Funny the only voting process we had for presidential elections were absentee and going to the polls.
Too hard to say its ok to make sure our voting process be protected? I dont want to live in a banana Republic.
Oh and what else is funny. Back during trumps win when the collusion delusion was happening, the importance of our voting process was all I heard by forum libs. Gee now when we question it, its not worth talking about. Funny
3 Likes
I may be a little dense.
We have mail-in voting and in-person voting. What other process would you like?
And I strongly support a protected voting process where people are allowed to vote and that the vote is secure.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Well when the Trump campaign managers is providing internal polling data to the Russians…
One has to wonder.
And then there were the Intelligence Communities confirm Russia was trying to interfere. But that was about influencing how people voted, to compromising the voting process.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
And we are wondering about the mail in ballots. Shouldnt be a cause of concern to do some investigating. Unless, that is there is something to hide.
How is it hidden? Is Smartmatic lying when they say:
George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in Smartmatic
src: https://www.smartmatic.com/us/case-studies/article/facts-about-smartmatic/
JayJay
119
Of course they are lying…Q knows all.
JayJay
121
I found this article incredibly informative…not only did COVID wreck our normal lives, it probably made us even more susceptible to misinformation factories like Q by the mere fact of us being online more.
And that the pedophile rings angle might naturally appeal to women stressed out by the disproportionate burden placed on them for child care while working from home.
1 Like
Investigate away.
I’ve actually made some notes and will be contacting my Congressmen and Senator with some recommendations such as:
-
National integration of Voter Registration, States will be responsible, but a system of cooperative information exchange to identify deaths, cross registration (someone registered in more than one location). In addition it would act as a clearing house for verification of (a) those that have their franchise removed by legal action, and (b) those whose right has been restored.
-
Federal protections against voter disenfranchisement and standardization of vote by mail delivery times. Vote will have to accepted when delivered by the USPS up to X days after election day for domestic mail. Such legislation would not impact extended delivery under UOCAVA for American’s overseas and the military. Drop box delivery, since of course it is being made directly to election officials must occur prior to poll closing on election day.
-
USPS will be required to prioritize ballots for delivery.
-
USPS will be required to segregate any ballot revived after mid-night of election day for processing from those received before or on election day. Ballots delivered after election day must contain a certification from the USPS that the mail in question was in the possession of the USPS on or before election day. Likewise mail received after election day and delivered must contain a certification that it was received by the USPS after election day. Since there will be accompanying certification from the USPS, individuals will not be disenfranchised if the USPS fails to postmark and individual piece of mail.
-
Election officials will be authorized to begin security screening of mail and drop off ballots a minimum of 14 days before election day not to include the counting of the actual ballot. Counting of mail and drop off ballots is authorized to begin counting no sooner then the date designated for the General Election.
-
Persons who receive a mail-in ballot and are physically unable to place the ballot in a USPS mail box or official drop box established by local election officials can designate an individual to place the sealed mail in ballot in an authorized container for the purpose of providing the ballot to election officials. Such third party transportation of ballots would be restricted in by the following:
- (A) The ballot caster is required to complete the ballot, any documentation of information, and seal both the internal security envelope and outer delivery envelope.
- (B) The person authorizing delivery must provide such authorization in writing which will be part of the ballot package. The authorizing individual must provide all of the following: Legal name of the person being authorized, address, social security number or State ID (driving or non-driving ID), and relationship. Non-related individual must provide their voter registration number.
- (C ) A legal spouse, legal parent, legal guardian, sibling or child may transport and deliver a mail-in ballot for any legal spouse, legal parent, sibling or child without restriction but must still be documented and identified by the person authorizing the delivery.
- (D) A person that is not a legal spouse, legal parent, legal guardian, sibling or child of the person casting the vote may deliver a mail-in ballot for another person when authorized and documented by the person casting the vote but may provide deliver assistance to no more than 5 persons. A person may only provide such assistance if they are a registered voter in the same precinct as the voter and must provide their voter registration number.
- (E ) A person that is not a legal spouse, legal parent, legal guardian, sibling or child of the person casting the vote will be in violation of Federal election law and subject to criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor subject to a $500 dollar fine per instance over 5 and up to 1-year of incarceration total.
That’s what I’ve got so far.
.
.
.
.WW
3 Likes
zantax
123
Looks like free speech to me, all for it myself, free speech that is.
JayJay
124
Yes…everyone has a the right to be a misinformation whackjob.
Just as it is my right to properly label Q as misinformation whackjobs since that is what they are.
Your mileage may vary.
1 Like
zantax
125
Your linked article seemed to favor shutting them down, kicking them off platforms. For the otherwise legal content of their speech. Not in favor.
JayJay
126
Free speech does not guarantee access to platforms they didn’t build.
We still on this rant?
Deflection to bakeries and cakes rather than just label Q for what they are in 3…2…1…
2 Likes
zantax
127
Free speech is a principle that goes beyond government. You are conflating the principle of free speech with the first amendment.
https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2016/07/ten-principles-free-speech-timothy-garton-ash/
Take special note of number nine.
1 Like
JayJay
128
No I’m not.
I didn’t mention the first amendment.
I mentioned free speech.
Free speech does not mean I have to provide you a platform.
All these rounds and rounds in order for you to avoid saying what is obvious about Q.
zantax
129
No, it doesn’t mean you have to provide one but it should mean when you open one to the public you refrain from censoring people based on the otherwise legal content of their speech. Nobody is saying anyone and everyone should be able to be On Fox News. Especially when it comes to political speech. At that point you become a publisher and not an open platform and should be treated accordingly under the law.
rp5x5
130
IT will be over after Court decisions. Will leftists accept the truth? Or will they begin rioting? It will come out.
It took 37 days with Gore. This one will take longer.
Is this Venezuela, China or the USA?
The photoshopped newspaper you just shared is funny. The Trump campaign taped it all over its offices this weekend tooo.
The washington times wasn’t so happy about it though:
Your version is a bit more interesting though since it added the ink stain that covers up the part about Bush winning.
Fake newspaper photo aside…the Trump legal team can’t even make it out of the local courts with their “evidence” and you think this bull feces is gonna go to the Supreme Court? Seriously? Trump was golfing when the election was declared. Was he looking for missing ballots in the bunkers he can’t stay out of?
