It really seems like as it goes on people are becoming more outspoken about the questions they have towards each election, and looking at those involved.
It would be nice if that meant that something would be done, but more attention to something rarely seems to translate. Occupy wallstreet's net sum is as yet a handful of bills which further entrenched megacorps while shitting on small businesses because no-one felt like reading them, and the broad "antiracism" protests have yielded a whole lot of jack shit even at local levels of government in terms of actual action. Hell, even 2015-era BLM got, like. Bodycams, and that's really it?
drinking the water was a second method to test the water becuase the first method, your method, was too time consuming.
certifying the results would be the same as declaring the bottle to be poisoned/not poisoned without testing it. the ballots in question were not tested. so no, certifying isn't the save time and drink it.
the states have only done recounts and modified recounts. if you have a state audit please post it to the thread.
all we need is to see how many signatures failed. if more signatures than the margin fail, we can throw out the election results.
the courts have played the game of no standing and laches. this is why TX is bringing the case to scotus.
that's incorrect. you start with a premise/motion like "this was a secure election" and "Does God exist" and debate in the affirmative or negative to the motion.
it's the perfect parallel because it shows the democrats are inconsistent with their standards.
don't know what you're referring to, wayne county and coffee county said they can't balance the books.
You drink the water without knowing if it's poisoned. You verify the vote without knowing if it's fraudulent (by your standards). Both save time.
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/electi...r_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race #notrueaudit
What's the margin? What's the law that establishes the margin? How do you account for people who have the same name and matching their ballot to their envelope, and then their signature to their database signature? This needs to all have been codified and put into the procedure for how to go about it by the 8th. You now need a court to issue a stay for any of this to even matter if you were to somehow establish these.
The courts have sometimes played the game of no standing / laches when those claims fit the bill. You can argue rejections on that basis, y'know, if the basis ain't true. Laches based on the idea that you had over a year to challenge most of the changes through the state legislature and the court are going to (and have) held. Standing arguments have broadly held, because if you cannot prove that you definitively suffered fraud, you cannot prove that you should disenfranchise literally millions of votes. You have not proven anywhere that you definitively suffered fraud - with that GA exception which seems to have actually made specific claims and presented specific evidence rather than going "ISN'T IT POSSIBLE?"
"does got exist" is not a premise, it's a fucking question. If you neither start from the idea that god does or god doesn't, then what do you start with? "No one knows?" You can do that in a debate. "No one knows" isn't great when you're a government. If you can't prove fraud to a massive degree, the government is certifying the election and you are getting Biden as president.
Wayne fucking certified and the first link went into detail on that shit. Coffee is being investigated by the government - which proves that you CAN compel it to do shit if you make a fucking case.