Many people on the right and left seem only too eager to drop all pretenses of civility and openly embrace lawlessness.Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:
TRUMP: I'll make America a banana republic again. No one can twist the law and get away with it like me.
BRAGG: Hold my beer.
Trump has convinced some here that everybody does it, so everybody ought to get to do it
Trump Indicted
37,699 Views |
423 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by whiterock
If this kind of charge-stacking is routine, it shouldn't be. A hundred years in prison for such a minor violation is ridiculous.HuMcK said:quash said:Mothra said:Add to that the fact that there was evidence of John Wiley taking bribes, and it was the FBI and federal prosecutors who nailed him. But yeah, according to quash, that's the same thing as being charged with a crime under a novel legal theory by a partisan DA who ran his campaign on convicting Trump. Exactly the same.whiterock said:It's not a political prosecution if a crime that ordinary people would be prosecuted for was actually committed. The Trump prosecution fails that test spectacularlyquash said:Mothra said:quash said:Mothra said:quash said:Mothra said:To the contrary, he didn't have to do anything. He chose to try to seek an indictment of something unprecedented, and without solid legal footing. And now he's got to prove that a federal crime occurred many years ago to prove his case, despite lacking the jurisdiction to prosecute same..quash said:Mothra said:Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
Doesn't matter what you and I believe. The point is that violations of federal campaign finance laws are not even in Bragg's power to prosecute as a district attorney. Yet in order to convict, Bragg will need to prove Trump tried to conceal federal campaign finance violations that he has not been charged with and that are not actually named in the indictment. It's absolutely absurd banana republic bull *****
Regardless of how one feels about trump, we should all be concerned with what's happening in New York.
He had to charge the cover-up as the acts being covered are barred by limitations. It's basic prosecution.
There's nothing basic about it. But good to know you're cool with political prosecutions.
First, you're good with political prosecutions, too, you just can't admit it now.
Second, I have no idea how the court is going to treat state prosecution of federal crimes. SDNY already passed on it.
Third, why the reference to "many years ago"? If you're talking about limitations the bar won't hit until April 15.
What political prosecution do you think I'm OK with? And what evidence do you have to support your statement? This should be interesting. Good luck!
Whitewater, JW Price, etc
What a bunch of bull***** I've never even addressed white water on these boards. I do recall saying that the Republicans prosecution of Clinton was a huge mistake.
As for John Wiley price, the idea that the FBI's case against him was a political prosecution is total BS. It's well known that old John was taking bribes. You should see his classic car collection. The federal prosecutor ****ed that one up. That's on them. That was in no way a political prosecution.
I see. So a political prosecution is OK as long as an actual crime was committed.
And here we are.
The shocking thing is there are three idiots who actually starred his post. I suspect I can guess who they are...
I've already said that I don't see how a state prosecutor pursues a federal crime so quit trying to hang that on me like it means something.
Are you really saying that if proven the indictments wouldn't be a crime? That would be astonishing but you've been there before...
He's not. The state crime of falsifying business records gets an enhancement to felony if it was done as part of commission of another crime (in this case they allude to election and tax crimes), and wouldn't you know it one of the co-conspirators has already plead guilty to federal election crimes...
Even if you lose that enhancement though, the underlying crimes as alleged seem very provable.
I have no idea how novel or routine that is in NY, but that is my understanding of what's happening.
I will join you at the polls4th and Inches said:Trump can go F himself, I will be doing my part to primary him.Osodecentx said:So I'll let you and the Dear Leader litigate the lost cause. Meanwhile, Dems rejoice4th and Inches said:he is too busy hating Trump to even notice that something outside of normal happened..Oldbear83 said:Why do you think spite and insults will help you win anyone over?Osodecentx said:Focusing on 2020 election is a loser, but then so is Trump4th and Inches said:why does a person have to beleive that Trump won to know that there were significant voting irregularities?Osodecentx said:Do you believe Trump won the 2020 election?Wangchung said:Why? Because no other candidate allows democrats the excuse of "well maybe there are just millions of people who never voted before who hate orange man bad THAT MUCH" as their cover for voting irregularities. You can point out that he received more minority votes than any republican presidential candidate in history, and you can point out he also received more total votes than any republican presidential candidate in history, but it won't matter. The cover story is built in and backed by most of the available media in this country.whiterock said:of course. Engage in blatantly political prosecutions in order to virtue posture about joining the third world banana republic category. What a win.KaiBear said:Hope they find Trump guilty of incest , indecent exposure and/or cruelty to animals.riflebear said:
Of course Trump will get a fair trial in NYCA man who posted memes about Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential election has been charged with "conspiring against the right to vote."@JoshJPhilipp on this case, and the implications for freedom of speech in America.
