It is looking like we won’t actually know until early in January when the electors verify their votes with Congress. Here is what happened yesterday, as good as I can explain it , and a video that does a much better job. The governors of the swing states declared their election votes for Biden, so that is what was announced yesterday. However, at least seven of those states had the electors declare for Trump. So until January, it is going to look like Biden gets those votes, but when the electors are there, then they can vote for whomever they want to vote for. Since the legislature of these states has chosen for Trump, that is what is important, as opposed to what the governors decide. If those seven states cast their votes for Trump, then he will easily win the election.
Now that the ballots have supposedly been counted and the electors certified, folks are coming out of the woodwork with their findings about the Dominion Voting Systems. Yes, now that nothing can really be done about the procedural parts of the system and the votes are counted it seems that the realities of a major portion of the “glitches” are being revealed en masse. Here’s one from Michigan that just appeared in the last day or so that touts that nearly 68 out of every 100 votes were erroneous. https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...or-rates-in-countys-dominion-voting-software/
As far as I know in most states the delegates must vote according to the popular vote...I don't remember if in te crucial states this vote went for Trump.
If this is proven to be a fact the election should be 1) Cancelled or 2) Trump is the winner (which would please me very much)
Interesting read from Maria Bartiromo https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/maria_bartiromo_drops_the_mother_of_all_bombshells.html
It is hard to believe that the United States Congress, which is supposed to be part of our chosen government , could do something as ridiculous as they just did, but this is true, and there is a video of it happening. I think that is might just be part of the gender thing, misunderstood, and taken WAY too far; but Congress ended their prayer in a way that shows their lack of understanding of a word. The word is “Amen”, not “a man” , so no need to include the words “a woman” .
Supposedly a Seminary trained Ordained main stream minister and doesn’t know that Amen means, “so be it” and has nothing to do with a gender.
The AZ Attorney General has refused to certify the last election until Maricopa County explains the failures of voting opportunities throughout the county and why a number of state election laws were violated. Programming was changed on a number of the voting machines and software as the election neared without auditing how it would affect election results.
The flaw in our system is the mistaken belief that almost everyone should be allowed to vote. I would recommend the following changes: 1. Must be 35 to vote in national elections. State/local can do what they want. 2. Government employees should not be allowed to vote, since they will virtually always vote to increase taxes and increase spending. 3. Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote for the same reason. (Note, Social Security is not welfare.) I'm sure I've missed a couple of other groups
I can see your reasoning and it makes sense for the reasons you gave; but I disagree that we should do this. We send our young people into the military when they are still in their teens and ask them to die for this country; so they should also be allowed to vote. The government employees voting probably does not make that much difference since some will vote one way and some another , just like any other group of people. It seems to be the ones who get to congress vote however they want, regardless of what they said when they were candidates. Welfare recipients should also be allowed to vote because many of them have a legitimate reason to be receiving help with having money to live on and food to eat. Taking away the right to vote because of someone’s income would be the start of a slippery slope until eventually, only wealthy people would be allowed. However, the ballot-harvesting, where they find elderly and homeless poor people and pay them to vote is definitely NOT something that should be allowed. If we had voting like it used to be, on Election Day and in person, this would eliminate a lot of the people who actually had no interest in voting.
1. Being old enough to carry a rifle does not qualify you to vote. And most 18 year olds are not in the military. So that is a no. 2. Government employees are overwhelmingly supporters of higher taxes and higher spending. I'm sure there are a couple of them they would vote otherwise, I've just never met one. So that's another no. 3. I didn't say anything about income being a qualifier. It is being on welfare. Working poor would still be allowed to vote. So that too is another no. Of course, this is all just a pipe dream and will never ever happen. And we are accordingly doomed
The average of the US soldiers in Viet Nam was 19. So you can die for your country but not allowed to vote, bit unfair
Yes, that is the argument, and it is also unfair that the same 19 year old can not be President. Would you support lowering the age to be President to 18? After all, if you are qualified by holding a rifle to select the President, maybe you should be qualified to be President. As an aside, that 19 year old soldier can no longer buy a pack of smokes. Must be 21.
And….to extend your argument, since the prefrontal cortex of the average human being isn’t fully developed until somewhere between the ages of 18-25, no one should be able to vote until they’re 26 just to be on the safe side. And while we’re at it, since many crimes with a guilty charge are dependent upon the age of the person, maybe crimes committed by those under 25 should be considered to be committed by juveniles. By the bye, 18 year old soldiers CAN buy cigarettes as well as drink alcohol on post depending on (1) the location of the post or base and (2) depending upon the post commander’s orders. In those states where the age limit for buying cigarettes is 21, the post commander can either abide by the state laws or not. In the case of overseas duty, most commanders allow 18 year olds to drink depending upon the hosting country’s laws. Edit: Maybe if an 18 year old was smart enough, maybe he or she should be allowed to run for President. Couldn’t do worse than Joe Biden.