Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4389
    MEMBERS
  • 91904
    MESSAGES
  • 22
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Would you eat at a computerized restaurant?   The Consumer You: Marketplace

Started 4/28/21 by Showtalk; 4128 views.
In reply toRe: msg 39
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/28/21

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

5/28/21

YWN666 said...

In lawsuits alleging election fraud, Trump supporters described what they saw, heard and suspected. Many of their allegations crumbled under scrutiny.

But what happened to the over 140 affidavits swearing under oath with notarization that they saw fraud? If they were lying, they could be jailed. Thus the judge should have allowed their affidavits to be entered into court records. Had they lied... they would have to pay the price by spending time in jail for lying. But the judge didn't want that... because the evidence they swore was correct was in fact absolutely as they swore two. Therefore the just should have let them perjure themselves if they were lying. That would have worked in the Democrats favor. 

But the judge didn't do that... the judge dismissed all 140 some odd affidavits! Had the just allowed those affidavits to be admitted in court, and had they been prove all to be lying... that would have been a major victory for the Democrat party... 140 GOP supporting liars. Now that would have been a bombshell report... BUT ONLY IF... they were all lying!

The main thing here is that the judge didn't decide to side with the Democrats and prove that all of these 140 affidavit submitted people were lying... but the judge did the exact opposite... the judge denied their sworn testimonies from ever entering into the courts.

If they were lying... it would have been in the Democrat's favor. If they were telling the truth however, it would have been in the Republican's favor.

And thus... the judge didn't want to take a change of tarnishing the Democrat image and decided not to accept their affidavits.

If you can come up with a better explanation, I'm all ears, but from what I see, more than 140 affidavit signed people swore there was fraud and the judge denied each and every one of their sworn affidavits.

That only spells out a cover up. Can you pull something out of a magical bag saying otherwise?

If those 140 individuals were all lying... the judge should have allowed their affidavits to be entered into court record and gone to court!

FWIW

 

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

5/28/21

YWN666 said...

I'm sorry but this is all nonsense that is wasting the Court's time and resources.  The allegations were reviewed in numerous court cases over and over and over and no significant voter fraud was found. It's even sillier to allege that there is some grand conspiracy in place to deny what you claim is obvious fraud.  I also find it ironic that this alleged massive fraud only happened in jurisdictions where Democrats won.  In those districts where Republicans won, everything was just fine!

Hillary Clinton still hasn't gotten over the 2016 election loss that she incurred... and that was 5 years ago!

Wisconsin election managers referred 41 voter fraud cases to prosecutors over 5-year period

(The Center Square) – The Wisconsin Elections Commission released a report this week detailing the 41 voter fraud cases that local clerks have turned over to local prosecutors in recent years.

“We want the public to understand that we take these matters seriously,” Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe said.

The report covers fraud cases that date as far back as 2016.

 

“This report shows that, once again, we have voter fraud in Wisconsin,” Brett Healy, president at the MacIver Institute, told The Center Square. “While this one partial review found dozens if not hundreds of illegal votes, what should really concern every voter – Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal – is that this has been going on for some time in Wisconsin.”

 

The report details more than just 41 instances of voter fraud. The count in the details of the report is closer to 300 cases, though not all of them were referred for charges.

The Elections Commission explains the cases cover all manner of fraud, from voting in-person and through the mail, to felons voting, and people voting in Wisconsin and other states.

Healy said the question is not how much voter fraud is occurring.

 

“No amount of voter fraud is acceptable,” Healy said. “We cannot and should not downplay voter fraud. Our politicians, the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC), local clerks and every District Attorney in this state should make voter fraud a priority.”

Wolfe announced that the Elections Commission will meet next week to talk about the report and the findings.

“Election officials and law enforcement across Wisconsin work together proactively to prevent, identify and prosecute suspected cases of voter fraud,” Wolfe said.

She did not say how many voter fraud cases have ended with convictions.

Healy said instead of meeting, the Elections Commission should be calling on lawmakers for change.

“We need tighter laws. We need WEC to follow the law and not ignore certain safeguards. We need clerks to actively root out fraud,” Healy said. “Voters need to read this report and demand that all politicians give this the attention it deserves.”

https://www.thecentersquare.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-election-managers-referred-41-voter-fraud-cases-to-prosecutors-over-5-year-period/article_b97a1cd0-bd98-11eb-a410-bb7e1110c223.html

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/28/21

That is not true.  The judges refused to allow them to look further at the voting machines or ballots. They didn’t find fraud because they did not look. That is all people are asking about. To have unbiased people with ability to look into the allegations.  They were not even given that much.  

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/28/21

The term is gaslighting.  If enough outlets repeat the information, then it must be true.  But they are carefully leaving out the facts that the people running then investigations don’t want the actual claims looked into.  It’s similar to Fauci very carefully saying our country did not fund a specific type of research at a specific lab during a specific time.  The news actually came out that the research was funded that led to the worldwide outbreak of pandemic and it happened under his watch during the Obama administration.  

This kind of thing is exactly why around 150 million people are convinced irregularities happened during the election and they were covered up.   I’ve said before what happened is statistically impossible and numbers don’t lie, people do.  The concern isn’t 2020 anymore, it’s whether 2022 and 2024 will be honest and fair elections.  

YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/29/21

WALTER784 said:

But what happened to the over 140 affidavits swearing under oath with notarization that they saw fraud? If they were lying, they could be jailed.

Yes, and that is explained in the links I posted.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/29/21

It comes down to one main issue, which is just going back and looking at the results. Why are they so afraid for that to happen? If there is really nothing to find, then everyone will be satisfied and it will be over.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

5/29/21

YWN666 said...

WALTER784 said:

But what happened to the over 140 affidavits swearing under oath with notarization that they saw fraud? If they were lying, they could be jailed.

Yes, and that is explained in the links I posted.

And if your posts were the case... then they should have no problem going through the actual ballots and auditing them.

However, those who attempt to perform an audit are turned down... why would they be turned down if the election were fair? An audit would only prove whether it was fair or not. And if it were fair, then there should be no reason for turning down the requests for the audit. Something is fishy here. And a full forensics audit would clarify that fishy situation up. So why the hesitancy to have the audits move forward?

If there's nothing to hide... there's nothing to hide... and thus the audits should be allowed to proceed as requested!

FWIW

 

YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

That has been done multiple times in multiple courts and the result has been the same every time - Trump lost and there was no fraud.  Many Republicans have even come out and told Trump to stop the charade.

In reply toRe: msg 48
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

TOP