— Crossroads with Joshua Philipp (@crossroads_josh) April 8, 2023
Watch it here πhttps://t.co/Fp5jQX0b2S pic.twitter.com/KeIexBcesN
Whatever it takes to show the world the United States has changed forever.
If he really is such a sure-fire loser candidate, why are they working so hard to stop him? Why not shut up & let him coast to victory? Is it really their plan to attack him mercilessly across a broad front of PR and lawfare 10 months out from the first primary just to convince Republicans that he has all the right enemies?
There were not significant irregularities that affected the outcome.
You dont know who would have won if all the states would have followed the rules that the state legislatures passed for holding elections in their state. Yes I do, and the courts ruled thusly
Its also a Moot point about who thinks what about 2020. People won't vote for a nut who keeps prattling about a lost election.
Correcting issues that happened in 2020 like not following state legislated rules when holding an election would be nice. Some states did, some did nothing. Watch for the sh show to continue in those states in 2024.
You already have the Trump-haters on your side, maybe now you can be an adult around the normies.
The courts decided.. lol
That one is particularly funny when courts have actually decided that there were irregularities(not fraud) with how voting was done
Your assessment is bedeviled by current trends. YouGov has had Trump up vs Biden in its last two polls, after showing him 4 pts behind in January. Most all polling units show them moving into a dead heat, and even in the last 6-9 months Biden's advantage was barely outside the margin of error, and before that Trump was consistently ahead. More damaging to your point, the narrow advantage RDS has had in the polling appears to be softening. I think we will see that will continue, likely a function declining favorables for RDS.Osodecentx said:Democrats are playing you like a Stradivarius. Trump surges with Republicans, not the total electorate.whiterock said:If he really is such a sure-fire loser candidate, why are they working so hard to stop him? Why not shut up & let him coast to victory? Is it really their plan to attack him mercilessly across a broad front of PR and lawfare 10 months out from the first primary just to convince Republicans that he has all the right enemies?KaiBear said:Hope they find Trump guilty of incest , indecent exposure and/or cruelty to animals.riflebear said:
Of course Trump will get a fair trial in NYCA man who posted memes about Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential election has been charged with "conspiring against the right to vote."@JoshJPhilipp on this case, and the implications for freedom of speech in America.
— Crossroads with Joshua Philipp (@crossroads_josh) April 8, 2023
Watch it here πhttps://t.co/Fp5jQX0b2S pic.twitter.com/KeIexBcesN
Whatever it takes to show the world the United States has changed forever.
Independents won't be voting for Trump.
Trump Surges ahead of DeSantis in Florida, New Poll Finds
"Five months later, things have changed substantially," Victory Insights senior pollster Ben Galbraith said in a statement. "Several other candidates have announced their candidacies, and Trump has been indicted and arrested in a highly politicized move by the Manhattan DA. DeSantis still hasn't officially announced his candidacy, but his messaging, book tour, and PAC activity certainly point to a presidential run in the coming months."
"However, it's beginning to look more like an uphill battle than previously believed," the pollster added.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on Tuesday. The indictment, which Trump has decried as "political persecution," appears to have offered a boost to his presidential campaign, which raked in more than $10 million in the days after the news of the indictment broke.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-surges-ahead-of-desantis-in-florida-new-poll-finds/
Dems won the indies in the last two cycles not by turning them out to vote, but by harvesting their ballots. That has the effect of undoing the old rule of thumb about "likely voter" polls being more valuable than "registered voter" polls. It tends to push elections all the way over into "adults" polls, which is a very much bluer demographic than registered voters. If the GOP builds that same capability, some or all of that advantage can/will be offset. Biden, you seek is equally unpopular to Trump. Two unpopular candidates tends to depress turnout; ballot harvesting upends that. As long as Dems exceed GOP capabilities in ballot harvesting, it is difficult to see scenarios where the GOP wins close races anywhere.
