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

[Cyber Liberty]

YEP.

You might not approve, but that's acceptable evidence in a court of law.   

[sneakypete]

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.

I pointed out to the GOP representative at a recount location that one of the official ballot counters had Biden-Harris stickers all over her SUV.  No response.  I also reported that those entering tally sheet totals into the vote-counting software were not double checking the numbers (i.e. one person would vocally call out the number while the other entered it instead of both sets of eyes confirming number and entry).  Again, no response.  Only an assurance that it was not possible for the Dems to win in January.

People like me don't have a political party in Georgia.

@Hoodat

That is what happens when you have career politicians with multi-generational dealings with members of the other party to make "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back,and we will both make millions from these new bills!"

It becomes "us defending each other against THEM",with "us" being elected officials and appointees of both parties,and the "Them" being "thee and me".

[roamer_1]

You might not approve, but that's acceptable evidence in a court of law.   

We'll see. This ain't simple court.

[Cyber Liberty]

We'll see. This ain't simple court.

No, it isn't.  And I don't expect the Trump legal team to lay their direct evidence cards on the table yet.  Since it will require direct evidence to convince the public half of this, then I do expect the following:  Constant leftist bellyaching about "No Evidence!!!" from people who want Trump outta there, along with "See????  Trump has zero evidence!"  Then a patent refusal to look at the direct evidence when it's released, complete with fingers in the ears and crying "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Patience.

[roamer_1]

No, it isn't.  And I don't expect the Trump legal team to lay their direct evidence cards on the table yet.  Since it will require direct evidence to convince the public half of this, then I do expect the following:  Constant leftist bellyaching about "No Evidence!!!" from people who want Trump outta there, along with "See????  Trump has zero evidence!"  Then a patent refusal to look at the direct evidence when it's released, complete with fingers in the ears and crying "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Patience.

I am the very last person to worry about the hue and cry. I don't listen to either side. The only thing I care about (nearly ever) is where the rubber meets the road.

Neither am I liable to listen to the media on either side. The curiosity for me is the play.

There are only two ways this can go that end in a Tump victory. Either find the votes (or prove malfeasance and negate fraudulent votes) to overturn FIVE states, or discredit the voters and overturn the ballot in order for Republican state legislatures to declare a coronation for him.

I am *FOR* winnowing out fraudulent votes. ALL for that. But in any event, that is a very long row to hoe. I don't recall a single time ever that multiple states have been swung enough to overturn an election. I find that to be extremely unlikely. And so will others be inclined as such. To include judges.

And I am AGAINST overturning the ballot and relying upon legislative coronation. Which I also think is going to be the end game.

So far, I would agree with those saying 'no evidence', so he better have a money shot up his sleeve.

[Cyber Liberty]

I am the very last person to worry about the hue and cry. I don't listen to either side. The only thing I care about (nearly ever) is where the rubber meets the road.

Neither am I liable to listen to the media on either side. The curiosity for me is the play.

There are only two ways this can go that end in a Tump victory. Either find the votes (or prove malfeasance and negate fraudulent votes) to overturn FIVE states, or discredit the voters and overturn the ballot in order for Republican state legislatures to declare a coronation for him.

I am *FOR* winnowing out fraudulent votes. ALL for that. But in any event, that is a very long row to hoe. I don't recall a single time ever that multiple states have been swung enough to overturn an election. I find that to be extremely unlikely. And so will others be inclined as such. To include judges.

And I am AGAINST overturning the ballot and relying upon legislative coronation. Which I also think is going to be the end game.

So far, I would agree with those saying 'no evidence', so he better have a money shot up his sleeve.

That's fine, as long as you are OK with being accused of throwing in your lot with the enemy.  I don't buy that, personally because I know you better than that.

[skeeter]

I am the very last person to worry about the hue and cry. I don't listen to either side. The only thing I care about (nearly ever) is where the rubber meets the road.

Neither am I liable to listen to the media on either side. The curiosity for me is the play.

There are only two ways this can go that end in a Tump victory. Either find the votes (or prove malfeasance and negate fraudulent votes) to overturn FIVE states, or discredit the voters and overturn the ballot in order for Republican state legislatures to declare a coronation for him.

I am *FOR* winnowing out fraudulent votes. ALL for that. But in any event, that is a very long row to hoe. I don't recall a single time ever that multiple states have been swung enough to overturn an election. I find that to be extremely unlikely. And so will others be inclined as such. To include judges.

And I am AGAINST overturning the ballot and relying upon legislative coronation. Which I also think is going to be the end game.

So far, I would agree with those saying 'no evidence', so he better have a money shot up his sleeve.

What you describe as a "coronation" is a Constitutionally sanctioned remedy. Aren't you all about the Constitution?

