There needs to be consequences for breaking the law

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Reports are coming out that a number of Democrat-run precincts aren't allowing Republican poll watchers or are limiting them.

So they cheat, Kamala wins, the lawsuits and investigations show that they did indeed cheat and break the law.....and then....?

Nothing.

Nothing happens.

Oh well, better luck next time.

The Democrats go full Stalin and punish anyone who questions it - like they did when Biden "won" - and they can because we don't have an opposition party. They'll say questioning the election is a ....let's say it together...THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY!!!

That's some third world bullshit right there.

I think if you cheat an election the punishment should be death. Make an example out of them. It'll only take one or two, then it'll only take out the ones who refuse to learn and good riddance to them anyway.

There needs to be consequences for election fraud. The people trying to keep things honest shouldn't be the ones who get punished.
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
Death penalty for any Democrat crime.

Sentence to be carried out within 24 hours.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Reports are coming out that a number of Democrat-run precincts aren't allowing Republican poll watchers or are limiting them.

So they cheat, Kamala wins, the lawsuits and investigations show that they did indeed cheat and break the law.....and then....?

Nothing.

Nothing happens.
Click to expand...
And I am finding out WHY. Most judges won't listen at all to a challenge if the race is certified. As far as they are concerned, the law has spoken and the race is over. In some races, certification happens inside A WEEK - way too fast to mount a challenge and gather evidence. I was just reading about a governor's race where analysts were able to clearly show that the distribution of votes was statistically impossible - and yet the judge refused to further the case, because they were private citizens examining the outcome, and private citizens are not legally permitted to look at the voter data.

So there you have it. Cheating is rubber-stamped and if you can cheat and have it certified - tough sht. NOTHING will happen.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SamSpade said:
And I am finding out WHY. Most judges won't listen at all to a challenge if the race is certified. As far as they are concerned, the law has spoken and the race is over. In some races, certification happens inside A WEEK - way too fast to mount a challenge and gather evidence. I was just reading about a governor's race where analysts were able to clearly show that the distribution of votes was statistically impossible - and yet the judge refused to further the case, because they were private citizens examining the outcome, and private citizens are not legally permitted to look at the voter data.

So there you have it. Cheating is rubber-stamped and if you can cheat and have it certified - tough sht. NOTHING will happen.
Click to expand...

So here's the thing:

Kamala will be certifying results for...herself. So what is to stop her from doing that before the ballots have been counted and the electors have given their votes? Or bribing the electors to cast for her before the results come in?

What's to stop her from cheating like the Commie dictator she longs to be?

That's a real question because I want to learn something.

@Ken King get in on this :yay:
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Kyle said:
Which leaves only one way to rectify it.
Click to expand...
But it kind of explains WHY these things don't get many challenges - and that they often don't succeed. And they are often dismssed without any examination. The REASON given is, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the election, but THAT is because it's been CERTIFIED. It's MADDENING. You can outright, solidly cheat and if you certify it fast enough - it's all over but the crying.

So there's another reason for drawing out the process of determining the winner - if you can't challenge it until the votes are finished, the shorter the time to certification, the better - IF you cheated. Because even if they can PROVE it, nothing can be done.
 
L

LtownTaxpayer

Active Member
SamSpade said:
And I am finding out WHY. Most judges won't listen at all to a challenge if the race is certified. As far as they are concerned, the law has spoken and the race is over. In some races, certification happens inside A WEEK - way too fast to mount a challenge and gather evidence. I was just reading about a governor's race where analysts were able to clearly show that the distribution of votes was statistically impossible - and yet the judge refused to further the case, because they were private citizens examining the outcome, and private citizens are not legally permitted to look at the voter data.

So there you have it. Cheating is rubber-stamped and if you can cheat and have it certified - tough sht. NOTHING will happen.
Click to expand...
Most of the challenges are rejected on procedural grounds - not the facts of the case. The judges never get to the facts.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
LtownTaxpayer said:
Most of the challenges are rejected on procedural grounds - not the facts of the case. The judges never get to the facts.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. And I am not making a case for 2020, although evidence is LEGION for impropriety. One of the problems with establishing voter fraud is, you can't just SHOW that something impossible happened - you have to be able to CHARGE someone with a crime. Well so the hell what? All of a sudden at 2am one candidate gets a sudden rush of 200,000 votes. WHO is guilty? Without a defendant - a person, a company - there's nothing you can do.

It's like finding a dead body with a knife in the back, but dropping the case because you have only a month to find a suspect and the case is closed.
 
Grumpy

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Reports are coming out that a number of Democrat-run precincts aren't allowing Republican poll watchers or are limiting them.

So they cheat, Kamala wins, the lawsuits and investigations show that they did indeed cheat and break the law.....and then....?

Nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, I thought you knew that no Republican, anywhere, has standing to bring a case before the courts
 
stgislander

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
And I am finding out WHY. Most judges won't listen at all to a challenge if the race is certified. As far as they are concerned, the law has spoken and the race is over. In some races, certification happens inside A WEEK - way too fast to mount a challenge and gather evidence. I was just reading about a governor's race where analysts were able to clearly show that the distribution of votes was statistically impossible - and yet the judge refused to further the case, because they were private citizens examining the outcome, and private citizens are not legally permitted to look at the voter data.

So there you have it. Cheating is rubber-stamped and if you can cheat and have it certified - tough sht. NOTHING will happen.
Click to expand...
I think this is why the RNC has a ton of lawyers in each state. To get these issues before a judge before election day. It also allows appeals all the way up to SCOTUS before election day.
 
L

LtownTaxpayer

Active Member
SamSpade said:
Yes, exactly. And I am not making a case for 2020, although evidence is LEGION for impropriety. One of the problems with establishing voter fraud is, you can't just SHOW that something impossible happened - you have to be able to CHARGE someone with a crime. Well so the hell what? All of a sudden at 2am one candidate gets a sudden rush of 200,000 votes. WHO is guilty? Without a defendant - a person, a company - there's nothing you can do.

It's like finding a dead body with a knife in the back, but dropping the case because you have only a month to find a suspect and the case is closed.
Click to expand...
And you can't bring any evidence before the voting happens. Classic catch-22.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
stgislander said:
I think this is why the RNC has a ton of lawyers in each state. To get these issues before a judge before election day. It also allows appeals all the way up to SCOTUS before election day.
Click to expand...
I need to just write to some group like Project Veritas and have them declare - openly - "We're going to cheat on behalf of the Republicans - CATCH US IF YOU CAN".

Because as long as cheating cannot be effectively challenged in court - there's no reason to stop doing it.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
So here's the thing:

Kamala will be certifying results for...herself. So what is to stop her from doing that before the ballots have been counted and the electors have given their votes? Or bribing the electors to cast for her before the results come in?
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll try to cover it as best I can. I'll include links to the law.
  1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on election day, in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day. 3 USC 1
  2. Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day. 3 USC 5
  3. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day. 3 USC 7
  4. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates of votes one of the certificates of ascertainment of appointment of electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State. 3 USC 9
  5. On 6 Jan at 1:00 PM Congress will be in joint session. As to the powers of the President of the Senate "The President of the Senate shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors." 3 USC 15 This section also contains the process of submitting objections, which have changed. Used to be that only one member of the House and one from the Senate was needed for a challenge, now 1/5th of each chamber is required
vraiblonde said:
What's to stop her from cheating like the Commie dictator she longs to be?

That's a real question because I want to learn something.

@Ken King get in on this :yay:
Click to expand...
So any and all challenges pertaining to the actual election would need to be brought and handled between election day and prior to the executive of each state certifying the appointment of electors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top