|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 10, 2020 12:24:30 GMT
Yesterday, Kelly Anne Conway went on Fox News spouting some of Trump’s nonsense and the Fox News anchor cut her off. If only it were that simple to cut off Trump.
eta - oops, my mistake. It was Kayleigh McEneny. I mix them up, they’re sometimes almost interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Nov 10, 2020 12:28:23 GMT
Yesterday, Kelly Anne Conway went on Fox News spouting some of Trump’s nonsense and the Fox News anchor cut her off. If only it were that simple to cut off Trump. It was actually Kayleigh McEnany, but I watched the tape, and it was oh, so satisfying when Bret Baier just cut her off. ETA: Whoops, now it's my time to be corrected. It was Neil Cavuto, not Bret Baier.
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,606
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 10, 2020 12:37:54 GMT
Almost half the country thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out?
This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times]
Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
Where's the source for "half the country?"
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Nov 10, 2020 13:39:21 GMT
Almost half the country thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out?
This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times]
Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
Depends on who is doing the investigation and if they can be trusted. I’m not sure who I trust within this administration currently. I think I’m ok with this as I generally trust the line prosecutors but Barr has proven he can’t be trusted.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 10, 2024 13:55:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2020 13:55:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Nov 10, 2020 15:14:38 GMT
Almost half the country thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out?
This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times]
Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
FWIW, the LA Times is behind a digital firewall. You have to be a paid subscriber to see the article. Although it seems that is a 2000 article? What is the source for half of the country thinking the election was stolen? Do you mean 4,600,000 less than half of the people who voted? Which isn’t half of the country, because not everyone votes. And yes, the difference of the popular vote is closing in on 5 MILLION people. 5 million is a LOT more - and they don’t think the election was stolen.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Nov 10, 2020 15:24:40 GMT
You know, it occurs to me that Republicans, by indulging Trump and his ridiculous lawsuits, are basically calling election officials, many of them Republicans in red states, either incompetent or corrupt. Is that what they really think? No. They don’t really think that. We all have to stop treating this like it is in good faith. It isn’t.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 10, 2020 15:31:43 GMT
You know, it occurs to me that Republicans, by indulging Trump and his ridiculous lawsuits, are basically calling election officials, many of them Republicans in red states, either incompetent or corrupt. Is that what they really think? No. They don’t really think that. We all have to stop treating this like it is in good faith. It isn’t. I know. I was being sarcastic, and it is hard to do that on the internet.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,036
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Nov 10, 2020 15:55:14 GMT
Meanwhile crickets in NC waiting for the GOP to dispute the election and the mail in ballot deadline. I guess it’s only a constitutional travesty in PA?
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 10, 2020 15:57:09 GMT
Meanwhile crickets in NC waiting for the GOP to dispute the election and the mail in ballot deadline. I guess it’s only a constitutional travesty in PA? There are some states where Trump won by a small margin as well. Maybe we need to look into those. Or, better yet, let's look for fraud in the states where Trump won by a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Restless Spirit on Nov 10, 2020 16:05:11 GMT
LA Times Article - Cut & Paste
Bush Wins in Supreme Court; Gore Is Pressured to Concede
By DAVID G. SAVAGE AND MARK Z. BARABAK
DEC. 13, 200012 AM
TIMES STAFF WRITERS
WASHINGTON — In a dramatic coda to a remarkable election, a divided U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday night for Texas Gov. George W. Bush to become the nation’s 43rd president by calling a halt to the counting of Florida’s disputed ballots.
Capping hours of suspenseful deliberations, the justices voted, 5 to 4, to overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision allowing the hand tabulations sought by Vice President Al Gore.
The Bush camp hailed the decision as an unqualified triumph. The Gore camp withheld comment pending further study of the ruling.
But pressure mounted on Gore to concede, as fellow Democrats immediately started coaxing him to abandon his postelection struggle.
“This is it,” said Ed Rendell, general chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
“Clearly the race for the presidency has come to an end,” agreed Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.).
The high court decision, a complicated skein of overlapping opinions, provided a fittingly confusing end to a campaign that has been muddled from the moment the polls closed.
The opinion in Bush vs. Gore was handed down at 10 p.m. EST, exactly five weeks after the election night debacle in which the television networks first called the presidency for Bush, then judged it too close to call.
The justices said that a hand recount would be unfair and unconstitutional because the state of Florida lacked a clear standard for deciding what is a legal vote. It is too late to set such standards, the court’s conservative majority said.