Beyond the circular reasoning of neverTrumpism - "he can't win because he can't win" or "he's a horrible human because he's a horrible human" - opponents continues to be hindered by a preoccupation to what SHOULD happen rather than what will be. We are a very divided nation. There are not many scenarios for a 60-40 blowout by either side. The next election will likely be very, very close, no matter who is on the ticket. The idea that Trump SHOULD go away is compelling. He is "different." I understand the upturned noses far more than you realize. Surely another guy without so many warts could do a whole lot better? But there is no white knight. And Trump is not going away. And he does have pathways to victory. Moreover, trends should make those pathways more rather than less viable (as movement in current polling suggests). THAT'S WHY THE DEMS ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TAKE HIM OUT. Sure, Desantis is very talented, great record, very tough, appeals to Maga base....I can tout him as well as anyone. Might even end up voting for him in the primary. But he is untested on a national stage. His favorables will decline when he enters the race. Not clear AT THIS TIME that he is a clearly superior option. He needs to prove that. And if he can beat Trump in a primary, he will be the superior option. The winner of the primary, for all his/her faults, is invariably the best option. You cannot win the general if you cannot excite your base.
You can virtue posture the neverTrump nonsense if you want to, though. Free country. People don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be.
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
Trump is dead even with the worst president in our lifetimes? Quite an accomplishment. Trump is likely to be indicted 2 more times, and independents won't be flocking to the flag even if Republicans do. They don't want the chaos Trump will surely bring. Dems want the Republican nominee to be Trump. Why?whiterock said:Your assessment is bedeviled by current trends. YouGov has had Trump up vs Biden in its last two polls, after showing him 4 pts behind in January. Most all polling units show them moving into a dead heat, and even in the last 6-9 months Biden's advantage was barely outside the margin of error, and before that Trump was consistently ahead. More damaging to your point, the narrow advantage RDS has had in the polling appears to be softening. I think we will see that will continue, likely a function declining favorables for RDS.Osodecentx said:Democrats are playing you like a Stradivarius. Trump surges with Republicans, not the total electorate.whiterock said:If he really is such a sure-fire loser candidate, why are they working so hard to stop him? Why not shut up & let him coast to victory? Is it really their plan to attack him mercilessly across a broad front of PR and lawfare 10 months out from the first primary just to convince Republicans that he has all the right enemies?KaiBear said:Hope they find Trump guilty of incest , indecent exposure and/or cruelty to animals.riflebear said:
Of course Trump will get a fair trial in NYCA man who posted memes about Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential election has been charged with "conspiring against the right to vote."@JoshJPhilipp on this case, and the implications for freedom of speech in America.
— Crossroads with Joshua Philipp (@crossroads_josh) April 8, 2023
Watch it here πhttps://t.co/Fp5jQX0b2S pic.twitter.com/KeIexBcesN
Whatever it takes to show the world the United States has changed forever.
Independents won't be voting for Trump.
Trump Surges ahead of DeSantis in Florida, New Poll Finds
"Five months later, things have changed substantially," Victory Insights senior pollster Ben Galbraith said in a statement. "Several other candidates have announced their candidacies, and Trump has been indicted and arrested in a highly politicized move by the Manhattan DA. DeSantis still hasn't officially announced his candidacy, but his messaging, book tour, and PAC activity certainly point to a presidential run in the coming months."
"However, it's beginning to look more like an uphill battle than previously believed," the pollster added.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on Tuesday. The indictment, which Trump has decried as "political persecution," appears to have offered a boost to his presidential campaign, which raked in more than $10 million in the days after the news of the indictment broke.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-surges-ahead-of-desantis-in-florida-new-poll-finds/
Dems won the indies in the last two cycles not by turning them out to vote, but by harvesting their ballots. That has the effect of undoing the old rule of thumb about "likely voter" polls being more valuable than "registered voter" polls. It tends to push elections all the way over into "adults" polls, which is a very much bluer demographic than registered voters. If the GOP builds that same capability, some or all of that advantage can/will be offset. Biden, you seek is equally unpopular to Trump. Two unpopular candidates tends to depress turnout; ballot harvesting upends that. As long as Dems exceed GOP capabilities in ballot harvesting, it is difficult to see scenarios where the GOP wins close races anywhere.
