2000 Mules.

swordfish wrote:

Just share one of the hundreds in your browser cache.

philG wrote:

Now that is a burn

Bravo Sir.

swordfish wrote:

Least I can do for all the low blows and insults he hurls at myself and others here. Don’t get all bent Jjavaman, it was pretty...

Least I can do for all the low blows and insults he hurls at myself and others here. Don’t get all bent Jjavaman, it was pretty funny, even you have to admit it.

Mx746 wrote:

You understand ballots (of any party) that are not delivered per a states voting requirements by law are not automatically invalid "throw away" ballots, that they...

You understand ballots (of any party) that are not delivered per a states voting requirements by law are not automatically invalid "throw away" ballots, that they are then further scrutinized, and determinations are made concerning the events on a case by case basis right?

Ballots that are deposited illegally can still be legal ballots. Pennsylvania requires registered voters to submit an annual request to receive absentee ballots and supply proof of identification as part of that process. Election officials also verify drop box ballots before counting them.

ToolMaker wrote:

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household. But I still go back to...

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household.
But I still go back to, they have their own living space that is their household. Many years ago we rented a
room in our house to an individual with a less than stellar driving record. The insurance company wanted to charge everyone in the household a higher rate (they do that shit because people in the same household share vehicles).
As I turns out after some research and back and forth. It was determined they are not the same household because they have their own dedicated space that they are paying for. Same as in a care facility. You have your own dedicated room which is "your household" vs the community cafeteria. Now sometimes you have a "shared room for less cost. That roommate is now living in your household. When you're in a care facility, you have the right to keep the other customers out of your private room because it's your household.
I'd like to see your evidence that the ballots delivered were legal because if someone is doing 1 thing illegal, it's more likely than not that person is doing more than 1 thing illegal. So at the end of the day what you're saying is that you have people in place to accept illegal ballots. That doesn't make them legal, it just makes them accepted.
Your turn to pony up some proof that the ballots were from the same "household", that the residents don't have dedicated private space, that their families don't come and hang family pictures on the wall...
There's a lot more to it than saying I want these ballots counted so we'll overlook the illegal activity.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are...

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are the ballot/ballots themselves accurate representation of the voting intentions of a qualified voter.
In this case the proper forms for all the ballots were included and submitted and retained by elections officers for the ballots in question. They found no fraud intentions.
See below recap

Soltysiak, the woman filmed in the video delivered each mail-in ballot with a completed designated agent form. The county retained those forms.

“This individual did nothing wrong. In fact, the video shows this voter taking the proper steps to enfranchise residents of a local rehabilitation and long-term care facility so that their votes were legally cast,” the letter stated. “Mail-in ballots may be returned to the Board of Elections by a Designated Agent acting on behalf of a voter who, due to a disability, is not able to do so on their own.”

According to Pennsylvania state law, a designated agent can only deliver a ballot for one voter with a disability unless each disabled voter lives in the same household. The Department of State noted in a 2020 fact sheet that a long-term care facility is not considered a single household for the purpose of designating an agent, but a couple sharing a room or apartment within a facility “may be considered members of the same household.”

When asked whether the woman’s actions in the video defied state law, Cofrancisco said that the legal case that made it possible for voters with disabilities to designate agents in Pennsylvania left the definition of a household up to election administrators to interpret.

“The standard followed by Montgomery County is that individuals who reside in a building and share a common address may be considered to be in the same household,” Cofrancisco said. “Facilities that designate independent living units with separate addresses, such as apartments, or individual resident P.O. boxes would not be in the same household. We have implemented a reasonable standard that allows us to determine what qualifies as a household while allowing for voters with disabilities to have their ballots delivered to the Board of Elections without burdening those voters any more than is necessary.”

Pennsylvania’s Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident.

Ballots that are deposited illegally can still be legal ballots. Pennsylvania requires registered voters to submit an annual request to receive absentee ballots and supply proof of identification as part of that process. Election officials also verify drop box ballots before counting them.
See link below. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-earl…

Mx746 wrote:

You understand ballots (of any party) that are not delivered per a states voting requirements by law are not automatically invalid "throw away" ballots, that they...

