>> Were that not the case we would know about it by now.
We do. You're just unwilling to hear it.
>> We have high level officials like Krebs and Barr who have assured us.
Krebs called it most secure election in history, which was just stupid. If you didn't roll your eyes when you heard that I don't know what to say. As to Barr, what he said was that there was no evidence, and he was specifically referring to voting machine fraud, which is true. There is no evidence that voting machines were used in a fraud in this incident. What may have happened elsewhere I do not know.
>> But your notion that the only meaningful control over any of that is having a Republican looking over the shoulder of every election official at each step at the time of execution is partisan and paranoid and ridiculously slow and costly.
No. That's why you have partisan observers for that process. Always. Until now.
There is no Democrat who could be trusted. My best friend is a hyperpartisan Democrat, I'd trust him with my life, but not my vote. Because he is going to see Orange Man Bad and anyone is better than Trump, each and every time. He can know the truth but argue the other side. Government auditor, knows about this stuff. But I wouldn't trust him with my vote.
This is a process of agreement. The agreement must occur between the time the envelope is opened and the ballot is put in the "count" pile. Otherwise, you cannot know that the count was fair. This is why in many states it is required that partisan observers be present. Unfortunately, in some states "present" has been redefined by Democrats to mean within a block or two.
You cannot have a fair count of these ballots without partisans present. That's is not to say that a fair count couldn't possibly occur, but partisans (which we all are) could never establish that a fair count occurred.
And you certainly cannot have an "audit" without partisans. By definition, an audit cannot be conducted by the same people who stole the election in the first place. Audits are defined to be "independent" and when you conduct an audit of anything you never rely on the people who are engaged in processes to begin with unless you can ascertain the process is bulletproof.
>> The time for partisan weighing in is when the procedures are set and officials designated.
I don't disagree about this. But we didn't get that, and you have to play the hand you're dealt by the locals. There was great pressure to get rid of Trump, and a lot of Republicans (like those two extreme liberals in Georgia) were in that boat.
The Supreme Court may have gotten it right -- that they shouldn't get involved with local elections, but if one is unfair as these were, that means the state makes that determination. That is not a good situation but may be the best we can get.
>> But your notion that the only meaningful control over any of that is having a Republican looking over the shoulder of every election official at each step at the time of execution is partisan and paranoid and ridiculously slow and costly.
It is also required by law, normally, but when you have rigged the election with millions of mail-in ballots, and when part of the program is for Z$ to hire leftist partisans to do all this work as part of a coordinated theft of the election, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED, then it works out perfectly, for sure. They created mail-in voting for this particular situation: The Defeat of Trump. Covid was convenient, but the American People are ever-gullible. Participants in the theft didn't even know they were participating.
I hate to admit it but Plouffe was a genius. I never really gave him credit until now.
>> You may recall one of the rulings in PA, I think it was, that, it was too late to raise an issue, that it should have been raised at the time the legislature made its decision. It's really bass-ackwards to do what you're suggesting.
While I remember it, I thought it was absurd. You raise it when you discover the theft. No one can be expected to anticipate a problem like this prior to its discovery.
Major systemic changes require testing. Always. This was the ultimate failing of the election: Democrats knew they could get away with it, this time due to high volume and creating confusion, and by blocking Republicans out of the process the problems weren't apparent until later on. This was as-planned.
I'll just ask one question: What do you think Zuckerberg spent $400 Million for? A "fair" vote? Do you believe that? Dumping cash into selected precincts in the very cities in which the election was stolen? (Keeping in mind around the country, he put cash into counties, but in Atlanta, Philly, Detroit & Milwaukee, cash was distributed to individual cities and subdistricts of cities). Why? |