Beyond the circular reasoning of neverTrumpism - "he can't win because he can't win" or "he's a horrible human because he's a horrible human" - opponents continues to be hindered by a preoccupation to what SHOULD happen rather than what will be. We are a very divided nation. There are not many scenarios for a 60-40 blowout by either side. The next election will likely be very, very close, no matter who is on the ticket. The idea that Trump SHOULD go away is compelling. He is "different." I understand the upturned noses far more than you realize. Surely another guy without so many warts could do a whole lot better? But there is no white knight. And Trump is not going away. And he does have pathways to victory. Moreover, trends should make those pathways more rather than less viable (as movement in current polling suggests). THAT'S WHY THE DEMS ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TAKE HIM OUT. Sure, Desantis is very talented, great record, very tough, appeals to Maga base....I can tout him as well as anyone. Might even end up voting for him in the primary. But he is untested on a national stage. His favorables will decline when he enters the race. Not clear AT THIS TIME that he is a clearly superior option. He needs to prove that. And if he can beat Trump in a primary, he will be the superior option. The winner of the primary, for all his/her faults, is invariably the best option. You cannot win the general if you cannot excite your base.
You can virtue posture the neverTrump nonsense if you want to, though. Free country. People don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be.
You have to toe the always Trumper line and parrot the delusional nonsense. You are a Texas Republican Party board member, hardly an honest broker. Why won't Trump pledge to endorse the nominee?
People certainly don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be.
Oso: "People certainly don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be"
You have certainly proved that point, Oso.
I can save you a couple minutes each night, by the way:
Check online each day to see where Trump has been talking. Unless it's in your town, there's not enough time for Trump to make his speech and get to your place in time to hide under your bed, so you can stop looking and just have a good night's sleep.
You have certainly proved that point, Oso.
I can save you a couple minutes each night, by the way:
Check online each day to see where Trump has been talking. Unless it's in your town, there's not enough time for Trump to make his speech and get to your place in time to hide under your bed, so you can stop looking and just have a good night's sleep.
Which cult? The Pro-Trump cult or the Never-Trump cult?LateSteak69 said:BleedGreen&Gold said:
I think it's hilarious that the candidate and party that ran on "Lock her Up" and "Law and Order" now doesn't believe it applies to Trump.
It's because it's a cult.
or is it the Climate Change Cult or the Gender Pronoun Cult?
From NR:
The Republican brand is still badly damaged by Donald Trump and the riots of January 6. Republican primary voters seem determined to continue to pick unpalatable candidates who drag their tickets down.
The Republican brand is still badly damaged by Donald Trump and the riots of January 6. Republican primary voters seem determined to continue to pick unpalatable candidates who drag their tickets down.
It's a strange Republican who disses the voters for liking who they like.Osodecentx said:
From NR:
The Republican brand is still badly damaged by Donald Trump and the riots of January 6. Republican primary voters seem determined to continue to pick unpalatable candidates who drag their tickets down.
Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
LOL. All I've ever said is that a Trump/Biden race will be the ugly contest of all ugly contests. Either guy can win it. Trump has far better odds than his harshest critics can allow themselves to allow, and lash out in Trump-esque rage at anyone who quibbles with them.Osodecentx said:Trump is dead even with the worst president in our lifetimes? Quite an accomplishment. Trump is likely to be indicted 2 more times, and independents won't be flocking to the flag even if Republicans do. They don't want the chaos Trump will surely bring. Dems want the Republican nominee to be Trump. Why?whiterock said:Your assessment is bedeviled by current trends. YouGov has had Trump up vs Biden in its last two polls, after showing him 4 pts behind in January. Most all polling units show them moving into a dead heat, and even in the last 6-9 months Biden's advantage was barely outside the margin of error, and before that Trump was consistently ahead. More damaging to your point, the narrow advantage RDS has had in the polling appears to be softening. I think we will see that will continue, likely a function declining favorables for RDS.Osodecentx said:Democrats are playing you like a Stradivarius. Trump surges with Republicans, not the total electorate.whiterock said:If he really is such a sure-fire loser candidate, why are they working so hard to stop him? Why not shut up & let him coast to victory? Is it really their plan to attack him mercilessly across a broad front of PR and lawfare 10 months out from the first primary just to convince Republicans that he has all the right enemies?KaiBear said:Hope they find Trump guilty of incest , indecent exposure and/or cruelty to animals.riflebear said:
Of course Trump will get a fair trial in NYCA man who posted memes about Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential election has been charged with "conspiring against the right to vote."@JoshJPhilipp on this case, and the implications for freedom of speech in America.
— Crossroads with Joshua Philipp (@crossroads_josh) April 8, 2023
Watch it here πhttps://t.co/Fp5jQX0b2S pic.twitter.com/KeIexBcesN
Whatever it takes to show the world the United States has changed forever.
Independents won't be voting for Trump.
Trump Surges ahead of DeSantis in Florida, New Poll Finds
"Five months later, things have changed substantially," Victory Insights senior pollster Ben Galbraith said in a statement. "Several other candidates have announced their candidacies, and Trump has been indicted and arrested in a highly politicized move by the Manhattan DA. DeSantis still hasn't officially announced his candidacy, but his messaging, book tour, and PAC activity certainly point to a presidential run in the coming months."
"However, it's beginning to look more like an uphill battle than previously believed," the pollster added.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on Tuesday. The indictment, which Trump has decried as "political persecution," appears to have offered a boost to his presidential campaign, which raked in more than $10 million in the days after the news of the indictment broke.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-surges-ahead-of-desantis-in-florida-new-poll-finds/
Dems won the indies in the last two cycles not by turning them out to vote, but by harvesting their ballots. That has the effect of undoing the old rule of thumb about "likely voter" polls being more valuable than "registered voter" polls. It tends to push elections all the way over into "adults" polls, which is a very much bluer demographic than registered voters. If the GOP builds that same capability, some or all of that advantage can/will be offset. Biden, you seek is equally unpopular to Trump. Two unpopular candidates tends to depress turnout; ballot harvesting upends that. As long as Dems exceed GOP capabilities in ballot harvesting, it is difficult to see scenarios where the GOP wins close races anywhere.
Beyond the circular reasoning of neverTrumpism - "he can't win because he can't win" or "he's a horrible human because he's a horrible human" - opponents continues to be hindered by a preoccupation to what SHOULD happen rather than what will be. We are a very divided nation. There are not many scenarios for a 60-40 blowout by either side. The next election will likely be very, very close, no matter who is on the ticket. The idea that Trump SHOULD go away is compelling. He is "different." I understand the upturned noses far more than you realize. Surely another guy without so many warts could do a whole lot better? But there is no white knight. And Trump is not going away. And he does have pathways to victory. Moreover, trends should make those pathways more rather than less viable (as movement in current polling suggests). THAT'S WHY THE DEMS ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TAKE HIM OUT. Sure, Desantis is very talented, great record, very tough, appeals to Maga base....I can tout him as well as anyone. Might even end up voting for him in the primary. But he is untested on a national stage. His favorables will decline when he enters the race. Not clear AT THIS TIME that he is a clearly superior option. He needs to prove that. And if he can beat Trump in a primary, he will be the superior option. The winner of the primary, for all his/her faults, is invariably the best option. You cannot win the general if you cannot excite your base.
You can virtue posture the neverTrump nonsense if you want to, though. Free country. People don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be.
You have to toe the always Trumper line and parrot the delusional nonsense. You are a Texas Republican Party board member, hardly an honest broker. Why won't Trump pledge to endorse the nominee?
People certainly don't have to be taken seriously if they don't want to be.
