L.A. Mayoral Race

TheGetFresh wrote:

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. It was a wild election. Candidate...

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. 

It was a wild election. Candidate Al Donnelly challenged incumbent governor Tracy in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Donnelly hired his brother Mike to work on the campaign, but his brother was kind of a well meaning idiot that created a lot of problems for Donnelly. 

Tracy took advantage and ran a smear campaign against Al by publishing a photos of Mike and claiming they were proof that he was racist and had committed arson. She went on to win a landslide victory, until Mike figured out that vote counts in certain counties exceeded the actual population of those counties. He found ballots that were submitted in the names of people who had died a decade ago and he managed to notify his brother just before he was going to concede to Tracy. There was even a rumor going around that Tracy was trying to have Mike assasinated. It’s a really interesting piece of American history and worth a read. 

TheGetFresh wrote:

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. It was a wild election. Candidate...

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. 

It was a wild election. Candidate Al Donnelly challenged incumbent governor Tracy in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Donnelly hired his brother Mike to work on the campaign, but his brother was kind of a well meaning idiot that created a lot of problems for Donnelly. 

Tracy took advantage and ran a smear campaign against Al by publishing a photos of Mike and claiming they were proof that he was racist and had committed arson. She went on to win a landslide victory, until Mike figured out that vote counts in certain counties exceeded the actual population of those counties. He found ballots that were submitted in the names of people who had died a decade ago and he managed to notify his brother just before he was going to concede to Tracy. There was even a rumor going around that Tracy was trying to have Mike assasinated. It’s a really interesting piece of American history and worth a read. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

TheGetFresh wrote:

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. It was a wild election. Candidate...

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. 

It was a wild election. Candidate Al Donnelly challenged incumbent governor Tracy in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Donnelly hired his brother Mike to work on the campaign, but his brother was kind of a well meaning idiot that created a lot of problems for Donnelly. 

Tracy took advantage and ran a smear campaign against Al by publishing a photos of Mike and claiming they were proof that he was racist and had committed arson. She went on to win a landslide victory, until Mike figured out that vote counts in certain counties exceeded the actual population of those counties. He found ballots that were submitted in the names of people who had died a decade ago and he managed to notify his brother just before he was going to concede to Tracy. There was even a rumor going around that Tracy was trying to have Mike assasinated. It’s a really interesting piece of American history and worth a read. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

TheGetFresh wrote:

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. It was a wild election. Candidate...

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. 

It was a wild election. Candidate Al Donnelly challenged incumbent governor Tracy in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Donnelly hired his brother Mike to work on the campaign, but his brother was kind of a well meaning idiot that created a lot of problems for Donnelly. 

Tracy took advantage and ran a smear campaign against Al by publishing a photos of Mike and claiming they were proof that he was racist and had committed arson. She went on to win a landslide victory, until Mike figured out that vote counts in certain counties exceeded the actual population of those counties. He found ballots that were submitted in the names of people who had died a decade ago and he managed to notify his brother just before he was going to concede to Tracy. There was even a rumor going around that Tracy was trying to have Mike assasinated. It’s a really interesting piece of American history and worth a read. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Oh ok… my bad…..🤣

TheGetFresh wrote:

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. It was a wild election. Candidate...

I don’t know why some people find election fraud so hard to believe. This exact thing happened in Washington in 1996. 

It was a wild election. Candidate Al Donnelly challenged incumbent governor Tracy in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Donnelly hired his brother Mike to work on the campaign, but his brother was kind of a well meaning idiot that created a lot of problems for Donnelly. 

Tracy took advantage and ran a smear campaign against Al by publishing a photos of Mike and claiming they were proof that he was racist and had committed arson. She went on to win a landslide victory, until Mike figured out that vote counts in certain counties exceeded the actual population of those counties. He found ballots that were submitted in the names of people who had died a decade ago and he managed to notify his brother just before he was going to concede to Tracy. There was even a rumor going around that Tracy was trying to have Mike assasinated. It’s a really interesting piece of American history and worth a read. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

APLMAN99 wrote:

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way...

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way.  Really fun movie but 30 years is a long time to remember all the details!

