Stacey Abrams: ‘More Than 600,000’ Georgians Already Requested Mail Ballots for Runoff Election

[roamer_1]

Exactly correct.  They have to have overwhelming evidence .... and so far the Trump team/lawyers are coming up short and unable to do so.

Pretty much...

[libertybele]

@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1

Just heard 24 ballot fraud cases filed by Republicans, have failed; did not get past a judge. There was no info. on who actually filed these cases.

The cases did not get past the judges ....    end of story.  Likely liberal judges, but nonetheless it doesn't change the outcome.

Not trying to be a "Debbie Downer" as some call me .... but take a look at what has happened and not enough evidence or not a single conservative leaning judge deciding whether or not even to hear the cases.

Screwed BIGLY!

[Hoodat]

I'm shocked corrupt Judges would cover for corrupt politicians.

Democrat judges ARE politicians.

[Victoria33]

Stacey Abrams: ‘More Than 600,000’ Georgians Already Requested Mail Ballots for Runoff Election
“More than 600,000 Georgians have requested their mail ballots for the January 5 runoff elections,” Abrams wrote in a tweet Sunday morning. “Help elect @ReverendWarnock and @ossoff to the U.S. Senate by requesting your ballot today.”

@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1
@libertybele

Think about this - 600,000 ballots?  They did not have 600,000 ballots left after the election and besides this is only for the two senate seats, so the ballots used at the general election won't do - they will have to keep printing ballots for these two races 24 hrs. a day to get that many ballots to mail out at least two or two and 1/2 weeks before January 5 election. 

I have said this before and am saying it again - historically, Republicans show up to vote at a runoff election even if it is a runoff election for the dog they like best.  Historically, Democrats tend to NOT show up at runoff elections.  Their numbers are always less than Republicans.  Based on this, I think the two Republican senators have a better chance of winning than the two Democrats.

I read somewhere that the Republican in one race had more votes than the Democrat but in the other race, the Democrat got more votes than the Republican.

JUST HEARD - THE GEORGIA HAND COUNT WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT NOON TOMORROW, THURSDAY.

[Cyber Liberty]

The cases did not get past the judges ....    end of story.  Likely liberal judges, but nonetheless it doesn't change the outcome.

Not trying to be a "Debbie Downer" as some call me .... but take a look at what has happened and not enough evidence or not a single conservative leaning judge deciding whether or not even to hear the cases.

Screwed BIGLY!

You are aware there is a Federal Court system, right?  True story, not made up.  On the level.

[Hoodat]

I have said this before and am saying it again - historically, Republicans show up to vote at a runoff election even if it is a runoff election for the dog they like best.  Historically, Democrats tend to NOT show up at runoff elections.

Apparently, Democrats don't show up to vote for Joe Biden either.  Which is why they needed the hours of 12-8 am on Wed after the election to generate enough Biden votes to overcome a Red Wave election.

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wrote:
"It certainly isn't going to come from the GOP.  They are still assuring people that it won't be possible for Dems to win these two Senate runoffs while at the same time turning a blind eye to every single violation or irregularity that is being reported.  There is no plan to enforce signature checks on mail-in ballots (as required by law) for the January election."

Remember 3-4 months ago, when folks were saying "there's no way Trump can lose Georgia" ??

Back at the time -- in fact, back in 2018 when Stacey Abrams got uncomfortably close to winning the governor's race down there -- I posted that "Georgia is changing".

Of course, the cheating sure helped the democrat-communists down there.
But... even without the "cheat factor", the demographics are changing irrevocably in the state.

The explosive growth of the Atlanta metro area, with large numbers of blacks and out-of-staters adding to the numbers, will eventually result in Georgia becoming a state similar to Washington, Oregon, Illinois and New York, where one huge metro area overwhelms "the rest" of the voters of the state.

Such are the "hazards of growth". The success of the Atlanta area will spell the doom of Republicans there.

It is what it is.

[Smokin Joe]

Fine. Now prove it. That's the problem.

The data are in the tables. Look at the vote split (percentages) as the hour grew late. Same all the way down, with one minor adjustment (1% more against Trump). You don't have to be a statistician. No one says, "Call it, heads tails or edges."

[roamer_1]

The data are in the tables. Look at the vote split (percentages) as the hour grew late. Same all the way down, with one minor adjustment (1% more against Trump). You don't have to be a statistician. No one says, "Call it, heads tails or edges."

I get all that. It don't matter until it makes it to a court and is proven and verified beyond doubt. THAT is proving it... And so far, where the rubber hits the road... 

[Smokin Joe]

I get all that. It don't matter until it makes it to a court and is proven and verified beyond doubt. THAT is proving it... And so far, where the rubber hits the road... 

Yabbut, If a lawyer could prove water is wet, it would get overturned on appeal.

[roamer_1]

Yabbut, If a lawyer could prove water is wet, it would get overturned on appeal.

And so it goes. So appeal and try again if there is any validity to it.

[Smokin Joe]

And so it goes. So appeal and try again if there is any validity to it.

It's happening as we 'speak'.

[Cyber Liberty]

I get all that. It don't matter until it makes it to a court and is proven and verified beyond doubt. THAT is proving it... And so far, where the rubber hits the road... 

You sound like somebody who thinks circumstantial evidence is not "real" evidence. 

