How much Voter Fraud do you think we will see this year?

[Montegriffo]

You voted for this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai

V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963)[3] is an Indian-American engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims.[4][5][6] Ayyadurai holds four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), including a Ph.D. in biological engineering, and is a Fulbright grant recipient.[7]

In a 2011 article published by Time, Ayyadurai claimed he invented email as a teenager in the late 1970s. Historians strongly dispute this account however because email was already in use in the early 1970s. Ayyadurai sued both Gawker Media and Techdirt for defamation for disputing his account of inventing email; both lawsuits were settled out of court.

Ayyadurai also attracted attention for two reports: the first questioning the working conditions of India's largest scientific agency; the second questioning the safety of genetically modified soybeans. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ayyadurai became known for a social media COVID-19 disinformation campaign; spreading conspiracy theories about the cause of COVID-19; promoting unfounded COVID-19 treatments; and campaigning to fire Anthony Fauci for allegedly being a so-called "deep state" actor.

Ayyadurai garnered 3.39% of the vote as an independent candidate in the 2018 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, and ran as a Republican in the 2020 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, but lost to Kevin O'Connor in the primary.[8] After the election, he promoted claims of election fraud that were shown to be false by fact checkers.

Reading that makes me want to vote for him.

That's because you have been radicalised by far right hate speech.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You voted for this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai

Reading that makes me want to vote for him.

That's because you have been radicalised by far right hate speech.

Nah, honestly - the harder they smear someone, the more likely that that’s a guy on my side.

[Montegriffo]

Reading that makes me want to vote for him.

That's because you have been radicalised by far right hate speech.

Nah, honestly - the harder they smear someone, the more likely that that’s a guy on my side.

I'm not going to tell you what they say about Hitler then.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's because you have been radicalised by far right hate speech.

Nah, honestly - the harder they smear someone, the more likely that that’s a guy on my side.

I'm not going to tell you what they say about Hitler then.

Don’t rewrite history if you want my support. That’s ISIS level stupidity.

[The Conservative]

Nah, honestly - the harder they smear someone, the more likely that that’s a guy on my side.

I'm not going to tell you what they say about Hitler then.

Don’t rewrite history if you want my support. That’s ISIS level stupidity.

Wasn't he accused of supporting hate groups like ISIS and Antifa for a while?

[Montegriffo]

I'm not going to tell you what they say about Hitler then.

Don’t rewrite history if you want my support. That’s ISIS level stupidity.

Wasn't he accused of supporting hate groups like ISIS and Antifa for a while?

Who, Hitler?

[TheOneX]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

It strikes me as a difficult situation: If pro-democracy legislation is seen as passed in a partisan manner, then it’s easier to write off as partisan. Do you see a way around that? Because that would seem to have dire consequences if democracy itself is seen as an inherently partisan exercise.

The way to have avoided it would have been to go to Mitch McConnell — and if he said “no,” go to Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and Liz Cheney — and say, “sit with me and draft up a bill that would counter election subversion.” That wouldn’t convince all Republicans, but it would have gone a long way.

There was a moment — I mean, go back and look at the speech that McConnell gave after the insurrection and the condemnation of Trump. Trump has only strengthened his hand, and any Republican who might try to suggest legislation that would make it harder to steal elections is going to be attacked by Trump. Already, Mitch McConnell is being attacked by Trump — and he let him get so much of his agenda through. That moment passed, but there was that moment.

So, yes, it’s a danger. But what’s the alternative? Doing nothing?

Politico interviewed some dude named Rick Hasen. This guy apparently believes it is Trump, Trump supporters, and Republicans who are blocking voter integrity in this nation, or at least is trying to create that narrative.

[The Conservative]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

It strikes me as a difficult situation: If pro-democracy legislation is seen as passed in a partisan manner, then it’s easier to write off as partisan. Do you see a way around that? Because that would seem to have dire consequences if democracy itself is seen as an inherently partisan exercise.

The way to have avoided it would have been to go to Mitch McConnell — and if he said “no,” go to Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and Liz Cheney — and say, “sit with me and draft up a bill that would counter election subversion.” That wouldn’t convince all Republicans, but it would have gone a long way.

There was a moment — I mean, go back and look at the speech that McConnell gave after the insurrection and the condemnation of Trump. Trump has only strengthened his hand, and any Republican who might try to suggest legislation that would make it harder to steal elections is going to be attacked by Trump. Already, Mitch McConnell is being attacked by Trump — and he let him get so much of his agenda through. That moment passed, but there was that moment.

So, yes, it’s a danger. But what’s the alternative? Doing nothing?

Politico interviewed some dude named Rick Hasen. This guy apparently believes it is Trump, Trump supporters, and Republicans who are blocking voter integrity in this nation, or at least is trying to create that narrative.

Trump is their boogeyman... what else is new?

[Martin Hash]

I finally looked into the results of the AZ audit: Trump won.

Apparently 50K votes shouldn’t have been certified.

What makes it weird is that it probably would have been much higher except they didn’t audit the signature matching as part of the agreement to get the audit. WTF?

Also they didn’t say how that 50K voted. WTF?

It was the Republican Party that did it. WTF? (All the staff & the governor are fervent Never Trumpers)

The MSM mentioned none of this. They ran a Fake News story about the hand recount showed Biden won by more. WTF? Hand recount? That wasn’t part of the audit.

Nobody’s going to do anything.

[The Conservative]

I finally looked into the results of the AZ audit: Trump won.

Apparently 50K votes shouldn’t have been certified.

What makes it weird is that it probably would have been much higher except they didn’t audit the signature matching as part of the agreement to get the audit. WTF?

Also they didn’t say how that 50K voted. WTF?

It was the Republican Party that did it. WTF? (All the staff & the governor are fervent Never Trumpers)

The MSM mentioned none of this. They ran a Fake News story about the hand recount showed Biden won by more. WTF? Hand recount? That wasn’t part of the audit.

Nobody’s going to do anything.

There is a difference between a recount and an audit...regretfully the media only tells people about the recount, which was to only say if the votes were tallied correctly, not if they were legit or not.

Once they sunk their teeth into that, they blatantly ignored the audit, because to them the meat of the issue was resolved once and for all.

The Audit was only to see if the votes were valid, not to say which party had the most illegitimate votes, that was not part, nor should it have been the part of the audit.

Now we know about 50k votes were illegitimate, we should have the AG check those 50k and see which party it supported, and then from there follow the law accordingly.