Kenny Banyan wrote:

There has never been a governor of Washington state  with the name Tracy .

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

APLMAN99 wrote:

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way...

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way.  Really fun movie but 30 years is a long time to remember all the details!

ToolMaker wrote:

From The Federalist"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more...

From The Federalist

"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more questionable election procedures. According to state election law, a late-arriving mail-in ballot missing a postmark can still be counted so long as it arrives by seven days after Election Day. 

“Vote-by-mail ballot is postmarked or date stamped on or before Election Day by a bona fide private mail delivery service and received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020,” state law says. 

If a vote-by-mail envelop “has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service” the ballot can still be counted if the “voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was excepted on or before Election Day…”

In other words, a late arriving mail-in ballot can be accepted even when election officials have no way of independently verifying when it was actually mailed. Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Fellow at public policy organization Advancing American Freedom, confirmed as much to The Federalist’s Matt Kittle on iHeartRadio on Monday. "

Hmm, and we wonder why people don't trust the process.

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

APLMAN99 wrote:

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way...

To be honest, I had forgotten the name but remembered that it had Dan Akroyd and James Garner in it and found the name that way.  Really fun movie but 30 years is a long time to remember all the details!

borg wrote:

Maybe there are 2 movies with that name but I don't remember those 2 being in the movie with Chris Farley.

ToolMaker wrote:

From The Federalist"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more...

From The Federalist

"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more questionable election procedures. According to state election law, a late-arriving mail-in ballot missing a postmark can still be counted so long as it arrives by seven days after Election Day. 

“Vote-by-mail ballot is postmarked or date stamped on or before Election Day by a bona fide private mail delivery service and received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020,” state law says. 

If a vote-by-mail envelop “has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service” the ballot can still be counted if the “voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was excepted on or before Election Day…”

In other words, a late arriving mail-in ballot can be accepted even when election officials have no way of independently verifying when it was actually mailed. Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Fellow at public policy organization Advancing American Freedom, confirmed as much to The Federalist’s Matt Kittle on iHeartRadio on Monday. "

Hmm, and we wonder why people don't trust the process.

ToolMaker wrote:

From The Federalist"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more...

From The Federalist

"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more questionable election procedures. According to state election law, a late-arriving mail-in ballot missing a postmark can still be counted so long as it arrives by seven days after Election Day. 

“Vote-by-mail ballot is postmarked or date stamped on or before Election Day by a bona fide private mail delivery service and received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020,” state law says. 

If a vote-by-mail envelop “has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service” the ballot can still be counted if the “voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was excepted on or before Election Day…”

In other words, a late arriving mail-in ballot can be accepted even when election officials have no way of independently verifying when it was actually mailed. Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Fellow at public policy organization Advancing American Freedom, confirmed as much to The Federalist’s Matt Kittle on iHeartRadio on Monday. "

Hmm, and we wonder why people don't trust the process.

borg wrote:

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of...

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of the library. Those are not post marked.

ToolMaker wrote:

From The Federalist"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more...

From The Federalist

"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more questionable election procedures. According to state election law, a late-arriving mail-in ballot missing a postmark can still be counted so long as it arrives by seven days after Election Day. 

“Vote-by-mail ballot is postmarked or date stamped on or before Election Day by a bona fide private mail delivery service and received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020,” state law says. 

If a vote-by-mail envelop “has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service” the ballot can still be counted if the “voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was excepted on or before Election Day…”

In other words, a late arriving mail-in ballot can be accepted even when election officials have no way of independently verifying when it was actually mailed. Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Fellow at public policy organization Advancing American Freedom, confirmed as much to The Federalist’s Matt Kittle on iHeartRadio on Monday. "

Hmm, and we wonder why people don't trust the process.

borg wrote:

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of...

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of the library. Those are not post marked.

Sandberm656 wrote:

Black Sheep, its a movie. I never saw it either.

TheGetFresh was making a ha ha, apleman got it, we didnt.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Oh ok… my bad…..🤣

borg wrote:

I saw the movie and liked it but I didn't know what he was talking about either. So, if I made it too, it's an honest...

