Clearly this bitch knows what she is talking about.
Some of her history:
Timely reminder that on debate night, members of Trump family and Trump administration did not wear masks, which were required by the Cleveland Clinic. A doctor approached the Trump guests, offering masks and reminding them to put one on – but nobody did.… link - archive.org - archive.today
“Dominion Voting AND top election infrastructure officials categorically deny this. “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history... There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”” link - archive.org - archive.today
A Deep State apparatchik in the Department of Homeland Security commandeered DHS's communication in order to get this meme out and have it be repeated endlessly as coming from "Trump's own government".
I mean, even if you don't believe there was massive fraud (disclaimer: I don't, though I do think they rigged it legally), obviously an election with massive mail-in ballots is not going to be more secure than one without, let alone "the most secure in history". So batshit crazy, but idiots eat this up.
For a fact, most of the states (but not all) had laws against changing election processes too close to the election, and against sending out mail in ballots without signature verification. In most cases these laws were ignored "because Covid" and went unchallenged. (Texas challenged this and won every single case against it)
So the question is, if someone breaks the law but isn't punished, is that ""legal""? Especially if someone else was punished for breaking the same law in another jurisdiction. What does "the law" even mean in this context?
There's also the question if a clearly unjust law that does not serve the public interest is a valid law? In my state, what happened in 2020 was fully legal, but hardly moral, just, or right.
In most cases these laws were ignored "because Covid" and went unchallenged.
I'm not sure this is true, but if no one challenges a violation of the law, that is malpractice. The strangest thing is that Republican legislatures, like the one in Pennsylvania, changed the law in order to make things better for Democrats.
So the question is, if someone breaks the law but isn't punished, is that ""legal""?
Ah, a modern take on Bishop Berkeley's old question. I say no in a metaphysical sense. But I also say that if you can stop it but don't, as you claim is what happened, then it's not exactly illegal either.
Here's my view: I don't find most of the claims persuasive. Massive fraud is BS, or at least, I have never seen persuasive evidence. There are a lot of small things that they did, and a lot of large things like they did (like extend mail-in balloting), that are dubious at best. The most smoking gun is the signature rejection rate, which miraculously declined from about 4% to 0.5%, just enough to get the result they wanted.
There's also the question if a clearly unjust law that does not serve the public interest is a valid law? In my state, what happened in 2020 was fully legal, but hardly moral, just, or right.
You're absolutely right about that. But after Corona, all of us should have learned that legality is not necessarily morality, and often the farthest thing from it.
Clearly this bitch knows what she is talking about.
Some of her history:
Honest to god I thought that was a right-wing meme. I know they said it was "safe and secure" but I didn't know they literally said that.
A Deep State apparatchik in the Department of Homeland Security commandeered DHS's communication in order to get this meme out and have it be repeated endlessly as coming from "Trump's own government".
I mean, even if you don't believe there was massive fraud (disclaimer: I don't, though I do think they rigged it legally), obviously an election with massive mail-in ballots is not going to be more secure than one without, let alone "the most secure in history". So batshit crazy, but idiots eat this up.
"Legal rigging" is an interesting take.
For a fact, most of the states (but not all) had laws against changing election processes too close to the election, and against sending out mail in ballots without signature verification. In most cases these laws were ignored "because Covid" and went unchallenged. (Texas challenged this and won every single case against it)
So the question is, if someone breaks the law but isn't punished, is that ""legal""? Especially if someone else was punished for breaking the same law in another jurisdiction. What does "the law" even mean in this context?
There's also the question if a clearly unjust law that does not serve the public interest is a valid law? In my state, what happened in 2020 was fully legal, but hardly moral, just, or right.
I'm not sure this is true, but if no one challenges a violation of the law, that is malpractice. The strangest thing is that Republican legislatures, like the one in Pennsylvania, changed the law in order to make things better for Democrats.
Ah, a modern take on Bishop Berkeley's old question. I say no in a metaphysical sense. But I also say that if you can stop it but don't, as you claim is what happened, then it's not exactly illegal either.
Here's my view: I don't find most of the claims persuasive. Massive fraud is BS, or at least, I have never seen persuasive evidence. There are a lot of small things that they did, and a lot of large things like they did (like extend mail-in balloting), that are dubious at best. The most smoking gun is the signature rejection rate, which miraculously declined from about 4% to 0.5%, just enough to get the result they wanted.
You're absolutely right about that. But after Corona, all of us should have learned that legality is not necessarily morality, and often the farthest thing from it.