No, the claim is that there were 20,000 dead people on the voter rolls. Most dead people don't vote, for either party. Recounts generally affect the totals by a couple of hundred votes, maybe a thousand. Never, ever, by tens of thousands.
@goaded - BULLSHIT! Go look it up. This is exactly what was discovered yesterday in PA's voting.
I don't have to look it up, there hasn't been any evidence of massive fraud, even international observers have said so. You can try and impress me with a link, if you like. I'll read it, then explain how you're wrong.Even the saner voices at the NY Post are saying there's no evidence being presented. nypost.com/.../
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
No, it's really not. The numbers are checked and re-checked before they're official.
@goaded: That says nothing about how they were tallied, and whether votes were tallied correctly, something that’s very much in question. Surely the Democrats, who have never accepted the results of the 2016 election, don’t have a problem with the 2020 election being fully audited if they have nothing to hide. At least one election result was changed this election due to an alleged „software glitch“, so the need for an audit is obvious. The Democrats‘ hurry to be handed a disputed election in light of numerous irregularities is suspicious. And we all know from the previous four years that the Democrats will do anything illegal and unethical they can to get Trump out of office.
Except the Democrats never questioned the voting process itself, nor the people carrying out the count; the system caught the cheating in NC-09, for example.The 2016 election was bogus because of the hacking, the hours of free advertising for Trump on Fox News, the campaign finance violations, etc., not the election itself.AFAIK, there were two "software glitches"; one was someone entering an extra zero on the count of Biden votes (which would always have been caught, the number exceeding the number of possible voters in the county), and the other was some reporting software that hadn't been updated - all they had to do in the second case was ask all the other counties' officials if they'd performed the update. Neither of them were errors in the actual counts."And we all know from the previous four years that the Democrats will do anything illegal and unethical they can to get Trump out of office. "No, you don't know that, you've just been told that by Trump and the Republicans.Seriously, you think refusing to hear witnesses at a trial is ethical?
Democrats don't oppose recounts because they have something to hide, it's because we have no reason too. We don't ordinarily do recounts after elections, and it's a well-established norm that the burden of proof is on those claiming fraud, and despite intense scrutiny of the election process, there's no evidence (most of the cited evidence is anecdotal, regular clerical errors, or outright lies). Recounting isn't a neutral choice, it lends credence to conspiracy theories and sets an awful precedent that a president rejecting election results be catered to. And Democrats functionally accepted the 2016 election results. Whether or not you think impeachment was justified, there was a genuine argument for it and if they were really hellbent on getting him out of office they had numerous opportunities to impeach sooner (and later).
@gloopguy Exactly. Add to that the fact that the Republicans who are screaming about fraud refused to consider, let alone pass, multiple bills that included money specifically to require and pay for what are called risk-limiting audits, where they examine a random sample of a few thousand to find the rate of fraud. (As recently requested by Rand Paul, who was quickly informed that his home state already has them required by law, and the Republican Senate refused to vote on a law to require them nationwide.)There have been many examples of election security legislation as stand alone bills or as part of larger packages put forward by the Democrats, especially to prevent foreign interference last year, and, more recently, to cope with predictably massive increases in mail-in voting. They were all blocked by the Republicans, specifically Mitch McConnell.NOW Republicans want audits, despite it being clear to everyone that Trump simply lost.(There was some federal election funding for states at the end of last year: $425m. In a $1,400,000m bill that allocated $1,375m for Trump's wall. What's that, about $2, $3 per voter?)
In many cases, you have unelected bureaucrats overruling state laws.You have mail in ballots violating the laws of physics (received before they were sent).The shenanigans go on and on and may reach the Supreme Court. I have three words for this eventuality. Amy Coney Barrett. Mitch and Trump saw this coming.
They saw they only had one way to win, and it's not in a free and fair election.
@goaded when did we have one of those?
Even if Trump does not prevail, he and the Senate will haunt them with investigations and exposure. As Fox disintegrates, look for Trump to develop a replacement and recruit every worthwhile journalist in the media. But I do want him to prevail. Nobody can dispute that there has been industrial size fraud. And, as I have stated here before, if a Harris/Biden administration tries to dismantle the country, there may have to be a Second Amendment solution.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!