I saw the movie and liked it but I didn't know what he was talking about either. So, if I made it too, it's an honest mistake.

Falcon wrote:

See? Now this is the very first thing I've yet seen that provides [i]any kind[/i] of logical response to the question. If true, this would assuage...

See? Now this is the very first thing I've yet seen that provides any kind of logical response to the question. If true, this would assuage the fears of many. Instead, all I've heard from the Democrats is a constant smattering of "don't worry' it's all good," or "Anyone asking about election integrity goes to jail for 3 years." (Recent law rushed through the legislature and signed by Gavin Newsom.) 
It would be really nice to see a transparent election. To be honest, I would not expect a Republican to win anything here except a small regional office, but it would still be nice to feel confident at least that the elections were not being stolen. Right now, it sure seems like there is a massive stranglehold on power by the one side that won. They're getting everything they want, all the time, with no worries about accountability, transparency, or concessions to the constituents on the other side.  

SKlein wrote:

The only reason you don't feel confident is because a small subset of individuals in power are telling the public anytime an election doesn't return a...

The only reason you don't feel confident is because a small subset of individuals in power are telling the public anytime an election doesn't return a result in their favor it's stolen and needs to be immediately investigated. Does voter fraud occur? Yes. Does it happen at a large scale which regularly impacts elections? There's been no evidence provided that suggests it does.

Also, is this the law you're referring to? There's no "speak out" portion, unless you have a different source.

SB 73:

• Prohibiting any person from providing unauthorized access, disruption, modification, or seizure of voter rolls, voter lists, or certified voting technology to law enforcement agents — including federal agents — absent a court order or investigation into specific violations of California election law.
• Restricting peace officers from interfering with election administration or disrupting election workers carrying out their duties, except in urgent public safety emergencies.
• Requiring the California Department of Justice to issue guidance to county election officials on how to respond to requests from law enforcement seeking access to areas where ballots are cast, processed, or handled.
• Increasing protections against illegal removal or seizure of voted ballots and establishing criminal penalties for knowingly taking ballots from election officials.
• The legislation also makes it a crime — punishable by a $1,000 fine, imprisonment for up to three years, or by both — for a person to knowingly take a package containing voted ballots from the custody of elections officials.

Falcon wrote:

See? Now this is the very first thing I've yet seen that provides [i]any kind[/i] of logical response to the question. If true, this would assuage...

See? Now this is the very first thing I've yet seen that provides any kind of logical response to the question. If true, this would assuage the fears of many. Instead, all I've heard from the Democrats is a constant smattering of "don't worry' it's all good," or "Anyone asking about election integrity goes to jail for 3 years." (Recent law rushed through the legislature and signed by Gavin Newsom.) 
It would be really nice to see a transparent election. To be honest, I would not expect a Republican to win anything here except a small regional office, but it would still be nice to feel confident at least that the elections were not being stolen. Right now, it sure seems like there is a massive stranglehold on power by the one side that won. They're getting everything they want, all the time, with no worries about accountability, transparency, or concessions to the constituents on the other side.  

SKlein wrote:

The only reason you don't feel confident is because a small subset of individuals in power are telling the public anytime an election doesn't return a...

The only reason you don't feel confident is because a small subset of individuals in power are telling the public anytime an election doesn't return a result in their favor it's stolen and needs to be immediately investigated. Does voter fraud occur? Yes. Does it happen at a large scale which regularly impacts elections? There's been no evidence provided that suggests it does.

Also, is this the law you're referring to? There's no "speak out" portion, unless you have a different source.

SB 73:

• Prohibiting any person from providing unauthorized access, disruption, modification, or seizure of voter rolls, voter lists, or certified voting technology to law enforcement agents — including federal agents — absent a court order or investigation into specific violations of California election law.
• Restricting peace officers from interfering with election administration or disrupting election workers carrying out their duties, except in urgent public safety emergencies.
• Requiring the California Department of Justice to issue guidance to county election officials on how to respond to requests from law enforcement seeking access to areas where ballots are cast, processed, or handled.
• Increasing protections against illegal removal or seizure of voted ballots and establishing criminal penalties for knowingly taking ballots from election officials.
• The legislation also makes it a crime — punishable by a $1,000 fine, imprisonment for up to three years, or by both — for a person to knowingly take a package containing voted ballots from the custody of elections officials.

