Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there will be a lot more oversight in future elections after the shenanigans in 2020. They can start by not mailing out ballots like they're E-Z Shopper flyers. If you want a mail-in ballot, ask for one. Voters need to be registered. That is imperative and not at all difficult. Anyone that says otherwise is probably a Democrat that is a) worried about losing and b) doesn't care about fraud. Hello Kamala.
With strict oversight of what is being counted, how it's being counted, and who's doing the counting just might ensure a more fair and legitimate process, but you can never put it past the Democrats to find a way around it. It's what they do. Their philosophy about everything is that if you don't like the rules, either change the rules or cheat.
In this private fantasy world you have where Republicans follow rules and who is the Republican leader in the Senate? Is it McConnell? Then please explain how McConnells behavior with the judiciary is “following the rules”.
You mean how McConnell shepherded the Senate to give advice and consent to the President's Supreme Court nominee, in accordance with their Constitutionally mandated duty?
No, SCOTUS didn't disagree. They just refused to consider the merits of the cases filed that objected to the unconstitutionality of several states' elections. That's a complete abdication of their sworn oath to support and defend the US Constitution. They're a sham court. SCOTUS is meaningless because it doesn't fulfill its function. No wonder their approval rating has tanked.
Federal courts disagreed and the Supremes voted to not intervene. What I said stands. The courts disagreed with your interpretation.
I think there will be a lot more oversight in future elections after the shenanigans in 2020. They can start by not mailing out ballots like they're E-Z Shopper flyers. If you want a mail-in ballot, ask for one. Voters need to be registered. That is imperative and not at all difficult. Anyone that says otherwise is probably a Democrat that is a) worried about losing and b) doesn't care about fraud. Hello Kamala.
With strict oversight of what is being counted, how it's being counted, and who's doing the counting just might ensure a more fair and legitimate process, but you can never put it past the Democrats to find a way around it. It's what they do. Their philosophy about everything is that if you don't like the rules, either change the rules or cheat.
That's the thing. Unless state legislatures passed a law allowing the mass mailing of absentee ballots without them even being requested before the 2020 election, then it was unconstitutional for states to mass mail them.
Once the power is grabbed and they control the majority of the country with the popular vote and influx of new voters through quick pathways to citizenship and now there is loopholes/cheating, there is no letting go
Once the power is grabbed...power wasn't grabbed, it was won in a free election...and they control the majority of the country with the popular vote...yes, thanks for reminding us that Dems have won the popular vote for POTUS in 7 of the last 8 elections......new voters through quick pathways to citizenship....none have been established yet........and now there is loopholes/cheating........interesting: you haven't been able to show evidence for cheating, so now you're branching out to "loopholes", whatever that means.
Clearly your best hope is that Biden continues to slip up (self-inflicted wounds) and you'll want to have a decent candidate (not Trump) to offer a credible alternative.
Whether they cheated or not is irrelevant. The problem is that several states held unconstitutional federal elections and SCOTUS, contrary to their sworn oath, just stood by and let it happen and let the results of the unconstitutional elections stand.
How were they unconstitutional? In several states, members of either the executive or judicial branches made changes to election procedures. Per the US Constitution, only state legislatures can do so.
The SCOTUS has no role to play in elections, under the Constitution. Congress receives the votes from each states' electors. Those electors are chosen by the states under state law. If anyone feels that a state's governing body has violated that state's election laws, it should be brought to the state supreme court to rule. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over state elections and, especially, a citizen of Texas has no grounds to sue over an election in Pennsylvania.
The SCOTUS has no role to play in elections, under the Constitution.
It does when the Constitution is violated in the process. Constitutional violations are heard at SCOTUS. That's the sole avenue of redress when states violate the Constitution, regardless of how they did so and on what issue.
It was a travesty and a complete abdication of their sworn oath that SCOTUS stood down and let several states violate the US Constitution in the process of holding their 2020 federal elections.
It's not my opinion that several states mass mailed ballots without voters' requests to do so without their legislature approving (passing in session) that change in their election procedure. That actually happened, and it was unconstitutional. None of those unconstitutional ballots should count.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