You understand ballots (of any party) that are not delivered per a states voting requirements by law are not automatically invalid "throw away" ballots, that they are then further scrutinized, and determinations are made concerning the events on a case by case basis right?

Ballots that are deposited illegally can still be legal ballots. Pennsylvania requires registered voters to submit an annual request to receive absentee ballots and supply proof of identification as part of that process. Election officials also verify drop box ballots before counting them.

ToolMaker wrote:

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household. But I still go back to...

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household.
But I still go back to, they have their own living space that is their household. Many years ago we rented a
room in our house to an individual with a less than stellar driving record. The insurance company wanted to charge everyone in the household a higher rate (they do that shit because people in the same household share vehicles).
As I turns out after some research and back and forth. It was determined they are not the same household because they have their own dedicated space that they are paying for. Same as in a care facility. You have your own dedicated room which is "your household" vs the community cafeteria. Now sometimes you have a "shared room for less cost. That roommate is now living in your household. When you're in a care facility, you have the right to keep the other customers out of your private room because it's your household.
I'd like to see your evidence that the ballots delivered were legal because if someone is doing 1 thing illegal, it's more likely than not that person is doing more than 1 thing illegal. So at the end of the day what you're saying is that you have people in place to accept illegal ballots. That doesn't make them legal, it just makes them accepted.
Your turn to pony up some proof that the ballots were from the same "household", that the residents don't have dedicated private space, that their families don't come and hang family pictures on the wall...
There's a lot more to it than saying I want these ballots counted so we'll overlook the illegal activity.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are...

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are the ballot/ballots themselves accurate representation of the voting intentions of a qualified voter.
In this case the proper forms for all the ballots were included and submitted and retained by elections officers for the ballots in question. They found no fraud intentions.
See below recap

Soltysiak, the woman filmed in the video delivered each mail-in ballot with a completed designated agent form. The county retained those forms.

“This individual did nothing wrong. In fact, the video shows this voter taking the proper steps to enfranchise residents of a local rehabilitation and long-term care facility so that their votes were legally cast,” the letter stated. “Mail-in ballots may be returned to the Board of Elections by a Designated Agent acting on behalf of a voter who, due to a disability, is not able to do so on their own.”

According to Pennsylvania state law, a designated agent can only deliver a ballot for one voter with a disability unless each disabled voter lives in the same household. The Department of State noted in a 2020 fact sheet that a long-term care facility is not considered a single household for the purpose of designating an agent, but a couple sharing a room or apartment within a facility “may be considered members of the same household.”

When asked whether the woman’s actions in the video defied state law, Cofrancisco said that the legal case that made it possible for voters with disabilities to designate agents in Pennsylvania left the definition of a household up to election administrators to interpret.

“The standard followed by Montgomery County is that individuals who reside in a building and share a common address may be considered to be in the same household,” Cofrancisco said. “Facilities that designate independent living units with separate addresses, such as apartments, or individual resident P.O. boxes would not be in the same household. We have implemented a reasonable standard that allows us to determine what qualifies as a household while allowing for voters with disabilities to have their ballots delivered to the Board of Elections without burdening those voters any more than is necessary.”

Pennsylvania’s Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident.

Ballots that are deposited illegally can still be legal ballots. Pennsylvania requires registered voters to submit an annual request to receive absentee ballots and supply proof of identification as part of that process. Election officials also verify drop box ballots before counting them.
See link below. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-earl…

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Didn't they disregard a Pennsylvania constitutional law regarding mail ins at the last minute? I don't recall the details, but I remember hearing people bitch about...

Didn't they disregard a Pennsylvania constitutional law regarding mail ins at the last minute?

I don't recall the details, but I remember hearing people bitch about it.

swordfish wrote:

Least I can do for all the low blows and insults he hurls at myself and others here. Don’t get all bent Jjavaman, it was pretty...

Least I can do for all the low blows and insults he hurls at myself and others here. Don’t get all bent Jjavaman, it was pretty funny, even you have to admit it.

APLMAN99 wrote:

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them.

But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020……..

early wrote:

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of...

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of that when you got a new license, but some group didn't like the idea of making voter registration easier and more accurate.

early wrote:

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of...

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of that when you got a new license, but some group didn't like the idea of making voter registration easier and more accurate.

