Governor Duncan. Even they said it's going to far but Kemp said he signed the bill if it stays in there. That's the racist stuff I see but not voter IDs.

 

[BillCutting4585]

No it is not difficult for black people to register to vote, it is also not difficult to get an ID card. I don't agree that requiring an ID is racist, never understood why some people think that.

As you know, I believe that if you require a state issued ID, then make free, otherwise accept any ID.

There are some targeted laws out there that is trying to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Georgia have same something called "souls to the polls", that's when after church on Sunday, a bus will take black people to go early vote. A republican in Georgia purposed a law to eliminate Sunday voting and make it illegal to bus voters. It has the backing of all state Republicans in Georgia, except Brian Kemp and the LT. Governor Duncan. Even they said it's going to far but Kemp said he signed the bill if it stays in there. That's the racist stuff I see but not voter IDs.

Thank you for confirming and I agree that anyone who tries to explain that a person of color have hard time getting ID’s to vote based on their color is a bit racist.

I don’t like disenfranchising people registering to vote. If you can prove you are who you are, a US citizen and live in the state they’re trying to vote in then let them vote.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I used to hang out with the Navajo brothers north of Gallup. The bus came to haul would be participants down to Gallup to vote. A pack of cigarettes was the prize if one smoked. I was once invited along. I told the well dressed host I was registered to vote in Texas. He said to me, "I think we can fix that." I wondered why New Mexico accepted bus voters. New Mexico is blue and plans top stay blue. Every Pub there knows it.

 

[NavigatorII]

I used to hang out with the Navajo brothers north of Gallup. The bus came to haul would be participants down to Gallup to vote. A pack of cigarettes was the prize if one smoked. I was once invited along. I told the well dressed host I was registered to vote in Texas. He said to me, "I think we can fix that." I wondered why New Mexico accepted bus voters. New Mexico is blue and plans top stay blue. Every Pub there knows it.

Geronimo is still making his raids down through Texas?

 

[gatordad3]

Now why would a judge rule that Michigan’s Secretary of State broke state laws when changing election rules?

Maybe because she doesn’t have the authority to do so?

Do the people responsible get prosecuted? Does she lose her position? Technically, changing election rules without authority could be looked at as over throwing an administration. Could she be charged with treason? What about the co-conspirators? Did Whitmer know this was going on in her state?

Things that make you go hmm 🤔

@LizardGrad89, care to comment on this? This judge debunks your article 1 section 4 of the US constitution argument.

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.

www.breitbart.com

Breitbart actually had an article that wasn't celebrity related?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

The state SC has the same right to alter, change, adjust, reinterpret, whatever, election laws that they have with any other law.

I can now see why you think 'count every vote' is fine.

Let me help you: The Supreme Court, whether it be at the state or national level, has one job: Interpret the law.

They do NOT *change* the law. That's the role of legislators.

Re-read that last sentence until you understand. And stop supporting cheating just because you think your side benefits.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

What a fudging joke.

Republicans have done nothing for the past 30 years but try to keep eligible voters from voting. You don't want one person one vote, you want one Republican, one vote. Otherwise, the Republican party would be all about early voting, access for voting, registering for voting (and you can do all these things and still have security), BUT YOU ARE NOT. Republicans work very hard to do the exact opposite, and make voting as difficult and restrictive as possible, because they believe they do better with low turnout.

You want one person one vote?

Ok, first, increase ease of registration. You want picture ID's? Fine. But put in place plans to make sure everybody can get one. Second, expand early voting and have roundups for voters using mass transit. These can be government sponsored, and rural areas can do them on the weekend with school buses. Fourth, ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The spirit of "one person one vote" is that everybody has a vote, and all votes are equal. When a Wyoming vote is worth twice what a California vote is worth, all votes are not equal. We need to get over the fiction that states elect the President. The PEOPLE elect the President.