Falcon wrote:

Well, see I don't really expect Republicans to win very often in California. I'm not deluded into thinking that conservatives lose only because the votes are...

Well, see I don't really expect Republicans to win very often in California. I'm not deluded into thinking that conservatives lose only because the votes are getting stolen. However, I'd feel a lot better about it if Democrats even acted like they care about the loopholes that could account for massive amounts of fraud. Saying, "Oh don't worry; there's no evidence of massive, election-altering fraud" doesn't make me feel better about the very real possibility that millions illegal immigrants could cast votes, that those votes tend to swing left, and that it is extremely convenient for the Democrats to allow it to happen. Perhaps we're all looking at the problem differently; I don't think non-citizens should have a voice in our society, but perhaps you do. That's another argument, I suppose. 

As for SB73, I was misled and I'll eat crow about it. I had this one and AB2624 confused, itself less draconian than I thought. 

Falcon wrote:

Well, see I don't really expect Republicans to win very often in California. I'm not deluded into thinking that conservatives lose only because the votes are...

Well, see I don't really expect Republicans to win very often in California. I'm not deluded into thinking that conservatives lose only because the votes are getting stolen. However, I'd feel a lot better about it if Democrats even acted like they care about the loopholes that could account for massive amounts of fraud. Saying, "Oh don't worry; there's no evidence of massive, election-altering fraud" doesn't make me feel better about the very real possibility that millions illegal immigrants could cast votes, that those votes tend to swing left, and that it is extremely convenient for the Democrats to allow it to happen. Perhaps we're all looking at the problem differently; I don't think non-citizens should have a voice in our society, but perhaps you do. That's another argument, I suppose. 

As for SB73, I was misled and I'll eat crow about it. I had this one and AB2624 confused, itself less draconian than I thought. 

HuskyEd wrote:

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.

https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509

HuskyEd wrote:

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.

https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509

ToolMaker wrote:

From The Federalist"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more...

From The Federalist

"And with the flood of late-arriving mail-in ballots having helped propel Raman into second place, it’s worth looking at one of the state’s more questionable election procedures. According to state election law, a late-arriving mail-in ballot missing a postmark can still be counted so long as it arrives by seven days after Election Day. 

“Vote-by-mail ballot is postmarked or date stamped on or before Election Day by a bona fide private mail delivery service and received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020,” state law says. 

If a vote-by-mail envelop “has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service” the ballot can still be counted if the “voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was excepted on or before Election Day…”

In other words, a late arriving mail-in ballot can be accepted even when election officials have no way of independently verifying when it was actually mailed. Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Fellow at public policy organization Advancing American Freedom, confirmed as much to The Federalist’s Matt Kittle on iHeartRadio on Monday. "

Hmm, and we wonder why people don't trust the process.

borg wrote:

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of...

I didn't put my ballot in the mail so it was never going to have a postmark. I used a ballot drop box in front of the library. Those are not post marked.

APLMAN99 wrote:

In that case, it's not a 'mail-in' ballot and doesn't have the same issues.  I'm not sure if all places do this, but 'back home' our...

In that case, it's not a 'mail-in' ballot and doesn't have the same issues.  I'm not sure if all places do this, but 'back home' our ballot drop boxes are locked up right at midnight on election night so ballots are not dropped in afterwards.  

As for the issue that ToolMaker is taking about, those ballots become provisional in at least a lot of jurisdictions.  You get an opportunity to 'cure' your ballot, but it's definitely not an automatic approval.  If someone drops their ballot in the mail and the postmark gets smudged, that's out of their control for the most part so they have at least a small chance of trying to prove it was on time.  

HuskyEd wrote:

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509

Things are possibly about to get "spicy". This is from Spencer Pratt's Tik-Tok page so there will be no Rick Rolling on this.

https://www.tiktok.com/@spencerpratt/video/7650562652485258509