USA .... quo vadis?

I'm not going to play whack-a-mole with you, but to highlight the imprecision of your claims, I must ask why you chose not to tell us that in Nevada, it was the state's Republican Party, not the state of Nevada itself, that filed a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Did you not think it relevant that we know the party alleging fraud is the party losing the presidential vote count in the state?

FYI, the ACLU - indeed, another partisan entity - has issued some counsel on this matter, all asserted facts of which seem accurate to me.

I respect your view, but even trash talkers can tell the truth. Is there any assertion of legal fact in the ACLU's tweet that is false? I bet not.

At the moment, they have a claim of voter fraud. The Justice Department, followed by the courts if Justice pursues criminal cases, will decide the significance of their "evidence." Given the number of alleged cases and the fact that there are NEVER that many cases of actual voter fraud in an election, my guess is nothing will come of the claims. We'll see.

NOTE: According to The Washington Post, in the 2016 and 2018 elections held in the vote-by-mail states of Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, there were a total of "372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent." Twenty-five ten-thousandths of a percent is not what I would call a threatening fraud percentage: About 31 of all the votes counted in Nevada so far. About 3,600 of ALL votes cast in ALL states so far. If Trump gets within 31 votes of Biden in Nevada (spoiler - he won't) then I'll fret about fraud.

I provided the link in a previous post. Here's the tweet for your review...

I don't know what you recall, but the circumstances are different (though comparable in one sense):

• During the impeachment, your claim was that there was "no evidence" of impeachable conduct, a claim to which I responded basically as you note - there WAS evidence; the issue was whether that evidence was enough to impeach and then convict.
• In this current matter I responded to your claim this way: (emphasis added) "At the moment, they have a claim of voter fraud. The Justice Department, followed by the courts if Justice pursues criminal cases, will decide the significance of their "evidence." Given the number of alleged cases and the fact that there are NEVER that many cases of actual voter fraud in an election, my guess is nothing will come of the claims. We'll see." That is, I acknowledged the existence of evidence, but asserted that it's up to the Justice Department and others to decide the significance of that evidence - whether the evidence is sufficient to pursue a criminal inquiry.

So I acknowledged the existence of evidence in the current case (i.e. no double standard); you didn't in the impeachment case. In both cases, however, someone other than the evidence adducers will decide the significance of the evidence.

Yeah I was disappointed to see his statement.

@Bill_Coley

You don't know that the Democrats kept accusing Trump of having Russian ties?

They kept accusing him of that and had no proof, but you want to lecture me as you stand up for them.

You don't know about the fake dossier that they had made?

That is criminal.

You don't know that the impeachment was unfounded?

You want proof that the election is corrupt? I'll give it to you.

Joe Bidden was the one getting money after setting his son up with many foreign countries. He should be in jail and not elected as president.

Anyone as crooked as the Democrats and Joe Bidden and the Clinton's are capable of rigging the election.

When you got criminals running for election, then you just trust them and accept the outcome?

That would be a stupid thing.

We don't yet know what the President-elect's name is because we do not yet have one.

AT LAST we hear from an expert on voter fraud! It's about time.

There's nothing worse than a nation with a bunch of "concerned amateur citizens."

You advocate for "plain common sense," and "experience in counting and statistics and math," and "a little observation and clear thinking." But you don't offer any evidence. Proving claims of voter fraud won't happen because clear-headed observers employ common sense. It will happen only if people present concrete, fact-based evidence of voter fraud.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please tell us about "Biden's own testimony" and how that "testimony" in late October proves voter fraud in the November 3 general election.

Of course "proving voter fraud" is not the same as the fraud itself; I didn't claim it is. My concern was claims of fraud, which ultimately are either true or false. Unproven fraud claims MIGHT be true, but absent convincing proof, they are unproven speculative assertions which must not be given the status of proven ones. Unproven fraud claims, absent ANY proof - as is the case with claims of widespread fraud in our 2020 election - are dangerous because they can prohibit a democracy's advance into the future as they hobble the workings of leaders and the institutions in which they serve.

There is NO proof and NO evidence (the core ingredient of proof) of widespread voter fraud in our recent election. None. What there are, are unproven allegations of fraud, which are easily imagined, but not so easily dispatched, particularly when the collection of evidence-free claims reaches numerically significant numbers. In the face of such mounting quantities of claims, lower information citizens might decide quantity means quality, so there must be something there... which in this case there isn't. Bottom line: At some point, the health of a democracy depends on its ability to process, reject, and dissuade people from creating evidence-free fraud claims. Sadly, Mr Trump has not received that message.

Did you investigate this quotation in any way? Do you know the context of these words? I'm guessing the candid answer to both of those questions is "no," because if you knew the context, you'd know that Mr. Biden wasn't at all confessing to his having created a fraud organization. He was talking about encouraging people to vote despite the president's many efforts to suppress turnout. In the same response, Mr. Biden referenced the expansive legal team his campaign had recruited to fight against efforts to dissuade or not count votes (e.g. via false fraud claims).

You can read the fuller context of the quotation for yourself HERE, but in sum, those words were part of a larger response to a question about getting people out to vote. First, he said people need to make a plan to vote because the GOP was working hard to make voting difficult. Second, he said his campaign had set up a system - which he mistakenly called a "voter fraud organization" - to assure that all votes are counted, even in the face of Trump administration efforts to dissuade and deny votes. Finally, he gave voters a number to call if they faced any roadblocks in casting their votes.

Mr Biden was trying to assure voters that they could vote and their vote would be counted. Unfortunately, he misspoke; he's prone to do that. As the article to which I link above notes, Fox News speculated that Biden was likely misspeaking about his campaign's "election protection program," of which the aforementioned assembly of lawyers is the core.

This is an example of the importance of reading words in context. Such a practice is valuable in Bible study AND in analyzing political discourse.

No evidence except whistleblowers, affidavits, witnesses, irregularities, late ballots, and more.... But Bill is right, nothing to see here, move on everybody...