[roamer_1]

That's fine, as long as you are OK with being accused of throwing in your lot with the enemy.  I don't buy that, personally because I know you better than that.

LOL! Suits me fine. Narrow-minded folks, that would think that anyhow.
 

[roamer_1]

What you describe as a "coronation" is a Constitutionally sanctioned remedy. Aren't you all about the Constitution?

Sure. I never said it wasn't legal. But just because you CAN, don't always mean you SHOULD.

[Cyber Liberty]

LOL! Suits me fine. Narrow-minded folks, that would think that anyhow.
 

 

We're good.

[Hoodat]

I have received texts from two different Democrat groups asking me to apply for mail-in ballots for the upcoming runoff election.  I told each of them that not only had I already done so, but that the ballot was received, and that someone already came by to pick it up.  Each one responded with "Great!" and then asked me to find three other people to apply for mail-in ballots.

It is illegal to submit a mail-in ballot for someone else (i.e. it would be illegal for someone to come by my house and pick up my signed but unfilled mail-in ballot).  Yet for these two Dem groups, they didn't even flinch.

Still think the Republicans are going to win in January?

[skeeter]

Sure. I never said it wasn't legal. But just because you CAN, don't always mean you SHOULD.

Well the provision is there for a reason. The way things are shaping up, half of the country having zero confidence in the election results and with good reason, this is looking exactly like the kind of situation the Founders had in mind when they developed it.

[roamer_1]

Well the provision is there for a reason. The way things are shaping up this is looking exactly like the kind of situation the Founders had in mind when they developed it.

My objection is adamant, all the same. It is one thing to prove fraud and discount votes... Nobody can bitch about that. That is justice and the rule of law. It is another altogether to tear down  the process, disenfranchise whole states, and lean on a partisan coronation.

[skeeter]

My objection is adamant, all the same. It is one thing to prove fraud and discount votes... Nobody can bitch about that. That is justice and the rule of law. It is another altogether to tear down  the process, disenfranchise whole states, and lean on a partisan coronation.

I'll take that as your vote of no confidence in the wisdom of the Founders.

[roamer_1]

I'll take that as your vote of no confidence in the wisdom of the Founders.

No, it is my vote of no confidence in partisan game playing. I don't like it in Democrats, and I sure as hell don't like it in Republicans... You won't like what you've won by such means, I guarantee.

[skeeter]

No, it is my vote of no confidence in partisan game playing. I don't like it in Democrats, and I sure as hell don't like it in Republicans... You won't like what you've won by such means, I guarantee.

This entire election has been about disenfranchising voters. I guess it boils down to which ones you don't mind seeing disenfranchised.

I'll take my chances with the Constitutional remedy.

[Cyber Liberty]

This entire election has been about disenfranchising voters. I guess it boils down to which ones you don't mind seeing disenfranchised.

I'll take my chances with the Constitutional remedy.

...which has only just begun, and people are mocking the effort. 

[roamer_1]

This entire election has been about disenfranchising voters. I guess it boils down to which ones you don't mind seeing disenfranchised.

I'll take my chances with the Constitutional remedy.

Like I said... I will happily back efforts to prove malfeasance and discount fraudulent votes. Those are the ones I don't mind disenfranchising.

[skeeter]

...which has only just begun, and people are mocking the effort.

If it corrects this farce of an election I can guarantee you I’ll be delighted with the results.

[DCPatriot]

...which has only just begun, and people are mocking the effort.

My very best friends, both male and female are avid Democrats who inexplicably..to me at least, are rabid haters of Pres. Trump.

My tongue is bitten almost in half as a result of the barbs and digs the past 2-1/2 weeks.  Don't dare call them out with confidence this will turn around in our favor. 

It's an ego thingy, I guess.   

[Smokin Joe]

My objection is adamant, all the same. It is one thing to prove fraud and discount votes... Nobody can bitch about that. That is justice and the rule of law. It is another altogether to tear down  the process, disenfranchise whole states, and lean on a partisan coronation.

I see where you are going with that, but with this breaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4z1wYzDjck&feature=youtu.be  there might be a little less objection than you think.

[roamer_1]

I see where you are going with that, but with this breaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4z1wYzDjck&feature=youtu.be  there might be a little less objection than you think.

An hour long... It's in my queue 

[Smokin Joe]

An hour long... It's in my queue 

Better watch it before it gets censored.

[roamer_1]

Better watch it before it gets censored.

No worries. I will find it elsewhere then.

[Bigun]

Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
·
10m
BREAKING:

Floyd County, GA has just terminated their election director after the continuous stream of "found" ballots

What is going on in Georgia? Where is the FBI?

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1329526697230647297