[roamer_1]

You sound like somebody who thinks circumstantial evidence is not "real" evidence.

No, but circumstantial evidence is no where near as good as hand-in-the-cookie-jar... And which one is more likely to stand up in court?

[Smokin Joe]

No, but circumstantial evidence is no where near as good as hand-in-the-cookie-jar... And which one is more likely to stand up in court?

You still have to prove they were not putting cookies IN the jar, instead of taking them out.

[roamer_1]

You still have to prove they were not putting cookies IN the jar, instead of taking them out.

PROOF all the way around.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, but circumstantial evidence is no where near as good as hand-in-the-cookie-jar... And which one is more likely to stand up in court?

It's one thing to say the red hand evidence is good, but the lack of evidence produced BEFORE legal action is not saying such evidence does not exist.

People are convicted of crimes every day on "circumstantial evidence."  A good example of damning circumstantial evidence:  Before turning in at night, you can see the grass in your lawn (or field of weeds like mine).  Upon awakening, you can see it all under 6" of snow.  It can be safely concluded that it snowed during the night, even though not a single flake was seen because you were asleep. 

Yes, it's not as good as eyewitness testimony from somebody who did see it snowing, but it's still admissible in a court of law.  People go to jail on such evidence.  It's wrong to poo-poo it because it's "not as good" as direct evidence.

[dfwgator]

Pretty much...

I figure by now, the best chance is to catch them in the cover-up, but we may have to go The Watergate Route and get them down the road.   Nixon won 49 States in 1972,  two years, later he had to resign.   By no means is this over, even if Biden is in the White House.

[roamer_1]

It's one thing to say the red hand evidence is good, but the lack of evidence produced BEFORE legal action is not saying such evidence does not exist.

People are convicted of crimes every day on "circumstantial evidence."  A good example of damning circumstantial evidence:  Before turning in at night, you can see the grass in your lawn (or field of weeds like mine).  Upon awakening, you can see it all under 6" of snow.  It can be safely concluded that it snowed during the night, even though not a single flake was seen because you were asleep. 

Yes, it's not as good as eyewitness testimony from somebody who did see it snowing, but it's still admissible in a court of law.  People go to jail on such evidence.  It's wrong to poo-poo it because it's "not as good" as direct evidence.

not in this case. There is no room at all for prognostication where disenfranchising the voter is concerned... and that is what you CANNOT do in the courts without catching them red-handed. Watch and see. The default position is to protect the voter from disenfranchisement - that being the votes as they ARE... 

[roamer_1]

I figure by now, the best chance is to catch them in the cover-up, but we may have to go The Watergate Route and get them down the road.   Nixon won 49 States in 1972,  two years, later he had to resign.   By no means is this over, even if Biden is in the White House.

That's right... Most of the states in question have Republican control in the state houses. If this election has really been a fraud, and cost millions of votes (which I have not seen proven yet), then we should see those legislatures changing the voting system to tighten it up... I don't think you will see that though... 

[Cyber Liberty]

not in this case. There is no room at all for prognostication where disenfranchising the voter is concerned... and that is what you CANNOT do in the courts without catching them red-handed. Watch and see. The default position is to protect the voter from disenfranchisement - that being the votes as they ARE...

So, unless eyewitnesses can be found, fraud investigations that would produce that evidence must not continue?  Or perhaps kept hidden (I'm 100% sure that you would never tolerate that).

It's progressing along as it should, and there's no way you can stop tye speculation, even if you have 70 Million more wet blankets to throw on it.

ETA:  Do you really think Democrat Judges will accept even direct evidence of Democrat fraud?   

[Right_in_Virginia]

The cases did not get past the judges ....    end of story.  Likely liberal judges, but nonetheless it doesn't change the outcome.

If you're unfamiliar with the appeals process @libertybele I'll be happy to fill you in.  Just let me know.   

[roamer_1]

So, unless eyewitnesses can be found, fraud investigations that would produce that evidence must not continue?  Or perhaps kept hidden (I'm 100% sure that you would never tolerate that).

It's progressing along as it should, and there's no way you can stop tye speculation, even if you have 70 Million more wet blankets to throw on it.

If I am throwing wet blankets, it is to prepare folks for what is likely. And the likelihood ALWAYS is to take the voters at their word. I recognize there are inconsistencies (as there always are), which will be prosecuted to some degree. But the claim of enough votes to flip this deal... That's a whole nother thing.

I have already and consistently come out on the side of justice - I am all for flipping the election if it is justified, and that takes hardcore proof, not internet twitterpation from the usual suspects.

ETA:  Do you really think Democrat Judges will accept even direct evidence of Democrat fraud?   

Believe it or not, not every Democrat judge is a politico. Some actually care about the law... Just like the tendency of most of the election folks to take their work seriously. The whole idea hinges on this monolithic Democrat hegemony in the courts, and every bit of it nefarious, all the way up through the appellate system. I find that highly unlikely. If he ain't getting traction all the way up to SCOTUS, don't figure on a good outcome.

[Smokin Joe]

PROOF all the way around.

But the crumbs on the counter and the chocolate on their faces is only circumstantial evidence...

[roamer_1]

But the crumbs on the counter and the chocolate on their faces is only circumstantial evidence...

YEP.