ToolMaker wrote:

There's valid reasons to not have everyone just given registration when they get a license. You do know we give licenses to people that are not...

There's valid reasons to not have everyone just given registration when they get a license. You do know we give licenses to people that are not allowed to vote. A small inconvenience on your part to keep the integrity of the vote.
And for what it's worth, I believe if we passed a law that says "if any one ever enters our country illegally, they can never be given the privilege/right to vote" This one simple thing would take away the incentive to "buy votes" with programs. Then we could have a legitimate plan to legalize the illegal immigrants that are already here. No person in their right mind thinks the best solution is to deport them. We have to figure out a way to integrate them, but as long as they are political pawns it will never happen.
TM

ToolMaker wrote:

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household. But I still go back to...

OK, have to admit, I f*cked up the reading. The "agent" is not required to live in the same household.
But I still go back to, they have their own living space that is their household. Many years ago we rented a
room in our house to an individual with a less than stellar driving record. The insurance company wanted to charge everyone in the household a higher rate (they do that shit because people in the same household share vehicles).
As I turns out after some research and back and forth. It was determined they are not the same household because they have their own dedicated space that they are paying for. Same as in a care facility. You have your own dedicated room which is "your household" vs the community cafeteria. Now sometimes you have a "shared room for less cost. That roommate is now living in your household. When you're in a care facility, you have the right to keep the other customers out of your private room because it's your household.
I'd like to see your evidence that the ballots delivered were legal because if someone is doing 1 thing illegal, it's more likely than not that person is doing more than 1 thing illegal. So at the end of the day what you're saying is that you have people in place to accept illegal ballots. That doesn't make them legal, it just makes them accepted.
Your turn to pony up some proof that the ballots were from the same "household", that the residents don't have dedicated private space, that their families don't come and hang family pictures on the wall...
There's a lot more to it than saying I want these ballots counted so we'll overlook the illegal activity.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are...

What election officials want to know about when ballots are delivered improperly/illegally etc, is did this action have any intentions to defraud the election and are the ballot/ballots themselves accurate representation of the voting intentions of a qualified voter.
In this case the proper forms for all the ballots were included and submitted and retained by elections officers for the ballots in question. They found no fraud intentions.
See below recap

Soltysiak, the woman filmed in the video delivered each mail-in ballot with a completed designated agent form. The county retained those forms.

“This individual did nothing wrong. In fact, the video shows this voter taking the proper steps to enfranchise residents of a local rehabilitation and long-term care facility so that their votes were legally cast,” the letter stated. “Mail-in ballots may be returned to the Board of Elections by a Designated Agent acting on behalf of a voter who, due to a disability, is not able to do so on their own.”

According to Pennsylvania state law, a designated agent can only deliver a ballot for one voter with a disability unless each disabled voter lives in the same household. The Department of State noted in a 2020 fact sheet that a long-term care facility is not considered a single household for the purpose of designating an agent, but a couple sharing a room or apartment within a facility “may be considered members of the same household.”

When asked whether the woman’s actions in the video defied state law, Cofrancisco said that the legal case that made it possible for voters with disabilities to designate agents in Pennsylvania left the definition of a household up to election administrators to interpret.

“The standard followed by Montgomery County is that individuals who reside in a building and share a common address may be considered to be in the same household,” Cofrancisco said. “Facilities that designate independent living units with separate addresses, such as apartments, or individual resident P.O. boxes would not be in the same household. We have implemented a reasonable standard that allows us to determine what qualifies as a household while allowing for voters with disabilities to have their ballots delivered to the Board of Elections without burdening those voters any more than is necessary.”

Pennsylvania’s Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident.

Ballots that are deposited illegally can still be legal ballots. Pennsylvania requires registered voters to submit an annual request to receive absentee ballots and supply proof of identification as part of that process. Election officials also verify drop box ballots before counting them.
See link below. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-earl…

ToolMaker wrote:

That's a legal opinion made by nonlegal people that wanted those votes counted. Because that's what they say, does not make it so. Again, that's not...