Dem dissatisfaction with Biden appears to be increasing. It will be interesting to watch dynamics now that Kennedy is in the race. Biden comes from the center of the Dem party but is allied with the progressive wing from which the Kennedys spring. So how will the factions align? Have the Democrats moved so far left that a Kennedy is now on the right wing of it? Maybe.
But if there's one article of faith on the left, it appears to be that Biden is kryptonite for Trump. So we may see the Dems align according to who they think our nominee will be.
and, in the swing states, all of it was within margin of error......sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
That's what moderates do. Try to hammer their base back into the closet They're afraid they'll get a bad reputation if they're seen hanging out with anyone to the right of them.Oldbear83 said:It's a strange Republican who disses the voters for liking who they like.Osodecentx said:
From NR:
The Republican brand is still badly damaged by Donald Trump and the riots of January 6. Republican primary voters seem determined to continue to pick unpalatable candidates who drag their tickets down.
What makes centrists so hard to deal with is that politics to them is all about the virtue posture, the idea that the path to virtue lies in making grand compromises on your deepest convictions.
Sam Lowry said:If this kind of charge-stacking is routine, it shouldn't be. A hundred years in prison for such a minor violation is ridiculous.HuMcK said:quash said:Mothra said:Add to that the fact that there was evidence of John Wiley taking bribes, and it was the FBI and federal prosecutors who nailed him. But yeah, according to quash, that's the same thing as being charged with a crime under a novel legal theory by a partisan DA who ran his campaign on convicting Trump. Exactly the same.whiterock said:It's not a political prosecution if a crime that ordinary people would be prosecuted for was actually committed. The Trump prosecution fails that test spectacularlyquash said:Mothra said:quash said:Mothra said:quash said:Mothra said:To the contrary, he didn't have to do anything. He chose to try to seek an indictment of something unprecedented, and without solid legal footing. And now he's got to prove that a federal crime occurred many years ago to prove his case, despite lacking the jurisdiction to prosecute same..quash said:Mothra said:Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
Doesn't matter what you and I believe. The point is that violations of federal campaign finance laws are not even in Bragg's power to prosecute as a district attorney. Yet in order to convict, Bragg will need to prove Trump tried to conceal federal campaign finance violations that he has not been charged with and that are not actually named in the indictment. It's absolutely absurd banana republic bull *****
Regardless of how one feels about trump, we should all be concerned with what's happening in New York.
He had to charge the cover-up as the acts being covered are barred by limitations. It's basic prosecution.
There's nothing basic about it. But good to know you're cool with political prosecutions.
First, you're good with political prosecutions, too, you just can't admit it now.
Second, I have no idea how the court is going to treat state prosecution of federal crimes. SDNY already passed on it.
Third, why the reference to "many years ago"? If you're talking about limitations the bar won't hit until April 15.
What political prosecution do you think I'm OK with? And what evidence do you have to support your statement? This should be interesting. Good luck!
Whitewater, JW Price, etc
What a bunch of bull***** I've never even addressed white water on these boards. I do recall saying that the Republicans prosecution of Clinton was a huge mistake.
As for John Wiley price, the idea that the FBI's case against him was a political prosecution is total BS. It's well known that old John was taking bribes. You should see his classic car collection. The federal prosecutor ****ed that one up. That's on them. That was in no way a political prosecution.
I see. So a political prosecution is OK as long as an actual crime was committed.
And here we are.
The shocking thing is there are three idiots who actually starred his post. I suspect I can guess who they are...
I've already said that I don't see how a state prosecutor pursues a federal crime so quit trying to hang that on me like it means something.
Are you really saying that if proven the indictments wouldn't be a crime? That would be astonishing but you've been there before...
He's not. The state crime of falsifying business records gets an enhancement to felony if it was done as part of commission of another crime (in this case they allude to election and tax crimes), and wouldn't you know it one of the co-conspirators has already plead guilty to federal election crimes...
Even if you lose that enhancement though, the underlying crimes as alleged seem very provable.
I have no idea how novel or routine that is in NY, but that is my understanding of what's happening.