And you also need to get over the idea that mail in voting is bad. We have 5 states that do almost all mail in voting and have for a long time. Was never an issue until Republicans decided to use it as a red herring so they could pass even more restrictions on voting. This is why we need (a better version of) HR1. It's past time to stop the Republican assault on voting rights.

Good lord so much ignorance it's disgusting.

Republicans want EVERYONE to vote. But only ONCE. I know you are just repeating dem talking points like you have all your life but do you realize how racist you sound? You treat minorities like they are morons that don't know how to register to vote or get an ID unless you come to their house and hold their hand while they sign an 'X' on a card.

As for your spin that people in rural areas can't register or don't have access, brother I've lived most of my life in a rural area where you have to drive 5 days to find sunshine. I have never in my life encountered a SINGLE person who has said they can't vote cause they can't go register. This is a complete lie and myth by the dems, and again, it shows that dems think minorities (especially blacks) are morons that can't figure out how to get a ride somewhere to register to vote. According to the dems, there are blacks in their 80s in rural communities that have never voted in their lives, because they are too stupid to figure out where they need to go to get registered or how to get a ride there.

Again, stop being a racist idiot.

As for your idiocy about abolishing the Electoral College, this proves you have no idea what it is, what it does, or why the Founding Fathers added it.

If we abolish the Electoral College, then popular vote decides who the President is. "Yay! That's what we want!' I can hear you screaming.

Are you insane?

What happens if popular vote decides the President? Then the most populous states decide the President. That would be California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.

So every 4 years, those 5 states decide who our President is. So every 4 years, candidates will ONLY campaign in those 5 states, and IGNORE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. Increasingly, candidates will also be former governors and senators from those 5 states.

Under your plan, effectively 90% of the states and 60% of the voters will have almost no say in who our President is. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to see that corrupt politicians would try to control the voting and election process, so they created the Electoral College.

Under the EC, EVERY state's voting populace has a say in the election. Not just 5 states, but 50.

That's why the dems want to abolish the EC. They want red states to have NO say in who the President is. But now you can see why the dems want this. The LAST thing they want is EVERYONE having a vote and EVERYONE having a say.

They only want voters who they think will vote DEMOCRAT to have a say. That's why they want to abolish the Electoral College. That's why they are against Voter ID. That's why they favor open borders, cause they think illegals will vote dem.

Any honest, moral and decent person wants a free and fair election. One person, one vote.

The dems are not these people.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There are some targeted laws out there that is trying to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Georgia have same something called "souls to the polls", that's when after church on Sunday, a bus will take black people to go early vote. A republican in Georgia purposed a law to eliminate Sunday voting and make it illegal to bus voters. It has the backing of all state Republicans in Georgia, except Brian Kemp and the LT. Governor Duncan. Even they said it's going to far but Kemp said he signed the bill if it stays in there. That's the racist stuff I see but not voter IDs.

"Souls to the Polls" happens in most Southern states, especially those along the East coast. The Republicans want to eliminate this practice because guess who is driving the blacks to the polls and get who the pastors typically are?

Democrats. And guess how those democratic pastors are encouraging their 'flock' to vote?

If Republicans were doing this, you'd be against it too.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You love the easiest path to fraudulent elections.

Bingo. This is really all that needs to be said.

 

[BCSpell]

I can now see why you think 'count every vote' is fine.

Let me help you: The Supreme Court, whether it be at the state or national level, has one job: Interpret the law.

They do NOT *change* the law. That's the role of legislators.

Re-read that last sentence until you understand. And stop supporting cheating just because you think your side benefits.

Just like what Roberts did with Obama care was unconstitutional. He changed the word penalty to tax, because it was illegal to charge a penalty, but okay to charge a tax. What he should have done was voted no, and force the Congress to fix the bad language. Of course that would have been difficult. That would have forced Congress to actually read the bill so they could find the bad language.

 

[BCSpell]

Good lord so much ignorance it's disgusting.

