[elklindo69]

Apparently the "network" that lied about....

Hillary Clinton
COVID-19
Seth Rich
Hunter Biden

and lied about just anything else....now lied about a presidential election. Go Figure............


Top executives and news hosts at Fox News privately shared they did not buy into then-President Donald Trump’s allegations of 2020 election fraud, despite giving airtime to many of those same false claims, according to a court filing in Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit against the news network.

"Privately, Fox's hosts and executives knew that Donald Trump lost the election and that he needed to concede," the filing reads. "But Fox viewers heard a different story — repeatedly."

Host Tucker Carlson said as early as Nov. 16, 2020, that Trump ally Sidney Powell was "lying" about election fraud, according to the filing. He texted an individual whose name was redacted that her claims, made without evidence, were "shockingly reckless."

In a deposition, host Sean Hannity said of Powell’s election fraud narrative that he “did not believe it for one second,” according to the filing. But in the meantime, he told his audience that "it will be impossible to ever know the true, fair, accurate election results, that's a fact," the filing says.

Host Laura Ingraham told Carlson that Powell is “a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy,” referring to former New York mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani. Carlson replied that he found Powell's lies "unbelievably offensive" because their "viewers are good people and they believe it," according to the filing.




.

[johnforbes]

The sad situation is that nobody is able to know either way.

In the old days, with mostly in-person voting and paper ballots, you could recheck the validity of the paper, recount, and have some credibility about who won.

With mail ballots in key swing states, the outer evelopes are separated from the inner ballots, so there's no way to go back and figure out validity or lack thereof.

And Democrats like that.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, the signatures on mail-in ballots are checked to see if the voter is a legitimate registered voter, just as with in-person voting where the voter is checked for being registered. Beyond that, their ballots have no more means of being checked later for "validity or lack thereof" than mail in ballots do.

Any identifying number on a ballot is torn off before the ballot is put in the ballot box.

When the fuck was the last time you voted in person anyway. You don't seem to know the simplest thing about voting in person. Lucky for you your ballot is secret at the point where it is inserted into the ballot box, as it should be to stop assholes like Trump from retaliating against you if you vote against him by voting for someone else.\

At that point all anyone can do is recount the ballots to make sure the count is correct. It's called a "recount" dummy. And recounts were done many, many times in the 2020 election. And every time the count came up the same--and Trump still lost.

[johnforbes]

That is not true.

In the old days, a mail ballot had all the info and could be checked later for validity and also how the vote was cast and recorded.

The outer evelope for most mail ballot systems is thrown away after the paltry "verification" effort, so there is no way to retrace the step of confirming that the election's votes were proper.

Look, all I want is for every vote for every valid voter to be properly recorded as cast.

That isn't too much to ask, but we do NOT have that now.

[johnforbes]

No, long ago, with an intact paper ballot, a jurisdiction could simply repeat the process of vote counting.

With mail ballots, once the outer envelope is discarded after a very cursory check for validity, there is no way of going back to ascertain whether that voter is dead or an illegal alien.

The genuinely sad thing is that vote-counting, and the checking thereof, is far worse than it was in 1956.

[Clownkicker]

"No, long ago, with an intact paper ballot, a jurisdiction could simply repeat the process of vote counting."-johnflubs

You mean the same way a jurisdiction can simply repeat the process of vote counting with an intact paper MAIL-IN ballot?

Thanks for making the case for mail-in ballots, johnny.


"With mail ballots, once the outer envelope is discarded after a very cursory check for validity, there is no way of going back to ascertain whether that voter is dead or an illegal alien."-johnflubs

You mean the same way that in-person ballots have all identifying information removed from the ballot before it is put into the ballot box and thus can no longer be used to ascertain whether the voter is a legitimate voter?

Thanks for making the case for mail-in ballots again, johnny. Your complaints about mail-in ballots are identical to the facts about in-person ballots.


Once again johnforbes' gross ignorance leads him to step in another huge pile of partisan bull shit which he then proceeds to carelessly spread around the room on his loafers.

[johnforbes]

No, the eminent leftist Jimmy Carter, in his bipartisan report of 2005, singled out mail ballots as big risks for election integrity.

My goal is to have every valid vote counted from every valid voter.

The Democrat goal is to let 5 million new illegal aliens into America since 2021, and to suspend photo ID to vote.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you can't just make a strong case in support of mail-in ballots on one post and then contradict yourself by saying you aren't making the case for mail-in ballots on your next post.

Try to be at least a little consistent in your flaccid political positions.

Your strong case showing mail-in ballots have the same recountability as in-person ballots is quite compelling.

[johnforbes]

No, my position has never changed on mail ballots, which should be reserved for sick/elderly and overseas military plus a few other special situations.

Almost ALL voting ought to be on Election Day, in person, and with photo ID.

But, with mail ballots in key states, Repubs better ramp up their ballot harvesting or senile Joe will have another 4 years to wreck the country.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, your position is that you like in-person ballots because they are paper and can be recounted as many times as a dimwitted Republican needs in order to grasp the unhappy truth of their loss, all while doing so without identifying the individual voter.