That's a legal opinion made by nonlegal people that wanted those votes counted. Because that's what they say,
does not make it so. Again, that's not the legal standard, it's a partisian opinion. Also, did they check to see if they have
their own rooms? Was any investigative work done? Is Betsy assigned to room 203? Or are they living in one big room that's a free for all like the homeless shelter? There is a difference.
That's the difference here. you know it's illegal but you're clinging onto a partisan opinion.
At the end of the day, it's illegal but partisan people twisted the meaning so they could keep the Basement Joe Ballots.
Unless you want to show the evidence that they are living on one big open household with no distinction and no private rooms.

What exactly do you think the intent of this statement was?

"The Department of State noted in a 2020 fact sheet that a long-term care facility is not considered a single household for the purpose of designating an agent, but a couple sharing a room or apartment within a facility “may be considered members of the same household.”

They didn't say except if they all used the same address.
It actually doesn't even say 2 people sharing the same room "are" of the same household, It says "may be considered"
Because of the language, a proper court would have to take the most narrow reading of this. The election board went the other way and added in things not there. But when you're a lib you get away with shit like that.
In closing, you have no proof it's legal, only accepted by partisan hacks.
TM

ToolMaker wrote:

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did. Because of course every one that's done something...

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did.
Because of course every one that's done something wrong the first thing they do is admit it right? People don't lie do they? They would never fill out someone else's ballot and turn it in?
TM

ToolMaker wrote:

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did. Because of course every one that's done something...

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did.
Because of course every one that's done something wrong the first thing they do is admit it right? People don't lie do they? They would never fill out someone else's ballot and turn it in?
TM

BMSOBx2 wrote:

"Because of course everyone who's done something wrong the first thing they do is admit it right? People don't lie do they?" I wonder what your...

"Because of course everyone who's done something wrong the first thing they do is admit it right? People don't lie do they?"

I wonder what your answer would be to that if you applied it to Trump.

ToolMaker wrote:

See my earlier post on the play book, page 21. I see we're at changing the subject to get away from the main issue. Twas a...

See my earlier post on the play book, page 21.
I see we're at changing the subject to get away from the main issue.
Twas a mule.
TM

early wrote:

What would be a good mechanism to facilitate people in old folks homes voting? Should they have to get loaded on a bus and wheeled to...

What would be a good mechanism to facilitate people in old folks homes voting? Should they have to get loaded on a bus and wheeled to a polling place in the cold rain on the second Tuesday of November? This is Pennsylvania not Southern California.

But back to the main issue, why was the the entire premise of the 2000 Mules movie based on cell phone data maps that don't show intention to visit drop boxes and why did they have 4 million minutes of video from drop boxes in Georgia but the best they could come up with was a few people dropping off a couple ballots and zero repeat visits?

Why was there misleading claims in the movie that the True The Vote folks helped arrest some murderers in Georgia when the Georgia authorities say that didn't happen? Why are the True The Vote folks not complying with the subpoena Georgia officials made for their information to investigate voter fraud?

ToolMaker wrote:

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did. Because of course every one that's done something...

Actually you are missing the point. It was done that way to prevent actions like that "mule" did.
Because of course every one that's done something wrong the first thing they do is admit it right? People don't lie do they? They would never fill out someone else's ballot and turn it in?
TM

ToolMaker wrote:

There's some good questions here that I don't currently have the answer to (and may never know). Sometimes questions generate more questions rather than answers. IE...

There's some good questions here that I don't currently have the answer to (and may never know).
Sometimes questions generate more questions rather than answers.
IE a solution to the how to vote.
I heard in an interview that the data they have does not just show the route but when the phone was stopped and for how long. IE if a person was at Starbucks (aka 5bucks) for 3min and 27 seconds, or by the drop box for 20 seconds.
Why the information was not presented that way, I have no clue.
Why they won't give up the whistle blower? That was a condition of the whistle blower giving them the information.
I should ask you why won't the authorities investigate without the identity of the whistle blower?
Did that prevent an investigation when they did not know the identity of deep throat?
I think the real reason is, what if you find out it's true. That opens a huge cluster f*ck. So let's just quietly let it go away
and make sure it's doesn't happen again. I believe if it's true, in this case, you'll have more problems than solutions.
So everyone wants this to just go away and work towards it never happening again and pretend it never did happen.
I also think the government (those in power, r and d) need us to have conflict between us so they can pull the wool over our eyes on much bigger things, like stealing our green sticker money instead of buying more riding land.
It's a CA thing.
TM

APLMAN99 wrote:

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them.