Republicans want EVERYONE to vote. But only ONCE. I know you are just repeating dem talking points like you have all your life but do you realize how racist you sound? You treat minorities like they are morons that don't know how to register to vote or get an ID unless you come to their house and hold their hand while they sign an 'X' on a card.

As for your spin that people in rural areas can't register or don't have access, brother I've lived most of my life in a rural area where you have to drive 5 days to find sunshine. I have never in my life encountered a SINGLE person who has said they can't vote cause they can't go register. This is a complete lie and myth by the dems, and again, it shows that dems think minorities (especially blacks) are morons that can't figure out how to get a ride somewhere to register to vote. According to the dems, there are blacks in their 80s in rural communities that have never voted in their lives, because they are too stupid to figure out where they need to go to get registered or how to get a ride there.

Again, stop being a racist idiot.

As for your idiocy about abolishing the Electoral College, this proves you have no idea what it is, what it does, or why the Founding Fathers added it.

If we abolish the Electoral College, then popular vote decides who the President is. "Yay! That's what we want!' I can hear you screaming.

Are you insane?

What happens if popular vote decides the President? Then the most populous states decide the President. That would be California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.

So every 4 years, those 5 states decide who our President is. So every 4 years, candidates will ONLY campaign in those 5 states, and IGNORE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. Increasingly, candidates will also be former governors and senators from those 5 states.

Under your plan, effectively 90% of the states and 60% of the voters will have almost no say in who our President is. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to see that corrupt politicians would try to control the voting and election process, so they created the Electoral College.

Under the EC, EVERY state's voting populace has a say in the election. Not just 5 states, but 50.

That's why the dems want to abolish the EC. They want red states to have NO say in who the President is. But now you can see why the dems want this. The LAST thing they want is EVERYONE having a vote and EVERYONE having a say.

They only want voters who they think will vote DEMOCRAT to have a say. That's why they want to abolish the Electoral College. That's why they are against Voter ID. That's why they favor open borders, cause they think illegals will vote dem.

Any honest, moral and decent person wants a free and fair election. One person, one vote.

The dems are not these people.

Also, the US is not a Democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. In a democracy, the voting majority rule with almost unlimited power. The voting minority have few protections (This is why Dems keep trying to turn us into a Democracy). In a Republic, the people from every state elect representatives, and a constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.

 

[jfegaly]

ALL of that bullshit is just........bullshit.
You want picture ID's? Fine.
You need picture ID to receive welfare, HUD housing, why is that such a hardship again?
When a Wyoming vote is worth twice what a California vote is worth, all votes are not equal.
You hate the Constitution? Fine, just state you are a fvcking commie. Noted. We'll just let NY and CA decide all elections and suspend the other states.
And you also need to get over the idea that mail in voting is bad.
You love the easiest path to fraudulent elections. Remember, the goal of communists is to eliminate elections altogether. Duly noted again!

You aren't about voting rights, you are all about making America Venezuela Again!

Correct. He is the guy that said count every vote when he was asked a specific question, and that question was a simple one with two choices directed at him. Should we 1.) count every legal vote or 2.) count every vote. He chose option 2 when given those choices. Then, after two or three months of taking a beating he came up with a ridiculous narrative to try and make it not seem as bad when every damn person on the board had given him a chance for months to recant that position. He is ridiculous.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Just like what Roberts did with Obama care was unconstitutional. He changed the word penalty to tax, because it was illegal to charge a penalty, but okay to charge a tax. What he should have done was voted no, and force the Congress to fix the bad language. Of course that would have been difficult. That would have forced Congress to actually read the bill so they could find the bad language.

But even changing it to a tax left us with an unconstitutional tax because it was not based on income. It failed the original tax clauses which are still in effect when creating a tax that isn't an income based tax. Congress does not have absolute taxing authority. It is constrained by the original clause and the 16th amendment. Wealth taxes are unconstitutional but that will not stop Warren et al from trying to pass them.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Just like what Roberts did with Obama care was unconstitutional. He changed the word penalty to tax, because it was illegal to charge a penalty, but okay to charge a tax. What he should have done was voted no, and force the Congress to fix the bad language. Of course that would have been difficult. That would have forced Congress to actually read the bill so they could find the bad language.

