Why is Arizona SO SLOW to count ballots??? (landlord, college)

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

She could end up being T's running mate, too. The only qualification being that you kiss the ring. But he likes her a lot.

I don’t know. He hates losers. Despite being one himself, I think his stock in her will dwindle once it’s official.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by kell490

That could be where Lake ends up she does check all the boxes for him she attractive i'm sure he likes that. Reminds me of Sarah Palin.

Yes, me too. A smarter version though, I'm sure she could name a newspaper or magazine if asked.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

I don’t know. He hates losers. Despite being one himself, I think his stock in her will dwindle once it’s official.

That's true. Unless he makes her the poster child along with him, for "victims of stolen elections".

[frankrj]

Originally Posted by FlurryCat

There is zero evidence that vote-by-mail increases the risk of fraud. The idea that it does, and any doubt sown by that risk, which again, does not exist, is just part of the election-denier strategy.

FACTS: I'm not biased. I could care less who wins b/c IMO the govt. is corrupt no matter if it's the Rep or Dem. party. Life experiences and knowing former people who've held political office convinced me. Nope, I'm not one of them anon or conspiracy everything people either. It's good to be critical and draw logical conclusions from science "all the time" not only when it suits your belief, cause, or political party.

1. non-residents and non-citizens should not be allowed to vote period. This is just common sense.

I can't go vote in other countries as a non-resident or non-citizen either. This is a simple concept and common sense.

I did a search for mail in ballot fraud prior to 2014 so you understand I am not aligned with DT and prefer he not campaign or be elected. Same for Joe. When they speak I just cringe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mail...31%2F2014&tbm=

Well, look at all the trusted sources, Washington Post, NYT,
A lengthy PhD. report from Columbia University.
http://www.projectvote.org/wp-conten...raud_Final.pdf

"An examiination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice"

Now, you can go debate with those "trusted" sources and their facts instead of replying with a quick, "no, it does not exist" which is inaccurate.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by frankrj

Well, look at all the trusted sources, Washington Post, NYT,
A lengthy PhD. report from Columbia University.
http://www.projectvote.org/wp-conten...raud_Final.pdf

"An exam*ination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice"

Now, you can go debate with those "trusted" sources and their facts instead of replying with a quick, "not it does not exist erroneous statement."

I am going to take your word (your projectvote.org link).

Did you read it? Because it clearly states: (don't believe me, this time actually read it). In case you forgot, I copied the link you gave us here http://www.projectvote.org/wp-conten...raud_Final.pdf

In fact, it says: "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral
system."

key findings
"• Voter fraud is extremely rare. At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were
convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight
people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews
of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible.

AND:
"• Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud."
AND
"• The more complex are the rules regulating voter registration and voting, the more likely voter mistakes,
clerical errors, and the like will be wrongly identified as “fraud.”


I can go on but I won't. i.e., you proved that fraud never adds up to anything but B.S. And this comes from your "trusted source".

[OUgrad09]

As an FYI...

Six days after Election Day, Utah has only counted ~84% of its votes. You're not hearing much about it because key races were not close and were quickly projected.

[frankrj]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I am going to take your word (your projectvote.org link).

Did you read it? Because it clearly states: (don't believe me, this time actually read it). In case you forgot, I copied the link you gave us here http://www.projectvote.org/wp-conten...raud_Final.pdf

In fact, it says: "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral
system."

key findings
"• Voter fraud is extremely rare. At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were
convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight
people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews
of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible.

AND:
"• Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud."
AND
"• The more complex are the rules regulating voter registration and voting, the more likely voter mistakes,
clerical errors, and the like will be wrongly identified as “fraud.”


I can go on but I won't. i.e., you proved that fraud never adds up to anything but B.S. And this comes from your "trusted source".

No. I didn't read that "one" from projectvote.org. Is it the "pillar of trust"?
The problem is many websites are partisan and crucial information is omitted intentionally to garner support.

Did you read all of them or cherry pick that source to back up a belief? To comment there is zero fraud or zero chances for fraud is ridiculous when it is built by us. Our country has some of the best minds for crime, corruption, and controlling society's emotions with fear. You cannot underestimate the level that some will go.

Of course, I don't believe there's widespread fraud or enough fraud to change the candidate in each state. In some instances yes it does happen but of course it's rare.

I'm saying the mail-in ballot system does not instill trust and presents more opportunity for fraud. And there's proof but not a substantial amount of fraud to change the outcome [so far] that we know of].

If you focus on "fraud" like the media or DT and assume I'm suggesting 10-500k votes were fraudulent that's a bad assumption.
I don't care about politics, DT, Biden, Obama and all their BS. I did like Bill because of the economy but later found out they had dishonest dealings. It's just not my passion or life but for some it is when I engage them. I can easily live outside the country again. The problem is my target country has become more corrupt than here and their corruption isn't even hidden. lol.

I won't go on b/c this will go on forever just like a person's religious or atheist beliefs or even sadder things Americans believe.

[WanderingRebel]

I just want to add that with all the corrupt stuff our government has done over the years (Iran Contra, Citizens for a Free Kuwait PR scam, MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, etc) to it's own people - some of you on here think it's absolutely impossible for our government to alter elections. Like, you think the government all of a sudden just got holy and only do things for the good of our nation. It's laughable.

And I'm not an election denier. I'm not a Trumper. I'm a libertarian through and through. I have a healthy distaste and distrust of the government.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

I don’t know. He hates losers. Despite being one himself, I think his stock in her will dwindle once it’s official.

On the one hand, you're absolutely correct. But on the other, if she is loud and unrelenting enough about her win being "stolen," and draws a recount out, etc, then spends the interceding time frame a darling of the far-right media, he may decide she has enough momentum to outweigh being "a loser" (like him).

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by kell490

That could be where Lake ends up she does check all the boxes for him she attractive i'm sure he likes that. Reminds me of Sarah Palin.

The MILFy-ness for sure doesn't hurt, but I don't think she's Eastern European or blonde enough for his personal tastes. Trump's tastes are pretty well-defined; think one of those posters from the 80's that has a Lamborghini Countach with a leggy, bleach blonde model with bright red lips in a string bikini, in a mansion with a white tiger rug.

I don't think power suits and short hair do it for him.