These are the exact same qualities possessed by a mail-in ballot.

One can only conclude that you support mail-in ballots because you have made the case they possess all the qualities you say you would like to see in a ballot. And on top of that, they allow many more people who cannot make it to the polls to vote because Republicans shut down so many of the polling places in poor and minority neighborhoods.

You have also said you want every legal voter's vote to be counted, so apparently mail-in ballots are everything you want in a ballot, since votes can't be counted when the voter can't get to a too-distant polling place on work days.

[johnforbes]

No, once the outer envelope has been discarded, it is impossible to go back and ascertain the validity of mail-in ballots.

That is one of the reasons Jimmy Carter's 2005 report said mail ballots were recipes for problems.

The NY Times also did some good articles on the problems with mail ballots in the summer before the 2020 election, so even the leftist press understood.

[Clownkicker]

"No, once the outer envelope has been discarded, it is impossible to go back and ascertain the validity of mail-in ballots."-Dishonestjohn

Yes, and once the identifying number tabs have been removed from an in-person ballot before the ballot is put into the ballot box, it is also impossible to go back and ascertain the validity of in-person ballots. Once it is put into the box there is no way you can prove Republicans didn't simply load suitcases full of phony ballots into the counting machines unless you have video or witnesses or Chinese bamboo in the ballot paper.

In other words, you have once again made the case that mail-in ballots are no more problematic than in-person ballots are when it comes to recounts and verification.

Again, thank you for emphasizing that point once more.

[johnforbes]

No, the ballots should be done as they were long ago -- with voter ID and the voter's choice on one piece of paper.

Mail ballots are generally quite flawed by having an outer evelope which, once looked at, are disconnected from the internal evelop which contains the actual voter choice.

Thus, you can't go back and check at the same time for validity and who the person chose to vote for.

This is a basic flaw, and Jimmy Carter's bilateral 2005 report revealed both Dems and Repubs understood that.

[Clownkicker]

"Thus, you can't go back and check at the same time for validity and who the person chose to vote for."-johnfoibles

This is EXACTLY the reality of in-person ballots, dimwit. They have no identifying marks on them once they are put into the ballot box. You can't "go back and check at the same time for validity and who the person chose to vote for." either. That is, unfortunately, the price we must pay for secrecy at the polls to prevent retaliation from sore losers like your typical Republican authoritarian.

You have offered nothing to show that mail-in ballots are any less 'recountable' or verifiable than in-person ballots, which is what your incessant whining on the subject is allegedly all about.

[johnforbes]

Thanks to Clown for admitting that I was correct.

But what all Dems and Repubs should want is the way it was 50 years ago, with mail ballots dropped in a box and just counted.

You COULD go back and check both validity and what the voter voted for.

I want something shocking -- fair elections which can be verified.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, thanks for admitting that requiring in-person voting won't change the security of a vote recount one iota, and that your dishonest partisan complaints against mail-in-ballot voting also apply equally to in-person-ballot voting.

As to your silly proposal to have positive identification included on all ballots, feel free to write your name somewhere on your ballot before inserting it into the ballot box. If you really want your votes to be public record just so that you can login and verify that your vote went to the guy you actually voted for, have at it.

Or you could save us all a lot of privacy issues and just stand outside the polling place with a sign that says "I voted for all the nut-job Republicans" or "I voted a straight...er..make that "closeted" Republican ticket"

[johnforbes]

Well, in-person voting with an old-fashioned mail ballots would obviously increase election integrity.

But Democrats don't want that.

Look at PA, where a guy who never worked except for a $350 per year ceremonial job and had a serious cognitive impairment got installed easily as US Senator.

And Fetterman almost instantly checked himself into a psychiatric ward.

[Clownkicker]

"Well, in-person voting with an old-fashioned mail ballots would obviously increase election integrity.
But Democrats don't want that."-johnfoibles

Nobody in their right mind wants their vote to be public record. Even YOU don't want that.

As to Fetterman, if Republicans had simply run someone who wasn't an out-of-touch, obsequious weasel without a spine, Republicans would have won.

But Republicans don't want to run reasonable candidates. They insist on certifiable nut jobs, like Marjorie Taylor Green, George Santos, Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, and Lauren Boebert. Crazy is what Republicans LOVE and they vote for it consistently.

[johnforbes]

Clown was correct that Dr. Oz was a poor candidate.

And not even actually a resident of PA. In fact, he may have bought a house, or moved into a relative's house, to even qualify for the Senate run.

However, Oz was an immigrant, and did earn MBA and MD degrees from Penn, which is in the Ivy League despite being a haven for leftist rhetoric.

Leftists speech codes may not have started at Penn, but Penn was early in ending free speech on campus.

But Fetterman was a total bum, who didn't attend Council meetings even as the ceremonial $350 per year mayor on a tiny time which got worse during his tenure.

Fetterman lived off rich parents, and got his condo for one dollar from his sister.

As Lt Gov, he hung a marijuana flag out his office windown like a rebellious teenager.

For all his flaws, Oz would have been a far better Senator, and he would have been a huge RINO voting probably with Democrats anyhow.