Exactly. That's why @LizardGrad89 thinks the role of the Supreme Court is to CHANGE the laws. Because that's what dem judges typically do.

What did Scalia say? He said if you don't like my rulings, then talk to the guys across the street. I can only rule on the laws they make.

Scalia understood that the role of the Supreme Court is to rule on the law AS WRITTEN. Not to CHANGE the law, then rule.

Why did Roberts have a screaming fit at fellow SC judges over the Texas case? Cause he didn't want them to rule on the law as written.

And he got his way. And Lady Justice wept.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Correct. He is the guy that said count every vote when he was asked a specific question, and that question was a simple one with two choices directed at him. Should we 1.) count every legal vote or 2.) count every vote. He chose option 2 when given those choices. Then, after two or three months of taking a beating he came up with a ridiculous narrative to try and make it not seem as bad when every damn person on the board had given him a chance for months to recant that position. He is ridiculous.

@LizardGrad89 thinks the rules and laws should only apply to 'the other guys' and that his guys have the power to change the laws as they see fit, and follow them selectively as they see fit.

Children know better.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Good lord so much ignorance it's disgusting.

Republicans want EVERYONE to vote. But only ONCE. I know you are just repeating dem talking points like you have all your life but do you realize how racist you sound? You treat minorities like they are morons that don't know how to register to vote or get an ID unless you come to their house and hold their hand while they sign an 'X' on a card.

As for your spin that people in rural areas can't register or don't have access, brother I've lived most of my life in a rural area where you have to drive 5 days to find sunshine. I have never in my life encountered a SINGLE person who has said they can't vote cause they can't go register. This is a complete lie and myth by the dems, and again, it shows that dems think minorities (especially blacks) are morons that can't figure out how to get a ride somewhere to register to vote. According to the dems, there are blacks in their 80s in rural communities that have never voted in their lives, because they are too stupid to figure out where they need to go to get registered or how to get a ride there.

Again, stop being a racist idiot.

As for your idiocy about abolishing the Electoral College, this proves you have no idea what it is, what it does, or why the Founding Fathers added it.

If we abolish the Electoral College, then popular vote decides who the President is. "Yay! That's what we want!' I can hear you screaming.

Are you insane?

What happens if popular vote decides the President? Then the most populous states decide the President. That would be California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.

So every 4 years, those 5 states decide who our President is. So every 4 years, candidates will ONLY campaign in those 5 states, and IGNORE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. Increasingly, candidates will also be former governors and senators from those 5 states.

Under your plan, effectively 90% of the states and 60% of the voters will have almost no say in who our President is. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to see that corrupt politicians would try to control the voting and election process, so they created the Electoral College.

Under the EC, EVERY state's voting populace has a say in the election. Not just 5 states, but 50.

That's why the dems want to abolish the EC. They want red states to have NO say in who the President is. But now you can see why the dems want this. The LAST thing they want is EVERYONE having a vote and EVERYONE having a say.

They only want voters who they think will vote DEMOCRAT to have a say. That's why they want to abolish the Electoral College. That's why they are against Voter ID. That's why they favor open borders, cause they think illegals will vote dem.

Any honest, moral and decent person wants a free and fair election. One person, one vote.

The dems are not these people.

I'm a registered Republican. I want U. S. citizens to vote. I don't want non citizens in Kaliforna voting who happen to hold a Kalifornia Driver License.

A popular vote means Gay Bay, L A, Chicago, NYC , Boston decides all presidential elections. Our founders were brilliant in designing the Electoral College. These cities are slum and crime ridden and reflect Biden dreams for the entire country.

And yes. I've walked the 'hoods of every one of these sewers.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

A popular vote means Gay Bay

That's San Francisco for any fry cooks from Rio Linda.