But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020……..

ToolMaker wrote:

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them."
Nope, she should be charged and the ballots be rejected. Not done properly.

"But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020…….."
And your point is? This was all spun off you saying she did nothing wrong. Now you're suggesting she be prosecuted?
Our point is that the officials don't follow the law, they just do what they want to benefit their cause.
They didn't even tailor the law, they just ignored the law. Prove otherwise. You'll never see someone get charged when it's a democrat cause.
TM

APLMAN99 wrote:

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them.

But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020……..

ToolMaker wrote:

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them."
Nope, she should be charged and the ballots be rejected. Not done properly.

"But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020…….."
And your point is? This was all spun off you saying she did nothing wrong. Now you're suggesting she be prosecuted?
Our point is that the officials don't follow the law, they just do what they want to benefit their cause.
They didn't even tailor the law, they just ignored the law. Prove otherwise. You'll never see someone get charged when it's a democrat cause.
TM

APLMAN99 wrote:

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That...

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That is why I said that if they feel that she committed a criminal act, they should prosecute her. My guess is by the obvious fact that she identified herself with her information on the forms, she probably thought that what she was doing was fine, even if she was wrong about it.

Now if she hadn't attached the forms to it with her identity, you may have a case for calling her a 'mule'. But even you would have to admit that this appears to be nothing more than a case of someone trying to help those that aren't mobile enough to get to the ballot box. From a legal standpoint, she may have broken the letter of the law. From a moral standpoint, she helped enfranchise some citizens who otherwise wouldn't have been due to disability.

And again, this was not the 2020 Presidential election........

ToolMaker wrote:

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously...

"If the county or the state wants to charge the woman who put the ballots in the box, then they should. The ballots themselves are obviously easy to confirm because she attached the paperwork to them."
Nope, she should be charged and the ballots be rejected. Not done properly.

"But for those that believe this is proof of claims made in 2000 Mules? You should know by now that this occurred in November of 2021, not the presidential election of 2020…….."
And your point is? This was all spun off you saying she did nothing wrong. Now you're suggesting she be prosecuted?
Our point is that the officials don't follow the law, they just do what they want to benefit their cause.
They didn't even tailor the law, they just ignored the law. Prove otherwise. You'll never see someone get charged when it's a democrat cause.
TM

APLMAN99 wrote:

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That...

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That is why I said that if they feel that she committed a criminal act, they should prosecute her. My guess is by the obvious fact that she identified herself with her information on the forms, she probably thought that what she was doing was fine, even if she was wrong about it.

Now if she hadn't attached the forms to it with her identity, you may have a case for calling her a 'mule'. But even you would have to admit that this appears to be nothing more than a case of someone trying to help those that aren't mobile enough to get to the ballot box. From a legal standpoint, she may have broken the letter of the law. From a moral standpoint, she helped enfranchise some citizens who otherwise wouldn't have been due to disability.

And again, this was not the 2020 Presidential election........

ToolMaker wrote:

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say...

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say not interviewing every person who's ballot was deposited. What about interviewing people in the other rooms that maybe were voting R. Did their ballots get delivered? or maybe found their way to the trash on the way to the drop box.
And by any stretch, she was a "mule". We just don't know if she was an "illegal mule" per the discussion.
There are a lot of things that we don't know which is why this was not supposed to happen.
Do we know her political leanings? Because maybe she only delivered democrat ballots. You don't know.
When you interact with people every day, it's a safe bet you know who they want to vote for. So even if you
were to say her intentions were good, by discriminating who's ballots she was going to deliver could also be an issue.
Exactly again why this was specifically not supposed to happen. I think the movie points out that this is happening more than people know.
I'll give you that it was not a 2020 episode, does that mean this was not happening in 2020? That's like a thief get's caught and everyone should believe it's his first time. Hmmmm, well I guess it could be but something tells me it's not.
TM

early wrote:

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of...