It's why the "land of the free" have so many jails.
there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
βThe Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.β
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Reject rates in urban areas of swing states will remain 0 until red counties all start showing a 0-rate too.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
Are you talking about rejections of mail ballots? If so, those numbers are nominal, and there were no suspicious patterns or even reasonable allegations of problems there.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
There certainly were credible allegations of serious irregularities.sombear said:Are you talking about rejections of mail ballots? If so, those numbers are nominal, and there were no suspicious patterns or even reasonable allegations of problems there.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
I disagree, but I was referring specifically to mail ballot rejection rates.Oldbear83 said:There certainly were credible allegations of serious irregularities.sombear said:Are you talking about rejections of mail ballots? If so, those numbers are nominal, and there were no suspicious patterns or even reasonable allegations of problems there.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
The better ones did account for it, if I recall correctly.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove that
Quote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
No you're right, Trump was complaining about witch hunts BEFORE the witch hunts were created and implemented. You're like, REALLY smart.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
He's actually more like a mirror in the fun house that makes an ugly person fat as well as ugly: all of the bad attributes of the Democratic Party and much, much more.
And yet, his policies resulted in the best economic and foreign policy and trade conditions since 1988.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
He's actually more like a mirror in the fun house that makes an ugly person fat as well as ugly: all of the bad attributes of the Democratic Party and much, much more.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous a-holery.
Oldbear83 said:And yet, his policies resulted in the best economic and foreign policy and trade conditions since 1988.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
He's actually more like a mirror in the fun house that makes an ugly person fat as well as ugly: all of the bad attributes of the Democratic Party and much, much more.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous a-holery.
You can't really attack the message since Trump is what he is, so you attack the messenger and argue that the only thing that matters is the economy. Kind of like the Clinton White House back in the day.
No, Republicans and Democrats were able to compromise back then, thanks in large part to Newt Gingrich. Clinton's temporary economy was a product of the dotcom boom and social security changes.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:And yet, his policies resulted in the best economic and foreign policy and trade conditions since 1988.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
He's actually more like a mirror in the fun house that makes an ugly person fat as well as ugly: all of the bad attributes of the Democratic Party and much, much more.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous a-holery.
You can't really attack the message since Trump is what he is, so you attack the messenger and argue that the only thing that matters is the economy. Kind of like the Clinton White House back in the day.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Here is the "Newt Gingrich" that Trump had to make deals with;
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
illegal act that nobody cares about.. destruction of govt document.Wangchung said:
Here is the "Newt Gingrich" that Trump had to make deals with;
βThe Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.β
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
I call what is.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:And yet, his policies resulted in the best economic and foreign policy and trade conditions since 1988.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Ob yeah, I forgot Trump was supposed to roll over and take the investigations and accusations with a smile. I love watching you democrats lose your minds over Trump. Despite his many faults, he gave it right back to you and THAT is what you hate the most. Trump is the mirror republicans held up to your faces.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:You equate failing to wave back at your neighbor with burning down your neighbors house in retaliation. "Petty begets petty!"Porteroso said:whiterock said:Explain how he did.Porteroso said:
We will see what happens. Is there actually anyone who thinks Trump didn't violate the law with campaign finances?
And the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats. I have no idea what else anyone expected. New York was investigating him constantly.
(hint: you can't).
Am also amused to see the inference that antagonizing Democrats justifies unremitting lawfare. One of the oldest rules of combat is - line of sight is reciprocal. Otherwise known by the public as "you reap what you sow."
Petty people beget pettiness, basic law of the universe. When you are the most powerful person on the planet for a time, and you spend time sowing hate, division, and distrust in America, you will reap what you have sown.
You're entirely correct.
Are you telling me that at no point did Trump engage in anything that could be considered a political witch hunt?
I can't believe I'm asked to prove thatQuote:
the guy spent his 4 years antagonizing the shot out of Democrats
Clown world indeed. If this is trolling please go back to kindergarten.
Lmao Trump is the mirror Democrats hate most! Omg this forum. A+
He's actually more like a mirror in the fun house that makes an ugly person fat as well as ugly: all of the bad attributes of the Democratic Party and much, much more.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous a-holery.
You can't really attack the message since Trump is what he is, so you attack the messenger and argue that the only thing that matters is the economy. Kind of like the Clinton White House back in the day.
