Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
"Well it's true" is a BS excuse for expressing prejudice. "Hey man it's the truth, it's a fact those people come from s**thole countries and are poorly educated and are mostly criminals and..."
But saying something is the truth isn't a means to express prejudice when the facts back the truth, as they do with Biden's election despite Republican denial of that fact.
Saying "it's true" without providing the "evidence" on which the person making the statement was relying, does nothing to prove the accuracy of the claim.
As to your "denial of fact" assertion: I'm sure you can point out where in
the electoral process for the position of President it states that the AP (or some other media organisation) is responsible for declaring the winner, rather than the individual "Secretary of state" (or equivalent) in each state, or that this is determined before recounts\canvassing\legal challenges are finalised. Otherwise, it would appear that it is not the Republicans who are denying facts in your example, but rather those preaturely claiming victory (which still appears likely to occur) - Until the process is completed, he has not "won" nor been "elected as the next President".
The media calling the winner of an election has never been called into question till now by Republicans. I'd be interested in seeing how a Trump victory could happen even with the few remaining states where the vote hasn't been entirely counted.
It would depend on what possible challenges to the votes were raised and succeeded: For example, if votes were found to have been accepted and counted when they had been received after the legal cut-off time, that could affect the count for the state in question. Similarly, if a recount found differing numbers (either more\less ballots than expected, or numbers added to the incorrect candidate's total), that could also change the results in states where the vote has been "counted" - The result isn't based on the initial count (which media is hyping), but on the final count\result of recount\canvassing, as declared by the state's "Secretary of State" (or equivalent) and after challenges are resolved (either in favour of, or against the reason supplied for the challenge).
If the votes were late but postmarked, as I understand it they still counted.
Being that the polls are state, rather than federal, polls, each state has its own rules: In some, the postmark date is what is used (with X days after polls closed available for them to be delivered), whilst in others they have to be received by a set time on the day of the election.
One of the cases that has been launched relates to the state Supreme court in Pennsylvania altering these dates and whether this is something that the court had the power to do, or whether it is somthing that only the legislative branch has the power to change. The recent decision in another minor case in that state does now provide precedent for this case, but is not neccesarily an indicator of how the other case will go as each case is reliant on the arguments presented by each side:
Quote:
In Thursday's order, Leavitt agreed with a challenge by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee to guidance issued Nov. 1 by Pennsylvania's top election official, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat.
In that guidance, Boockvar advised counties to allow voters to provide the necessary identification within nine days after the Nov. 3 election, or through Thursday.
That three-day extension was strictly for voters whose ballots that had arrived within a three-day grace period after Election Day allowed by the state Supreme Court.
Leavitt, however, wrote that Boockvar lacked the authority to move back the deadline to provide identification by three days.
Source:
https://www.wmur.com/article/court-sides-with-president-trump-blocks-small-number-of-ballots-in-pennsylvania-over-id-issues/34662483
12 Nov 2020, 11:15 pm
