Just one clarification - the list of dropbox locations was for the primary. There will certainly be more for the general election, although the locations have not yet been announced.
OT: Voting by mail (oh well, political)
- Thread starter wheezer
- Start date
- Status
Is there any evidence of this in states with all mail elections, like Utah?
The Ohio SOS wants to limit each county to only one ballot box.
Gee I wonder why
Gee I wonder why
Deciding in the summer to implement large scale vote by mail is obviously going to be a mess. Anyone that has paid attention to the federal government's lack of competence for any length of time knows that. The Dems know this and want as much doubt in the integrity of the election as possible. Then you should expect large scale riots and lawsuits to hold up the election as long as possible hoping that people get tired and give in to their demands.
and while all that happens Nancy Pelosi will be President.......and I don't think people on either side of the aisle want that to happen.......
ok, thanks for clarifying. Maybe i can just say i'm disabled and fill out the form
Yea, voting by mail should go well. The primaries are probably 20% of the volume they will see in November and that had a few problems.
www.nbcphiladelphia.com
Uncounted Ballots From NJ July Primary Found in Bin, Finally Tallied
Officials have counted more than 1,600 ballots from New Jersey’s July primary that were found last week in a “mislabeled” bin
www.nbcphiladelphia.com
The Christmas rush is the busy time for the post office. I know people who were required to work 10-12 hour shifts seven days a week from the day after Thanksgiving until post-Christmas Day. Of course that was a while back. Not sure if it's still true today with those new-fangled letter-sorting machines.
Its not just the PO, its the people who are certifying the votes. Typically senior citizens who are 70-85 years old looking for a way to spend a random day.
No, not in states like Utah and Oregon where they've been doing vote by mail for years.
wow. you must have long arms because that's quite a reach.
photo voter ID is a perfectly valid security measure whether or not anyone wants more or fewer people to vote.
if the people who actually take the time to vote are more informed than those who do not vote, I could easily suggest that Dems just want the uninformed to vote in large numbers because they think that favors them... same for illegals.. same for felons.. is that really who should be deciding elections?
Trump voters are well known for being uninformed. But Trump hasn't exactly cornered the market there, either.
well, the non Trump voters were informed by the main stream media that the Trump campaign was colluding/conspiring with Russia before and during the last election
seems to me, Fox news viewers were better "informed" all through out that nonsense...
Why can't they admit that they just support anything that will curtail the voting numbers
So true.
There was plenty to be concerned with Trump and Russia. This story is not over. Manafort, Flynn. Trump's behavior towards Putin has been very troubling.
it went way beyond that...a false narrative that was weaved for years, over and over in the press, and it took forever for the Mueller report to come out to dispel the nonsense
....a report put together by someone who certainly would have liked to nail Trump on
conspiring.......
and the end result..... no evidence at all of collusion/conspiracy.
the fact is, the dems in charge manufactured this....
you can question how Trump feels about Putin, I think Trump has too much respect for dictators and how they run their country, that much I will agree to
but it does not affect Trumps policies
finally
I just find it a bit strange that Trump supporters are viewed as uninformed, yet the others who believed a lie for several years are the informed ones....why would that be?
I already found the drop off box in town but I’m afraid it will be overwhelmed. It will need to be emptied every couple of hours.
Just checked. Bergen County has 70 municipalities but only 18 drop off boxes. Only one in the largest city. What could go wrong?
Bingo. Trump’s investments and ties with Russia / Putin are being concealed by all means possible. Has influenced his decision making and drives his irrational actions. Dangerous for America.
WhichReligionIsRight said:
There was plenty to be concerned with Trump and Russia. This story is not over. Manafort, Flynn. Trump's behavior towards Putin has been very troubling.
LOL!
There was plenty to be concerned with Trump and Russia. This story is not over. Manafort, Flynn. Trump's behavior towards Putin has been very troubling.
LOL!
And how many mailboxes outside people's homes? Everyone could have gone absentee ballot... or.. go vote on Election Day like we have been doing for a couple hundred years.