Things worked under Trump and you know it.
All you got is parroting Left-wing hate groups.
Are you proud of that?
ballot reject rate is where a major part of the problem lies. The idea that 99.something of average adults fill out a ballot correctly and are properly signature matched is preposterous. Exceedingly few things involving the human hand has that kind of accuracy rate. Add in ballot harvesting and all the other shenanigan-able things in partisan elections and every close election is questionable.sombear said:I disagree, but I was referring specifically to mail ballot rejection rates.Oldbear83 said:There certainly were credible allegations of serious irregularities.sombear said:Are you talking about rejections of mail ballots? If so, those numbers are nominal, and there were no suspicious patterns or even reasonable allegations of problems there.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/750000-mail-ballots-rejected-2016-2018-matters/story?id=73645323
Key area for analysis is variance between primary rejection rate and general rejection rate. Dems adjudicate very scrupulously in their primary, but count every piece of paper identifiable as a ballot in the general. Why? Because in a blue county, it's a 60-90% chance a vote is for a Democrat, so driving up the total vote in such precincts drives up the Democrat margin of victory. In a dead-even race, if the GOP has a 1% error rate in its ballots, and Dems have a 0% error rate, the Dem will win the election. Duh.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-mail-in-voting-deluge-fuels-uncounted-ballots-confusion/2534878/
I could list a hundred examples of serious problems with mail-in voting.....from registration, to solicitation of ballots, to adjudication of ballots, to manipulation of voter rolls, etc..... Not possible to make mail-in voting safe. Unserious to even make the argument that such could be done, given the involvement of human hands, attached to biased minds.
To be clear, I agree mail ballots are inherently problematic. I was making the narrower point that the data on rejection rates reflects no anti-GOP or swing state bias. Rejection rates were down similarly in GOP precincts, for example. As you suggest, mail ballot issues involve human completion errors. The more mail balloting is marketed, the more voters are likely to understand how to complete them. In addition, voters are sending ballots in much earlier now, and most states (GOP and Dem) have mechanisms for curing.whiterock said:ballot reject rate is where a major part of the problem lies. The idea that 99.something of average adults fill out a ballot correctly and are properly signature matched is preposterous. Exceedingly few things involving the human hand has that kind of accuracy rate. Add in ballot harvesting and all the other shenanigan-able things in partisan elections and every close election is questionable.sombear said:I disagree, but I was referring specifically to mail ballot rejection rates.Oldbear83 said:There certainly were credible allegations of serious irregularities.sombear said:Are you talking about rejections of mail ballots? If so, those numbers are nominal, and there were no suspicious patterns or even reasonable allegations of problems there.4th and Inches said:there is usually a 2-3% rejection rate and there was no rejections in the swings in 2020. Either the models were in the MOE or they accounted for the fact 2020 would miraculously have the lowest rejection rate in election history..sombear said:Turnout models were accurate also.whiterock said:And Dems turned them out via mail-in ballots.sombear said:
The pre-election polling of Indies and Suburbanites was accurate and consistent with RNC and Trump internals.
The difference in turnout doesn't have to be vast in a close election. The race turned on five digits of voters in a handful of states.
We've got to fix that or all this discussion about candidates is irrelevant.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/750000-mail-ballots-rejected-2016-2018-matters/story?id=73645323
Key area for analysis is variance between primary rejection rate and general rejection rate. Dems adjudicate very scrupulously in their primary, but count every piece of paper identifiable as a ballot in the general. Why? Because in a blue county, it's a 60-90% chance a vote is for a Democrat, so driving up the total vote in such precincts drives up the Democrat margin of victory. In a dead-even race, if the GOP has a 1% error rate in its ballots, and Dems have a 0% error rate, the Dem will win the election. Duh.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-mail-in-voting-deluge-fuels-uncounted-ballots-confusion/2534878/
I could list a hundred examples of serious problems with mail-in voting.....from registration, to solicitation of ballots, to adjudication of ballots, to manipulation of voter rolls, etc..... Not possible to make mail-in voting safe. Unserious to even make the argument that such could be done, given the involvement of human hands, attached to biased minds.