Gore hoped a recount of several thousand undervotes--ballots that failed to register a preference when run through counting machines--would help him overcome Bush’s Florida lead of fewer than 200 votes. Both candidates need the state’s 25 electoral votes to claim the White House.
But the Supreme Court’s decision suggests the court’s majority was determined to block Gore from winning the bitterly fought Florida race by hand counting disputed ballots.
The majority cited the federal law that says the state’s choice of electors “shall be conclusive” so long as all disputes are settled by Dec. 12, today, six days before the electors meet in state capitals to vote for the next president.
And by overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, the high court rejected Gore’s last remaining challenge.
All five justices in the majority are Republicans who were appointed by Presidents Nixon, Reagan or Bush.
In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, called Tuesday’s decision a “self-inflicted wound--a wound that may harm not just the court but the nation.”
The other dissenters angrily criticized the conservatives for first stopping the hand recounts on Saturday and then announcing late Tuesday that there was no time to resume them with clear standards.
“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law,” wrote dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by Republican President Ford.
The justices ruled hours after the GOP-run Florida House approved a resolution awarding the state’s 25 electors to Bush--an action that may now be moot.
In another boost for Bush, the Florida Supreme Court refused to throw out thousands of absentee ballots in Republican-leaning Seminole and Martin counties--a move that could have pushed Gore into the lead in Florida for the first time since the Nov. 7 election. The vice president was never a party to the suits, but he took a keen interest in their progress.
Ruling 6-0, the Florida justices said the absentee votes should count even though local election officials allowed GOP activists to correct absentee ballot applications that were improperly filled out. Democrats, who did not have the same opportunity, argued that Bush received more than 2,000 votes because of the arrangements--and said it amounted to election fraud.
The high court disagreed. Reading a summary of their ruling on the courthouse steps, spokesman Craig Waters said the justices could find no evidence of fraud in either case and upheld the lower courts’ rejection of the lawsuits last week.
“That’s it,” Ken Wright, an attorney for the Florida Republican Party, said after the decision. “I think the fat lady has sung.”
But the decisive blow came from the high court in Washington.
The five conservative justices were divided among themselves as to why the Florida court should be reversed. The fractured set of opinions strongly suggests that they found it much easier to agree on a result than a reason.
In the end, the ruling was surprisingly limited. The majority did not conclude that the hand recounts ordered by the Florida courts were unnecessary or illegal. Further, the high court did not rule that the Florida judges had changed the rules after election day.
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy played the decisive role. They joined their conservative colleagues only on the narrow rationale that the hand counts would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the standards were not clear and precise.
For the process to be constitutional, the unread ballots must be judged under “specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment,” they said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said in a separate, concurring opinion that they would have gone further and ruled that the state judges had unconstitutionally changed the rules for the presidential election after election day.
All four of the liberal justices--including David H. Souter, a Bush appointee, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee--issued separate dissents. Several of them accused their conservative colleagues of making up a weak federal rationale to justify overturning a state court’s interpretation of state election law.
In a partial concession, Souter and Breyer said they agreed on the need for strict, clear standards for counting ballots. But both said the problem could be easily resolved by telling the Florida courts to set a more precise standard.
During Monday’s oral argument, they suggested paper ballots that had a punch hole would count, while those that were merely indented would not.
“Unlike the majority, I see no warrant for this Court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, December 18,” Souter said in his dissent.
“I agree [on the need for] the adoption of uniform standards,” Breyer said. “Nonetheless, there is no justification for the majority’s remedy, which is simply to reverse the lower court and halt the recount entirely.”
Two weeks ago, when Bush’s lawyers appealed, the justices voted to set aside the Florida Supreme Court’s first ruling in the case, which extended the time period for a manual recounting of votes in South Florida.
On Saturday, the five conservatives voted together to stop the recounts of an estimated 43,000 ballots in Florida that went unread by the tabulating machines.
Gore’s lawyers particularly wanted to count the remaining 9,000 unread ballots from Miami-Dade County, and they told the court that could have been completed in one more day.
However, O’Connor and Kennedy agreed with the complaint voiced by Bush lawyer’s that the county-by-county hand counts would violate the Constitution’s equal treatment guarantee, a claim that most lawyers saw as unusually weak.
Since states and counties nationwide use different systems for counting votes--from electronic scanners to punch card machines and paper ballots--all states could be charged with violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause if it were interpreted to require uniform systems for tallying votes.
