Connecticut judge overturns election results after video showed brazen ballot box stuffing

a reply to: Klassified

As much as constitutionally possible it feels like. Like Huckabee's response to Joe's rambling State of the Union came off like Christian Warrior call to arms stuff.

Picking specific breeds of neocons over moderates bugs me. But that's the direction the party wants to go. McCarthy wasn't neocon enough or something? A willingness to to be bipartisan got him axed? And I really get a creeped out "religious hypocrite" feeling from the new speaker.

It's the preference for increasingly right people that bugs me. That moderates are no longer called moderates. They are now called RINO's and traitors and forced to either polarize or fall out of favor.

Gotta vote my conscience on this...

a reply to: Degradation33

This is because the moderates and the go-along to get along Republican elite are out of touch with the base voters, more and more, and that base is tired of it.

The Tea Party became MAGA. Do you miss the Tea Party?

Ignore MAGA at their own peril.

a reply to: Degradation33

Somebody will ask to see a birth certificate. Probably not natural born American.

Better go with Tahquitz.

Tahquitz 2024
Real American Choice

a reply to: FullHeathen

Well, I'm actually split between desired joke candidates. I mean I'm all for total madness, but I also care about Carl's Jr. and microwave burritos, so there's two equally compelling candidates to totally give into political apathy with... I'm undecided.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you think that's part of what happened in 2020?

When evidence of cheating was found, do you think that in some cases it was decided to allow it for whatever reason(s)?

Yes, I think cheating happened, but not at a level that altered the election.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Blaine91555

Early on the facts were established by other sources as well as the source in the OP.

So any source challenge should have ended there, and it didn't. It went back and forth for quite a bit after multiple sources confirmed the facts.

To continue to argue about the source derailed the thread. I just pointed out where it went south.

Well, we all have our own opinions. Everyone is entitled to theirs.

a reply to: Degradation33

Political debates will never end.

a reply to: Blaine91555

If you want to make a thread about media bias, and what sources belong where on the spectrum, please do. It will be a fun thread.

It's just not the subject of THIS thread.

Thanks.

a reply to: IndieA

They gave up on signature checking, the factoid they don't want you to know.

It was a test case that badly failed.

It turns out your signature changes quite a bit over time. When you signed your registration years or decades ago, they aren't going to match. So the software kicks it out. When you have too many rejects to handle manually, only thing you can do to get the job done is loosen the screws on the software so you don't get so many rejects.

It's simple, and nobody knows it.

Back when you had absentee voting and not mass mail in voting, you had a recent signature on the request. And there was far fewer to validate manually and not AI

Basically,. mass mail in voting is trusting the AI