Old State owned Video's show Mass Fraud in GA, but no MSM Coverage????.....

[eohrnberger]

My assertion is better than those being presented, claiming the legislatures were bypassed, usurped, when very few of those made it past the court assessment, review of them.

Note how you are unable to actually counter that state election boards do exist, and do in fact have power over elections.

Of course you also totally forget the fact, refuse to acknowledge that more people voting does not mean a bad thing in general, isn't really violating rights. What it does mean is that Republicans don't have the power they want.

And courts in general in 2020 were definitely mixed on where they saw the authority resting on this. Even Abbott was allowed to have some orders stand, and yet somehow you failed to mention him even trying.

Changes to election dates, procedures, and administration in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Interesting list of events. But doesn't support your assertion that people who made those changes were empowered to do so.
Sure, we see EOs from the state's governor, we see court orders, neither of which are granted the authority to change elections laws and regulations per the Constitution.

Your assertion was that the state legislatures had granted such powers to these other entities. This hasn't been shown in this forum, as of yet.

I do get it though, red states don't want more people voting because that would show that they maintain power because of laziness and apathy, not because their policies are really wanted.

Yes, yes. The leftist liberal myth, when in fact it is more so the other political party's politically driven motivations to maintain and in fact grow their political power.

In pursuit of political power, just disenfranchise those who don't agree with you, for example:

Merrick Garland, dancing to the tune of the National School Board Association, portrayed parents protesting as domestic threats, and organized law enforcement at every level to coordinate strategies against them. I wrote at the time, Thank You Mitch McConnell For Keeping Merrick Garland Off The Supreme Court.​

Disinformation Czarina Nina Jankowicz Declares Parents Concerned About Critical Race Theory “Disinformers”

"Critical race theory has become one of those hot button issues that the Republicans and other disinformers have seized on."

legalinsurrection.com

The parent's concerns over CRT in the classroom of their children has already proven as legitimate:

Yes, critical race theory is being taught in public schools - Washington Examiner

While we all debate what critical race theory is and whether lawmakers should ban it from public schools, every honest person should agree on one thing: This theory is behind the curricula in school districts all over the country, shaping the minds of unsuspecting, malleable children.Just this...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

No Critical Race Theory in Schools? Here's the Abundant Evidence Saying Otherwise

Above, a mother protests critical race theory in Albuquerque last month. Such objections are often met with denials that CRT is being taught, despite many indications to the contrary. By John Murawski

www.realclearinvestigations.com

So who's spreading 'disinformation'? Seems to be Biden's “Disinformation Governance Board" and Jankowicz.

Further worrying is that this “Disinformation Governance Board" is housed in DHS, part of DOJ. Does this mean that the “Disinformation Governance Board" will have subpoena powers?
Issued for simply holding a political opinion or political position deemed as 'disinformation' by the “Disinformation Governance Board"?

Don't go telling me which political party is trying to achieve ever greater control over, and censorship of, the electorate as a means for growing the absolute political power. The above observations make it pretty obvious which party that is.

 

[roguenuke]

Interesting list of events. But doesn't support your assertion that people who made those changes were empowered to do so.
Sure, we see EOs from the state's governor, we see court orders, neither of which are granted the authority to change elections laws and regulations per the Constitution.

Your assertion was that the state legislatures had granted such powers to these other entities. This hasn't been shown in this forum, as of yet.


Yes, yes. The leftist liberal myth, when in fact it is more so the other political party's politically driven motivations to maintain and in fact grow their political power.

In pursuit of political power, just disenfranchise those who don't agree with you, for example:

Merrick Garland, dancing to the tune of the National School Board Association, portrayed parents protesting as domestic threats, and organized law enforcement at every level to coordinate strategies against them. I wrote at the time, Thank You Mitch McConnell For Keeping Merrick Garland Off The Supreme Court.​

Disinformation Czarina Nina Jankowicz Declares Parents Concerned About Critical Race Theory “Disinformers”

"Critical race theory has become one of those hot button issues that the Republicans and other disinformers have seized on."

legalinsurrection.com

The parent's concerns over CRT in the classroom of their children has already proven as legitimate:

Yes, critical race theory is being taught in public schools - Washington Examiner

While we all debate what critical race theory is and whether lawmakers should ban it from public schools, every honest person should agree on one thing: This theory is behind the curricula in school districts all over the country, shaping the minds of unsuspecting, malleable children.Just this...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

No Critical Race Theory in Schools? Here's the Abundant Evidence Saying Otherwise

Above, a mother protests critical race theory in Albuquerque last month. Such objections are often met with denials that CRT is being taught, despite many indications to the contrary. By John Murawski

www.realclearinvestigations.com

So who's spreading 'disinformation'? Seems to be Biden's “Disinformation Governance Board" and Jankowicz.

Further worrying is that this “Disinformation Governance Board" is housed in DHS, part of DOJ. Does this mean that the “Disinformation Governance Board" will have subpoena powers?
Issued for simply holding a political opinion or political position deemed as 'disinformation' by the “Disinformation Governance Board"?

Don't go telling me which political party is trying to achieve ever greater control over, and censorship of, the electorate as a means for growing the absolute political power. The above observations make it pretty obvious which party that is.

We see that many were, and the courts agreed in many, many cases.

And now you will deflect by going far off topic.

 

[eohrnberger]

We see that many were, and the courts agreed in many, many cases.

I already addressed this:

Sure, we see EOs from the state's governor, we see court orders, neither of which are granted the authority to change elections laws and regulations per the Constitution.

