UNITED STATES STIMULUS CHECKS

[OnMyWay]

[strap]

11 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

 

In 2020, some majority democrat leadership states decided that they needed to protect us from Covid.  Voting in person is very dangerous.  Rioting in large groups is ok.  Standing in line to vote, not ok.  They sent out absentee ballots to every registered voter.  Doesn't matter if you are dead or moved, they sent it.  Fairly easy to see how this would work out.  The chart below shows the increase in absentee voting over 2016.

 

There were only 9 states that sent ballots to all registered voters (Vermont, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington, Oregon).  Interestingly, none of those appear on the chart you posted, and none of them are part of the on-going election fraud complaints. So I really don't think that was a factor in the election results.

 

 

[OnMyWay]

8 minutes ago, strap said:

There were only 9 states that sent ballots to all registered voters (Vermont, Nevada, California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington, Oregon).  Interestingly, none of those appear on the chart you posted, and none of them are part of the on-going election fraud complaints. So I really don't think that was a factor in the election results.

Yes, correct.  Honestly I thought Pennsylvania was one of them.  Nevada is one of those states that had issues.  Some of these others, like California, are lost causes, so the focus is on the swing states.

However, 35 states changed the rules so that anyone can request an absentee ballot.  Formerly, most used to need a good reason, like living overseas, military, sick, etc.  It is very odd how / why Pennsylvania absentee balloting went up by 2867%  

[scott h]

8 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

35 states changed the rules so that anyone can request an absentee ballot.

 

8 hours ago, strap said:

So I really don't think that was a factor in the election results.

Trying to be non-partisan and just using objective logic. I dont believe that fraud swayed the election one way or the other. There has always been a certain amount of fraud, and when dealing with the amount of voters and polling places there will always be some human error. 

What swung the election IMO was allowing ANY mail in voting/unlimited absentee voting. Again IMO the USA does not ask much of its citizens. There is no military draft, no mandatory national service as in some countries. All the nation asks is that you pay your taxes and GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND VOTE every two years.... 

[Mike J]

10 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

Chad is either ignorant or being a smart @ss.  The "stimulation bill" is just a small portion of the overall bill to fund the entire government's budget for next year.   The stimulus package IS NOT a stand alone bill.   That is why the "bill" is over 5000 pages.

[Dave Hounddriver]

44 minutes ago, scott h said:

What swung the election IMO was allowing ANY mail in voting

Yeah.  That's what threw me.  I was jumping to the conclusion that mail-in votes were sent by people who were not in the country.  But if ANY person could mail in a vote, then someone who did not feel safe voting during covid could mail-in rather than go to the polling booth.

As many Republicans were following the leader's advice to not worry about Covid then it stands to reason that the ones who chose to mail in their votes are more likely to be Democrats.  Hence the appearance of impropriety when there likely is none.

[scott h]

35 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Hence the appearance of impropriety when there likely is none.

There was "some" impropriety Dave. A lady I know (and trust), a fellow soldier lived with her parents in california. Like most service people she listed her home of record at her parents house. She eventually got married and later retired to Alabama (if memory serves). She received one ballot in her maiden name and one in her married name at her parents house and voted in person in her new state. So technically she could have voted 3 times. 

Are things like this enough to sway the election? I doubt it, but it does create suspicion 

[OnMyWay]

1 hour ago, scott h said:

There was "some" impropriety Dave. A lady I know (and trust), a fellow soldier lived with her parents in california. Like most service people she listed her home of record at her parents house. She eventually got married and later retired to Alabama (if memory serves). She received one ballot in her maiden name and one in her married name at her parents house and voted in person in her new state. So technically she could have voted 3 times. 

Are things like this enough to sway the election? I doubt it, but it does create suspicion 

I easily could have voted twice.  I followed the guidance and requested a ballot from my last state of residence, Kentucky.  Meanwhile, I was still on the voter roles in Florida.  I decided not to vote in Kentucky due to a potential tax issue.  I had two ballots but voted only in Florida.

[OnMyWay]

2 hours ago, Mike J said:

The stimulus package IS NOT a stand alone bill.   That is why the "bill" is over 5000 pages.

That is the point Mike.  Citizens of all persuasions don't think the government should run like this.  Many months of delays, then a 5000 page bill presented with no time to even read it before voting.  Filled with pork to satisfy special interests.

[hk blues]

3 hours ago, scott h said:

There was "some" impropriety Dave. A lady I know (and trust), a fellow soldier lived with her parents in california. Like most service people she listed her home of record at her parents house. She eventually got married and later retired to Alabama (if memory serves). She received one ballot in her maiden name and one in her married name at her parents house and voted in person in her new state. So technically she could have voted 3 times. 

Are things like this enough to sway the election? I doubt it, but it does create suspicion 

I've no dog in this fight, but is there any real likelihood that the vast majority of voter fraud would be Democrat votes? I've read the theories that voter fraud is linked mainly to absent votes/ mail vote due to the idea that Republicans don't believe in the risks of Covid so are more likely to vote in person - it's a thin argument at best.

Ultimately, isn't the concept of enabling as many people to vote as possible sound and to be encouraged - even if it appears to favour one party? Remember, it's not skewing the vote in reality unless it's believed mass fraud is occuring.