I have voted on a provisional ballot when my voter registration and drivers license address didn't match. The old Motor-Voter laws used to take care of that when you got a new license, but some group didn't like the idea of making voter registration easier and more accurate.

ToolMaker wrote:

There's valid reasons to not have everyone just given registration when they get a license. You do know we give licenses to people that are not...

There's valid reasons to not have everyone just given registration when they get a license. You do know we give licenses to people that are not allowed to vote. A small inconvenience on your part to keep the integrity of the vote.
And for what it's worth, I believe if we passed a law that says "if any one ever enters our country illegally, they can never be given the privilege/right to vote" This one simple thing would take away the incentive to "buy votes" with programs. Then we could have a legitimate plan to legalize the illegal immigrants that are already here. No person in their right mind thinks the best solution is to deport them. We have to figure out a way to integrate them, but as long as they are political pawns it will never happen.
TM

early wrote:

There's no reason you can't update the voter rolls with new drivers license information and screen it for voter ineligibility. It doesn't mean everyone with a...

There's no reason you can't update the voter rolls with new drivers license information and screen it for voter ineligibility. It doesn't mean everyone with a license gets a vote.. The reason to not do that is to make it a pain in the ass to vote, same with voting on a Tuesday.

APLMAN99 wrote:

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That...

I pointed out that the election officials said she did nothing wrong (using their interpretation). Does it conflict with the state guidelines? It appears so. That is why I said that if they feel that she committed a criminal act, they should prosecute her. My guess is by the obvious fact that she identified herself with her information on the forms, she probably thought that what she was doing was fine, even if she was wrong about it.

Now if she hadn't attached the forms to it with her identity, you may have a case for calling her a 'mule'. But even you would have to admit that this appears to be nothing more than a case of someone trying to help those that aren't mobile enough to get to the ballot box. From a legal standpoint, she may have broken the letter of the law. From a moral standpoint, she helped enfranchise some citizens who otherwise wouldn't have been due to disability.

And again, this was not the 2020 Presidential election........

ToolMaker wrote:

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say...

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say not interviewing every person who's ballot was deposited. What about interviewing people in the other rooms that maybe were voting R. Did their ballots get delivered? or maybe found their way to the trash on the way to the drop box.
And by any stretch, she was a "mule". We just don't know if she was an "illegal mule" per the discussion.
There are a lot of things that we don't know which is why this was not supposed to happen.
Do we know her political leanings? Because maybe she only delivered democrat ballots. You don't know.
When you interact with people every day, it's a safe bet you know who they want to vote for. So even if you
were to say her intentions were good, by discriminating who's ballots she was going to deliver could also be an issue.
Exactly again why this was specifically not supposed to happen. I think the movie points out that this is happening more than people know.
I'll give you that it was not a 2020 episode, does that mean this was not happening in 2020? That's like a thief get's caught and everyone should believe it's his first time. Hmmmm, well I guess it could be but something tells me it's not.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick? Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to...

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick?
Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to find anything, she was investigated and wasn't found to be a mule, but she's a mule anyway, maybe she only delivered D ballots, they could have thrown away R ballots,etc
If you need more information of the investigations you can always request it from elections officials and see what you can learn.
Creating conspiracy where there wasn't any, or just repeating fraud for the sake of it makes no sense.
If you have evidence, the present it? Ill rent a podium at the Marriot and call local news for you.

ToolMaker wrote:

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say...

While that's one interpretation, if your motivated to find a way to keep the ballots, you can direct your investigation to that result. By let's say not interviewing every person who's ballot was deposited. What about interviewing people in the other rooms that maybe were voting R. Did their ballots get delivered? or maybe found their way to the trash on the way to the drop box.
And by any stretch, she was a "mule". We just don't know if she was an "illegal mule" per the discussion.
There are a lot of things that we don't know which is why this was not supposed to happen.
Do we know her political leanings? Because maybe she only delivered democrat ballots. You don't know.
When you interact with people every day, it's a safe bet you know who they want to vote for. So even if you
were to say her intentions were good, by discriminating who's ballots she was going to deliver could also be an issue.
Exactly again why this was specifically not supposed to happen. I think the movie points out that this is happening more than people know.
I'll give you that it was not a 2020 episode, does that mean this was not happening in 2020? That's like a thief get's caught and everyone should believe it's his first time. Hmmmm, well I guess it could be but something tells me it's not.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick? Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to...