Not many mailboxes in my neighborhood anymore. During the Obama years they started taking them away by me. They recently replaced them with the newer versions. And for those that think relying on placing your letter in your own mailbox so the mailman will pick it up, good luck. Mine will leave letters in there for days.
INTERESTING. I thought that the ONE BASIC thing in Life IS supposed to be HARD
LOL. The evidence is the one non-partisan Paterson election where they were caught right away? What percentage of fraud is that in NJ elections?
Wheezer, you are entitled to your own opinions about the Mueller investigation, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
First of all, you are conflating the terms "collusion" and "conspiracy". They are not the same. Mueller does not use the term "collusion" because it has no legal significance. However, his report is full of examples of what you or I would reasonably consider to be collusion with Russia. Mueller found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, and Donald Jr. are all mentioned as having Russian dealings for political gain. Mueller goes on to state that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Your statement that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy is incorrect. On that topic, he specifically states that a "statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” What it does mean is that Mueller did not believe he had enough evidence to establish (i.e. prove) criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not? Because the legal bar to prove criminal conspiracy is set REALLY high. In addition to proving the commission of illegal acts, Mueller had to prove:
- An agreement between the two parties to commit the acts. There has to be a smoking gun. Wink-wink nod-nod doesn't count.
- That the participants KNEW that their actions were illegal. Tough to prove.
- That there was a "thing of value" being exchanged worth at least $25,000, which is the threshold for a felony. Mueller could not conclusively put a price on the information being exchanged.
This guy.
Three weeks prior to issuance of the Mueller report, Barr issued his own inaccurate summary of the report which claimed to exonerate Trump. That report established people's opinions on the matter. Mueller had to take the unprecedented step of issuing a statement refuting his boss's misstatements. But by that time, it was old news. Damage done.
They were informed by the GOP-led Senate committee there was collusion you mean.
Wheezer, you are entitled to your own opinions about the Mueller investigation, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
First of all, you are conflating the terms "collusion" and "conspiracy". They are not the same. Mueller does not use the term "collusion" because it has no legal significance. However, his report is full of examples of what you or I would reasonably consider to be collusion with Russia. Mueller found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, and Donald Jr. are all mentioned as having Russian dealings for political gain. Mueller goes on to state that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Your statement that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy is incorrect. On that topic, he specifically states that a "statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” What it does mean is that Mueller did not believe he had enough evidence to establish (i.e. prove) criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not? Because the legal bar to prove criminal conspiracy is set REALLY high. In addition to proving the commission of illegal acts, Mueller had to prove:
So the charge of "collusion/conspiracy" is hardly manufactured, as you suggest. So why do so many reasonable people believe it was? Because of one guy.
- An agreement between the two parties to commit the acts. There has to be a smoking gun. Wink-wink nod-nod doesn't count.
- That the participants KNEW that their actions were illegal. Tough to prove.
- That there was a "thing of value" being exchanged worth at least $25,000, which is the threshold for a felony. Mueller could not conclusively put a price on the information being exchanged.
This guy.
Three weeks prior to issuance of the Mueller report, Barr issued his own inaccurate summary of the report which claimed to exonerate Trump. That report established people's opinions on the matter. Mueller had to take the unprecedented step of issuing a statement refuting his boss's misstatements. But by that time, it was old news. Damage done.
Ah Bill Barr. The guy who a Republican-appointed federal judge called a liar.
The guy who tried to charge a Democratic mayor with sedition for allowing a protest.
The guy who ordered peaceful protesters teargassed and tried to hit them with a heat gun,
Oh and who now says COVID restrictions are the biggest violation of liberty since slavery, if we just forget Japanese internment and decades of legalized brutality and oppression against African, Jewish, italian, Hispanic, Native, LGBT and other Americans since.
Yes, because I have that type of mailbox. Most of my neighbors have the mailbox attached to the house so they don't always know mail is in there unless they have it sticking out partially.
I planned to vote in person until I read that you can only vote a provisional ballot in person in NJ (and it may not be counted). Machines are only for disabled. Looks like it will be mail (and hope it gets counted) for me.