Gore’s lawyers pointed out that the punch card systems used in South Florida are far more likely to miss legal votes than scanners, for example.
During Monday’s oral argument, Kennedy said the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would be “standardless” because some counties might include ballots with “dimples” or “identations” and others would not. This would create unequal standards for counting votes, he said.
The Florida Supreme Court had said the unread ballots should be examined to determine the “actual intent” of the voter.
The five-member conservative majority spoke through two opinions. One was unsigned and spoke for all of them. It said the state must “assure uniformity” in counting the votes. “The state has not shown its procedures include the necessary safeguards,” they said. Moreover, this problem cannot be solved in time because of the federal deadline for resolving controversies over the state’s electors, they concluded.
“A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees,” the majority said. The federal law protecting the state’s electors from further challenge “requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards.”
The justices were apparently determined to issue their ruling before midnight Tuesday, believing that federal law protected Bush’s electors in Florida from a further challenge in Congress.
The post election battle has heightened the partisan divide around the nation and drawn judges to the fray as well.
Nearly all of the judicial rulings have been praised or condemned by partisans on both sides, depending on whether the outcome favors Bush or Gore.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be seen through the same prism.
Republicans are likely to praise the high court for bringing finality to the postelection battle.
But the Democrats are likely to condemn the court’s staunch Republicans for intervening in a political dispute to halt Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extremely narrow lead in Florida.
The Majority
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Clarence Thomas
The Dissenters
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice David H. Souter
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
*
Times staff writers Nick Anderson, Edwin Chen, James Gerstenzang, Jeffrey Gettleman, Scott Gold, Janet Hook, Richard A. Serrano and Richard Simon contributed to this story.
*
More Inside
Supreme Court: The full text of the per curiam opinion in the case of Gore vs. Bush, which divided the justices and may have harmed the panel’s reputation, Section 1A
Congress Reacts: Members from both sides of the aisle see this as the end of Gore’s uphill battle to win Florida, A24
Media Scramble: When the decision came, the major networks were ready to report it once they could figure out what it was, A24
Absentee Ballot Ruling: Despite irregularities, the evidence ‘does not support a finding of fraud,’ Florida’s justices say, A28
David G. Savage Twitter Instagram Email Facebook David G. Savage has covered the Supreme Court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times in the Washington bureau since 1986.
Mark Z. Barabak Twitter Instagram Email Facebook Mark Z. Barabak covers state and national politics for the Los Angeles Times, based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Nov 10, 2020 16:15:27 GMT
Almost half the country thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out?
This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times]
Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
This is bullshit. In 2000, there was one state in dispute. One. And those vote totals were so close that nobody would ever really be sure who won, between the hanging chads and the pregnant chads and yadda yadda yadda. This election, it is multiple states and tens of thousands of votes. Even if an investigation is done and shows no fraud, the Trump supporters are not going to believe it. The Republicans are just trying to delay the state certifications enough that they can throw the naming of electors to the republican-controlled state legislatures and override the election that way. I agree. I do not believe that there is any way possible for racist, misogynist, homophobic, uneducated people to ever - EVER - find that there was no cheating. My son says that his roommate showed him a list of 10,000 people who didn't get to vote. My son showed him that the list was made up. None of those people existed. Roommate didn't care, because Trump said there was fraud! If Trump says the world will end on November 15, you can be sure that his supporters would believe it. Then when it didn't happen, he'd say he found a way to STOP the WORLD from ending!! And they'd believe that too. It just does not matter what everyone does to prove there was no fraud, as long as Trump says there is, they will believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Nov 10, 2020 16:16:32 GMT
Oh my lord. That is TOO funny! That is EXACTLY where I am!
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 10, 2020 16:42:36 GMT
Almost half the country thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out?
This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times]
Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
Where's the source for "half the country?" FWIW, the LA Times is behind a digital firewall. You have to be a paid subscriber to see the article. Although it seems that is a 2000 article? What is the source for half of the country thinking the election was stolen? Do you mean 4,600,000 less than half of the people who voted? Which isn’t half of the country, because not everyone votes. And yes, the difference of the popular vote is closing in on 5 MILLION people. 5 million is a LOT more - and they don’t think the election was stolen. I very specifically said "ALMOST half"...twice. And 47.5% vs 50.8% is most definitely ALMOST half. The numbers come from the AP.
