Jack Bauer said:

---

Republican Wisconsin senate candidate Eric Hovde breaks his silence:

"At 4am, Milwaukee reported ~108K absentee ballots, with Sen. Baldwin receiving nearly 90% of those ballots. Statistically this outcome seems impropable.” pic.twitter.com/fpUpatwqUJ

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 12, 2024

---

If we don't pass meaningful voter integrity laws in the next two years... we deserve to have the Democrats steal our elections

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Two women, one of them a USPS carrier, were arrested last week for attempting to illegally cast over a dozen ballots in Mesa County, Colorado, after stealing the ballots from the mail.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) November 12, 2024

Popular vote

Trump - 76M (+2.9m)
Kamala - 73.1M

California is 88% done (58-38 for Kamala)

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Popular vote

Trump - 76M (+2.9m)
Kamala - 73.1M

California is 88% done (58-38 for Kamala)

---

he is definitely on track to keep the popular vote

About 2 million left to count, she will get like 1.2, he will get around 700k based on current ratios so he will win the popular vote by 2.4 million or so

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Popular vote

Trump - 76M (+2.9m)
Kamala - 73.1M

California is 88% done (58-38 for Kamala)

---

he is definitely on track to keep the popular vote

About 2 million left to count, she will get like 1.2, he will get around 700k based on current ratios so he will win the popular vote by 2.4 million or so

---

Thats not even important here. It's been 9 days. How in the world are we still counting ballots?

---

because elections are left up to the state and some states suck at them

4th and Inches said:

---

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Popular vote

Trump - 76M (+2.9m)
Kamala - 73.1M

California is 88% done (58-38 for Kamala)

---

he is definitely on track to keep the popular vote

About 2 million left to count, she will get like 1.2, he will get around 700k based on current ratios so he will win the popular vote by 2.4 million or so

---

Thats not even important here. It's been 9 days. How in the world are we still counting ballots?

---

because elections are left up to the state and some states suck at them

---

That was more of rhetorical question. But how can any state suck that bad? 9 DAYS? I probably could have rounded up 5 friends and the 6 of us could have counted them that fast

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Popular vote

Trump - 76M (+2.9m)
Kamala - 73.1M

California is 88% done (58-38 for Kamala)

---

he is definitely on track to keep the popular vote

About 2 million left to count, she will get like 1.2, he will get around 700k based on current ratios so he will win the popular vote by 2.4 million or so

---

Thats not even important here. It's been 9 days. How in the world are we still counting ballots?

---

because elections are left up to the state and some states suck at them

---

That was more of rhetorical question. But how can any state suck that bad? 9 DAYS? I probably could have rounded up 5 friends and the 6 of us could have counted them that fast

---

Texas and Florida counted 99% of their ballots in 4 hours.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

---

Do you recall what the poster you attempted to "debunk" said?

I think you need to read it again.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

---

Do you recall what the poster you attempted to "debunk" said?

I think you need to read it again.

---

You should too.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

---

Do you recall what the poster you attempted to "debunk" said?

I think you need to read it again.

---

You should too.

---

At your suggestion, I did. Here is what the poster wrote:

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing."

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.


The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

Nothing that your article posted debunked any of the above. In fact, it actually confirmed that most of the poster's statements, confirming that many of the lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing.

Perhaps you need to do so more googling. Surely you can do better.

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Should be, and what can be done are probably two different things. My guess is that it would be tied up in court for years. With all that Trump is about to change, not sure he wants that battle right now.

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Congress would have an uphill battle with some of that because election law is mostly the right reserved for the state legislatures as long as it complies in certain ways with federal election rules for federal elections

Most federal election law deals with accessibility and equality of opportunity to vote.

However there is also education as to how Florida changes it's voting procedures. Send them to every state with recommendations to upgrade.

Maybe a Federal law dictating that all votes must be in with X amount of days?

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Congress would have an uphill battle with some of that because election law is mostly the right reserved for the state legislatures as long as it complies in certain ways with federal election rules for federal elections

Most federal election law deals with accessibility and equality of opportunity to vote.

---

Very much a federalist but that means the guidelines need to be updated. Ie you can have up to 24 hours post election to count ballots. You can count them however you want but you only have 24 hours post Election Day. I'm not even sure why we need that but I think some level of flexibility is a good thing.

Assassin said:

---

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Should be, and what can be done are probably two different things. My guess is that it would be tied up in court for years. With all that Trump is about to change, not sure he wants that battle right now.

---

True

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Congress would have an uphill battle with some of that because election law is mostly the right reserved for the state legislatures as long as it complies in certain ways with federal election rules for federal elections

Most federal election law deals with accessibility and equality of opportunity to vote.

---

Very much a federalist but that means the guidelines need to be updated. Ie you can have up to 24 hours post election to count ballots. You can count them however you want but you only have 24 hours post Election Day. I'm not even sure why we need that but I think some level of flexibility is a good thing.

---

I agree with the need for flexibility and federalism but when those things are abused for fraudulent purposes something must be done. We've had too many fake senators and even a fake president because of fascists stealing elections.

I think the deadline for all counting should be midnight on the night of the election. If states want more flexibility they can adjust accordingly. It's reasonable to require all mail in ballots be post marked a week or two before, for example, and with the understanding that if you want to make sure your vote is counted you will get it in as soon as possible. The states should not be held responsible for the inefficiencies of the USPS.

historian said:

---

nein51 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

Congress should refuse to accept any votes added after Election Day. Period.

There also should be strict voter ID laws in every state, strict rules on mail in ballots, requirements for states to purge voter rolls annually (people who move, die, or are incarcerated), and other common sense measures to protect our votes.