You are dead wrong on so many counts but I'll just handle the first.Wheezer, you are entitled to your own opinions about the Mueller investigation, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
First of all, you are conflating the terms "collusion" and "conspiracy". They are not the same. Mueller does not use the term "collusion" because it has no legal significance. However, his report is full of examples of what you or I would reasonably consider to be collusion with Russia. Mueller found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, and Donald Jr. are all mentioned as having Russian dealings for political gain. Mueller goes on to state that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Your statement that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy is incorrect. On that topic, he specifically states that a "statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” What it does mean is that Mueller did not believe he had enough evidence to establish (i.e. prove) criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not? Because the legal bar to prove criminal conspiracy is set REALLY high. In addition to proving the commission of illegal acts, Mueller had to prove:
So the charge of "collusion/conspiracy" is hardly manufactured, as you suggest. So why do so many reasonable people believe it was? Because of one guy.
- An agreement between the two parties to commit the acts. There has to be a smoking gun. Wink-wink nod-nod doesn't count.
- That the participants KNEW that their actions were illegal. Tough to prove.
- That there was a "thing of value" being exchanged worth at least $25,000, which is the threshold for a felony. Mueller could not conclusively put a price on the information being exchanged.
This guy.
Three weeks prior to issuance of the Mueller report, Barr issued his own inaccurate summary of the report which claimed to exonerate Trump. That report established people's opinions on the matter. Mueller had to take the unprecedented step of issuing a statement refuting his boss's misstatements. But by that time, it was old news. Damage done.
“numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
If that represented collusion or conspiracy the Mueller team would have been happy to say so. Truth is they found NO COLLUSION, NO CONSPIRACY.. just the opportunities to suggest there must have been.. so that is what they did... and that is what fuels you and others to continue the propaganda routine.
There is no collusion because no collusion was necessary.
The best case for collusion charges? 2012 and Obama open mic..
What page is "no collusion" on in the report?
Excellent points. But you're wasting your time with this one. It's like arguing about the existence of god with a Jehovah's Witness. They're not listening.Wheezer, you are entitled to your own opinions about the Mueller investigation, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
First of all, you are conflating the terms "collusion" and "conspiracy". They are not the same. Mueller does not use the term "collusion" because it has no legal significance. However, his report is full of examples of what you or I would reasonably consider to be collusion with Russia. Mueller found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, and Donald Jr. are all mentioned as having Russian dealings for political gain. Mueller goes on to state that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Your statement that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy is incorrect. On that topic, he specifically states that a "statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” What it does mean is that Mueller did not believe he had enough evidence to establish (i.e. prove) criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not? Because the legal bar to prove criminal conspiracy is set REALLY high. In addition to proving the commission of illegal acts, Mueller had to prove:
So the charge of "collusion/conspiracy" is hardly manufactured, as you suggest. So why do so many reasonable people believe it was? Because of one guy.
- An agreement between the two parties to commit the acts. There has to be a smoking gun. Wink-wink nod-nod doesn't count.
- That the participants KNEW that their actions were illegal. Tough to prove.
- That there was a "thing of value" being exchanged worth at least $25,000, which is the threshold for a felony. Mueller could not conclusively put a price on the information being exchanged.
This guy.
Three weeks prior to issuance of the Mueller report, Barr issued his own inaccurate summary of the report which claimed to exonerate Trump. That report established people's opinions on the matter. Mueller had to take the unprecedented step of issuing a statement refuting his boss's misstatements. But by that time, it was old news. Damage done.
Sad.
They HAVE to. Otherwise, their whole belief system collapses. Everything they have done or want to do becomes highly suspect if they give in on that one UNDENIABLE point.
They must maintain their narrative.
I noticed the thread OP title says "(non-political)". That was wishful thinking.. it is hard to get more political than voting rights and security and the high-stakes games being played.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
***Ask The Experts Presented by American Financial Network’s Greg Ginn***- Latest: needmorecowbell
-