Apologies for the firewall. LA Times gives out I think 3 free articles a month so if you've used it up already, maybe open it in a browser you don't usually use. That's my work-around. (ETA: I see that Restless Spirit has c&p'd the article - Thank you! )
Here's a few other articles I pulled from that time period - I haven't read them all but they are on topic (NYT behind firewall still - so annoying):
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,606
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 10, 2020 17:08:27 GMT
Where's the source for "half the country?" FWIW, the LA Times is behind a digital firewall. You have to be a paid subscriber to see the article. Although it seems that is a 2000 article? What is the source for half of the country thinking the election was stolen? Do you mean 4,600,000 less than half of the people who voted? Which isn’t half of the country, because not everyone votes. And yes, the difference of the popular vote is closing in on 5 MILLION people. 5 million is a LOT more - and they don’t think the election was stolen. I very specifically said "ALMOST half"...twice. And 47.5% vs 50.8% is most definitely ALMOST half. The numbers come from the AP.
Apologies for the firewall. LA Times gives out I think 3 free articles a month so if you've used it up already, maybe open it in a browser you don't usually use. That's my work-around. (ETA: I see that Restless Spirit has c&p'd the article - Thank you! )
Here's a few other articles I pulled from that time period - I haven't read them all but they are on topic (NYT behind firewall still - so annoying):
Almost half of those who voted. Not half the country.
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Nov 10, 2020 17:18:29 GMT
I hate that there is so much time between the appointment/choosing of the electors(12/8) and the actual election (12/14). Who's to say someone won't get to them and sway their vote?
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Nov 10, 2020 17:25:46 GMT
I very specifically said "ALMOST half"...twice. And 47.5% vs 50.8% is most definitely ALMOST half. The numbers come from the AP.
Apologies for the firewall. LA Times gives out I think 3 free articles a month so if you've used it up already, maybe open it in a browser you don't usually use. That's my work-around. (ETA: I see that Restless Spirit has c&p'd the article - Thank you! )
Here's a few other articles I pulled from that time period - I haven't read them all but they are on topic (NYT behind firewall still - so annoying):
Almost half of those who voted. Not half the country. 328 million plus people in the US. And just because half of the voters believe something doesn’t make it true. I wonder how many of them believe in aliens, or believe that CNN is fake news, or believe that Fox News is unbiased real news, or that Trump is Christian or even that he is a moral man. Facts matter. And I bet if you asked those people why they believe their is voter fraud they will have not one actual fact to back up their claim. They will spout nonsense about the President saying there is and nothing will change their mind. Obviously if there is any proof of voter fraud it should be investigated, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe there is.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Nov 10, 2020 17:28:14 GMT
I very specifically said "ALMOST half"...twice. And 47.5% vs 50.8% is most definitely ALMOST half. The numbers come from the AP.
Apologies for the firewall. LA Times gives out I think 3 free articles a month so if you've used it up already, maybe open it in a browser you don't usually use. That's my work-around. (ETA: I see that Restless Spirit has c&p'd the article - Thank you! )
Here's a few other articles I pulled from that time period - I haven't read them all but they are on topic (NYT behind firewall still - so annoying):
Almost half of those who voted. Not half the country. Thank you. That was one of my two points about it.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 10, 2020 17:34:19 GMT
Almost half of those who voted. Not half the country. Thank you. That was one of my two points about it. I completely agree and I've updated my post on page 1 to reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 10, 2020 17:35:07 GMT
My neighbor voted for trump but she thinks he is being a big baby about losing. There are probably more like her, but who knows how many.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Nov 10, 2020 17:38:42 GMT
My neighbor voted for trump but she thinks he is being a big baby about losing. There are probably more like her, but who knows how many. I was just talking while walking my dogs to a neighbor who voted for Trump and she feels the same way. There are a number of people who voted Republican who don’t want to see the government torn down.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Nov 10, 2020 17:40:46 GMT
I would like to see actual data regarding how many people who voted truly do think that the election was fraudulently stolen. Not disappointed that Trump didn’t win, but truly think that the election was rigged.
I think that it may be a poor assumption to make that everyone who voted for Trump feels that way.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 10, 2020 17:40:58 GMT
Trump’s PA case is not in any way a repetition of Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore was based on the Equal Protection Clause. Even though Trump is invoking the same, his case is not a constitutional issue. The two are not the same no matter how many times anyone insists they are. Trump’s argument is that mail-in voters did not receive the same level of verification as those who voted in-person.
--First, that is plainly false as PA had already said that they match signatures on mail-ins as they do with in-person.