Your assertion was that the state legislatures had granted such powers to these other entities. This hasn't been shown in this forum, as of yet.

Show me where those state legislatures have granted or deferred authority to change those election laws and regulations as per your previously posted assertion.

Still have not substantiated this, from what I have read in this forum.

And now you will deflect by going far off topic.

. . . .

I do get it though, red states don't want more people voting because that would show that they maintain power because of laziness and apathy, not because their policies are really wanted.

Only in response to your posting deflection and going off topic.

Can't help it if I round out my posts with citations a plenty.

 

[roguenuke]

I already addressed this:

Show me where those state legislatures have granted or deferred authority to change those election laws and regulations as per your previously posted assertion.

Still have not substantiated this, from what I have read in this forum.



Only in response to your posting deflection and going off topic.

Can't help it if I round out my posts with citations a plenty.

The courts disagree with your assessment.

Each state has different laws about election boards, but this is a start.

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-33.html

It doesn't have to actually state everything you believe it does, like "we the legislature are delegating these constitutional powers to this board, others", before you start down that ridiculous hole, when it comes to actually making laws that do delegate those powers.

 

[eohrnberger]

The courts disagree with your assessment.

Each state has different laws about election boards, but this is a start.

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-33.html

It doesn't have to actually state everything you believe it does, like "we the legislature are delegating these constitutional powers to this board, others", before you start down that ridiculous hole, when it comes to actually making laws that do delegate those powers.

A citation of legalese there. Thanks. Which clause do you believe grants authority to change election laws and regulations outside of the state legislatures?
The authority of state legislatures to set those election laws and regulations is spelled out in the constitution, so a state passed law which would violate those clauses of the constitution would be deemed unconstitutional, would it not?

 

[roguenuke]

A citation of legalese there. Thanks. Which clause do you believe grants authority to change election laws and regulations outside of the state legislatures?
The authority of state legislatures to set those election laws and regulations is spelled out in the constitution, so a state passed law which would violate those clauses of the constitution would be deemed unconstitutional, would it not?

In most cases, they aren't changing election laws, because in general, those are made rather general to begin with, but give those election boards leeway to interpret, use as they need for a situation.

It is interesting to me though that you and others want so badly to simply work on technicalities or vagueness to limit who can vote, not because it is really right to limit how or who can vote in general (beyond basic citizen over a certain age) but because you know more people voting harms your side.

 

[LouC]

In most cases, they aren't changing election laws, because in general, those are made rather general to begin with, but give those election boards leeway to interpret, use as they need for a situation.

It is interesting to me though that you and others want so badly to simply work on technicalities or vagueness to limit who can vote, not because it is really right to limit how or who can vote in general (beyond basic citizen over a certain age) but because you know more people voting harms your side.

There you go trying to be all nasty and rational and fact full and trying at spoiling all those good OMG OMG OMG BIG LIE PORNGASM'S!!!

You should be ashamed of yourself!

 

[eohrnberger]

In most cases, they aren't changing election laws, because in general, those are made rather general to begin with, but give those election boards leeway to interpret, use as they need for a situation.

IIRC, in Wisconsin, for example, the executive branch ordered placements of ballot drop boxes, which was upheld by a lower court prior to the election, but after the election was reversed and determined as illegal later by a higher court.

A Wisconsin judge rules absentee ballot drop boxes are not allowed under state law

The ruling could potentially remove an option for voting ahead of the state's crucial midterm elections. The decision is all but certain to be appealed.

www.npr.org

I guess this tells you how much to trust non-State Legislatures changing elections laws and regulations and on the fly.

It is interesting to me though that you and others want so badly to simply work on technicalities or vagueness to limit who can vote,

No, it's not 'who can vote', and I frankly tire of this constant bleating of this liberal myth. Demonstrate / cite where there's been significant denial of ability to vote, recall the standard the left has imposed is 'sufficient to change the outcome of the election'.

I've been very specific in my factual observance that the election laws and regulations were changed by those not authorized to do so, and in addition, per the citation above, some of the changes found to be illegal and not compliant with the existing laws and regulations. An election win in those states will forever carry a dark shadow with them due to this.

not because it is really right to limit how or who can vote in general (beyond basic citizen over a certain age) but because you know more people voting harms your side.

Yet more liberal mythology taken as fact without substance or valid demonstration. Yet more unquestioned religious-like beliefs.

 

[roguenuke]

IIRC, in Wisconsin, for example, the executive branch ordered placements of ballot drop boxes, which was upheld by a lower court prior to the election, but after the election was reversed and determined as illegal later by a higher court.

A Wisconsin judge rules absentee ballot drop boxes are not allowed under state law

The ruling could potentially remove an option for voting ahead of the state's crucial midterm elections. The decision is all but certain to be appealed.

www.npr.org

I guess this tells you how much to trust non-State Legislatures changing elections laws and regulations and on the fly.


No, it's not 'who can vote', and I frankly tire of this constant bleating of this liberal myth. Demonstrate / cite where there's been significant denial of ability to vote, recall the standard the left has imposed is 'sufficient to change the outcome of the election'.

I've been very specific in my factual observance that the election laws and regulations were changed by those not authorized to do so, and in addition, per the citation above, some of the changes found to be illegal and not compliant with the existing laws and regulations. An election win in those states will forever carry a dark shadow with them due to this.


Yet more liberal mythology taken as fact without substance or valid demonstration. Yet more unquestioned religious-like beliefs.

And the one where Abbott made a decision about elections? How did that work?

There are many more I linked to that were decided in favor of changes made.