---

Congress would have an uphill battle with some of that because election law is mostly the right reserved for the state legislatures as long as it complies in certain ways with federal election rules for federal elections

Most federal election law deals with accessibility and equality of opportunity to vote.

---

Very much a federalist but that means the guidelines need to be updated. Ie you can have up to 24 hours post election to count ballots. You can count them however you want but you only have 24 hours post Election Day. I'm not even sure why we need that but I think some level of flexibility is a good thing.

---

I agree with the need for flexibility and federalism but when those things are abused for fraudulent purposes something must be done. We've had too many fake senators and even a fake president because of fascists stealing elections.

I think the deadline for all counting should be midnight on the night of the election. If states want more flexibility they can adjust accordingly. It's reasonable to require all mail in ballots be post marked a week or two before, for example, and with the understanding that if you want to make sure your vote is counted you will get it in as soon as possible. The states should not be held responsible for the inefficiencies of the USPS.

---

Yea,

Lets also not act like the Feds have already not gotten involved in State elections in a 100 ways since the 1950s

(mostly in service to progressive cultural and electoral priorities)

This would be one small change.....Congress telling the States "you have 24hrs in the modern tech/internet age to count the Vote and get the results to us"

historian said:

---

For almost 250 years it was possible to count ballots in a timely way. There is NO reason that cannot happen in every state & every election. None.

---

Agree 100%. Follow the rules, everyone. AZ is ridiculous. AK, I could cut them some slack a lot of territory without communications.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

---

Do you recall what the poster you attempted to "debunk" said?

I think you need to read it again.

---

You should too.

---

At your suggestion, I did. Here is what the poster wrote:

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing."

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.


The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

Nothing that your article posted debunked any of the above. In fact, it actually confirmed that most of the poster's statements, confirming that many of the lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing.

Perhaps you need to do so more googling. Surely you can do better.

---

Doing fine, thanks.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For almost 250 years it was possible to count ballots in a timely way. There is NO reason that cannot happen in every state & every election. None.

---

Agree 100%. Follow the rules, everyone. AZ is ridiculous. AK, I could cut them some slack a lot of territory without communications.

---

Good point about Alaska and yet they are an excellent case study: I don't remember them ever having any real delays in counting and reporting votes.

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

For almost 250 years it was possible to count ballots in a timely way. There is NO reason that cannot happen in every state & every election. None.

---

Agree 100%. Follow the rules, everyone. AZ is ridiculous. AK, I could cut them some slack a lot of territory without communications.

---

Good point about Alaska and yet they are an excellent case study: I don't remember them ever having any real delays in counting and reporting votes.

---

True, makes you wonder how many voted and were counted in the past. AZ, NV, and others no excuse.

This is why no votes should be counted beyond midnight. There literally is no excuse. If Florida can do it, the third most populous state and in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane, anyone can. The difference is that the fascist states drag things out for the direct purpose of stealing elections. It looks like they will get a few senate seats because of their fraud. As I've said before, they will continue doing this year after year unless someone starts throwing the guilty parties in jail.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hmmmm

Once again, a 3:30am ballot dump lost us a critical race in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/Ea7Pbn6I2V

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 11, 2024

---

Especially weird since the 10:30 PM ballot drop seemed to have won it for Red.

I fear we are dealing with powerful magicks on both sides.

---

lol, expand the graph or put on your glasses

Both the blue and red lines moved up, not just the blue line only like 2020 and 330am

---

You're missing the point. Spikes happen. Where's the rule that says they always benefit both parties equally? They don't.

---

Show some graphs with similar red spikes, and I will take it as normal. Haven't seen those yet.

---

Why would those necessarily exist? It was predicted in 2020 that mail-in ballots would favor Democrats, and so they did. There's no rule that says both parties have an equal right to warm fuzzies every time there's an update.

---

There are states where Democrats are not the majority. Do those have one sided spikes?

---

They certainly could, depending on where the votes are coming from.

But all of this was thoroughly litigated back in 2020. Republicans won this year. There's no need to keep dwelling on the paranoia that Trump was selling back then.

---

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing." I do wonder who it is that actually does have standing for such a case, especially the cases involving thwarting of state law and constitutions.

---

That's not true.

---

And yet it is.

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.

The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

---

Nope.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-2020-stolen-election-claims-are-wrong-merits

---

I think you're so busy googling articles to "debunk" ideas you disagree with, you often times don't even read the **** you link.

What you posted didn't refute anything in his post. Hell it even acknowledges that many of the suits were dismissed based on standing issues. He's absolutely correct that the vast majority didn't get past the dismissal stage.

Now that's not to say that Trump has sufficient evidence to illicit a ruling in his favor. He clearly didn't. But your link didn't refute a thing in his post.

---

I hate to break this to you, but standing issues have to be addressed first. The fact remains that the courts went out of their way to address the merits.

---

Do you recall what the poster you attempted to "debunk" said?

I think you need to read it again.

---

You should too.

---

At your suggestion, I did. Here is what the poster wrote:

Saying that the issues were "thoroughly litigated" is dishonest, really, Hardly any of the issues actually made it to a case in court. Most were tossed for "lack of standing."

Just checked and of 82 suits brought by Republicans, only 6 had a conclusion beyond dismissed or denied.


The four suits filed against Republicans went beyond this with three going longer than two years.

Nothing that your article posted debunked any of the above. In fact, it actually confirmed that most of the poster's statements, confirming that many of the lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing.

Perhaps you need to do so more googling. Surely you can do better.

---

Doing fine, thanks.

---

Keeping the expectations low. I get it.

I know California is a big state but if you take that out of the election, the results are:

Trump: 70.6M (+5.8M)
Kamala: 64.8M