--Second, PA did not force anybody to do mail-in; the PA voters had the free will to choose either method of voting.
--Third, the actual crux of Bush v Gore was the ballots themselves (due to the hanging or dimpled chads). The constitutionality issue was that FL was not treating these ballots uniformly across all counties. Trump’s issue is not with the ballots themselves but with the voters who they assert were treated differently in what they termed a two-tier system. Voters. Not ballots. Therefore, it is not an issue of constitutionality.
--Fourth, a PA win for Trump will still not take him to 270, unlike Bush v Gore where the election hung on the balance with one disputed state. Add GA to PA and Trump would still not win.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 10, 2020 17:42:29 GMT
It probably won't change the outcome of the election, but if election fraud took place, we should all want it exposed so that steps can be taken to prevent it from happening ever again. if election fraud took place, there would be some EVIDENCE of it SOMEWHERE, which there is NOT. I mean more evident than 'I think...' or 'they'll dig for it and spend a lot of money doing so...' So personally, I'd rather my money NOT be spent on frivolous shit just because DT is a whiny baby and the Republicans in congress won't tell him NO.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 10, 2020 17:53:57 GMT
I would like to see actual data regarding how many people who voted truly do think that the election was fraudulently stolen. Not disappointed that Trump didn’t win, but truly think that the election was rigged. I think that it may be a poor assumption to make that everyone who voted for Trump feels that way. I agree. I don't for a second believe everyone who voted for Trump believes the election was stolen. We've even seen some sitting officials GOPs - Romney and Collins as well as some previous officials - Santorum, Kasich - I'd list the Bush's but I'm not convinced they voted for Trump, and a few more (not enough granted) who've publicly congratulated Biden and discussed moving forward. We too often here the vocal whiners and forget that the people who aren't outraged about a stolen election aren't yelling. I found a more comprehensive list of some of the GOP who have congratulated Biden: www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/11/09/these-are-the-republicans-who-have-acknowledged-bidens-victory/?sh=30772f8f5bac
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 10, 2024 13:55:19 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2020 18:00:15 GMT
Almost half the country of those who voted thinks the Democrats stole the election for Biden. Almost HALF. What harm could an investigation do especially if there's no actual evidence? Won't that too come out? This time around isn't too unlike Bush vs Gore in 2000. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't officially know who our president was going to be until December 13, 2000. [Source: LA Times] Let them do their investigation...let them clear the air and make way for the new administration so it isn't formed under massive clouds of accusation.
Edited to better reflect my point, as peabay pointed out on page 2. This. If our voting system needs to be checked for accuracy (not saying fraud, but to make sure there are no glitches) then as a society who wants a Democracy it is beneficial for BOTH sides to make sure that things are right. Let's get it out of the way so we can go forward more confident in the system.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 10, 2020 18:00:30 GMT
ETA - well Politico poll says 70% - so about 50 million. Free and fair isn't exactly a proxy for stolen election, but I did find this Politico poll - it says 70% - so about 50 million or 15% of Americans. Now granted, a percentage that includes children is a bit silly, so I'll say 23.7% of American adults. I imagine it will go down after more of the lawsuits are thrown out. www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 10, 2020 18:01:32 GMT
Well, I passed a sign today in Warren County that said Trump is the winner in legal votes, Joe Biden is the winner of lie votes or some such nonsense, hard to read driving by.
So there are people out there but this shit. 🤷♀️
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 10, 2020 18:06:02 GMT
Katie Couric interviews Neal Katyal, who is brilliant. He explains the litigation. Worth your time if you are confused, or have questions. www.instagram.com/tv/CHY1j-slvmD/BTW, he has a series of videos on Instagram about the legal issues.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Nov 10, 2020 18:10:07 GMT
ETA - well Politico poll says 70% - so about 50 million. Free and fair isn't exactly a proxy for stolen election, but I did find this Politico poll - it says 70% - so about 50 million or 15% of Americans. Now granted, a percentage that includes children is a bit silly, so I'll say 23.7% of American adults. I imagine it will go down after more of the lawsuits are thrown out. www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488Interesting article - thanks for linking! 😀 Even more complex is that 84% of the 70% who thought the election wasn’t free and fair thought that it benefited Biden. So, there are 16% of that 70% who don’t think that Biden benefited. So, even of that 70% that voted Republican and thought there were issues with the election, not all of them thought that Biden and the Democrats benefited.
|
|