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick?
Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to find anything, she was investigated and wasn't found to be a mule, but she's a mule anyway, maybe she only delivered D ballots, they could have thrown away R ballots,etc
If you need more information of the investigations you can always request it from elections officials and see what you can learn.
Creating conspiracy where there wasn't any, or just repeating fraud for the sake of it makes no sense.
If you have evidence, the present it? Ill rent a podium at the Marriot and call local news for you.

ToolMaker wrote:

Let's not turn this around. The state specifically didn't want this to happen. It's on you to prove there's no fraudulent activity. Having the paperwork can...

Let's not turn this around. The state specifically didn't want this to happen.
It's on you to prove there's no fraudulent activity. Having the paperwork
can also lead one to the conclusion that there was preplanning. Again,
it's on you to prove it, because the state and Stevie Wonder sees the problem with this.
Why did the state not want this to happen? Because there's no way to determine legitimacy.
It could be a good sumaritan or a well executed operation. Until you prove it was a good sumaritan
we have to conclude that since the rules were broken, the process is broken and illegal.
We also have to factor in politicians are crooked. Too much crooked going on.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick? Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to...

You keep throwing stuff against a wall trying to make it stick?
Your responses, - it was someone inside the investigation who intentionally didn't want to find anything, she was investigated and wasn't found to be a mule, but she's a mule anyway, maybe she only delivered D ballots, they could have thrown away R ballots,etc
If you need more information of the investigations you can always request it from elections officials and see what you can learn.
Creating conspiracy where there wasn't any, or just repeating fraud for the sake of it makes no sense.
If you have evidence, the present it? Ill rent a podium at the Marriot and call local news for you.

ToolMaker wrote:

Let's not turn this around. The state specifically didn't want this to happen. It's on you to prove there's no fraudulent activity. Having the paperwork can...

Let's not turn this around. The state specifically didn't want this to happen.
It's on you to prove there's no fraudulent activity. Having the paperwork
can also lead one to the conclusion that there was preplanning. Again,
it's on you to prove it, because the state and Stevie Wonder sees the problem with this.
Why did the state not want this to happen? Because there's no way to determine legitimacy.
It could be a good sumaritan or a well executed operation. Until you prove it was a good sumaritan
we have to conclude that since the rules were broken, the process is broken and illegal.
We also have to factor in politicians are crooked. Too much crooked going on.
TM

Mx746 wrote:

That is completely absurd. It is not up to me to prove "there's no fraudulent activity". Thats a logical fallacy. " Prove to me there is...

That is completely absurd.
It is not up to me to prove "there's no fraudulent activity". Thats a logical fallacy. " Prove to me there is no huge Rep/Dem conspiracy, prove to me there is no loch ness dragon dumping R votes in the river" etc etc......its a non starter.
You are the one making the claim of fraud.
Back up your claim of fraud with evidence.
Not whataboutism. (what if the investigators are D's, what if they took all the R ballots and tossed them, etc etc etc etc etc etc.) We are aware of the ballot in question, this is the reason that an investigation was performed by the proper authorities (prove to me the authorities arent D's or threw away evidence or or or or or).
Again, if you feel this case was not handled correctly, what do you base your assumptions on? Have you contacted any elections officials with your concerns?
We have a ballot/ballots in question.
It was investigated by the proper authorities.
These individuals face legal actions if they do not comply with departmental requirements in their investigations.
No fraud was indicated in this case

Robgvx wrote:

So, have we moved on from Italian satellites, Venezuelan interference, dodgy Dominion software, 2am suitcases, fake water leaks and so on? Does it now hinge on...

So, have we moved on from Italian satellites, Venezuelan interference, dodgy Dominion software, 2am suitcases, fake water leaks and so on? Does it now hinge on some woman delivering a dozen ballots from elderly folk in a care home? Is that now why Trump lost?

And all coordinated in total, cast iron, nationwide secrecy by a Democrat administration/party that can’t organise a piss-up in a brewery…

Really, guys. You need to take a step back and take a moment to think about how ridiculous this all is.