NC Republicans are on the verge of canceling 65000 votes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy to validate voters? Yeah, no it’s not. If there’s nothing to hide I do not see a problem. JFC.

Agree completely.

First off, the ballots should be excluded as they were cast by voters who were not properly registered because they did not provide their state driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers as a 2004 state law required.

Second, for all anybody knows, all 60k ballots could be for the republican candidate. You don’t know.

This case is a matter of ballot integrity. Do you want integrity or fraud?

To be clear: why is it “fraud” when Republicans lose elections? Or are you suggesting that all votes without these numbers be thrown out from all elections including those where Republicans won?

Yes, even where Republicans won. It’s a law from 2004. Why are you ok with fraud? If the votes are not legal, they’re not legal. Seems simple

Great! Show us the efforts to invalidate votes in Republican victories.

You mean like trying to get Trump off the presidential ballot in three states?

Sorry, no tears for you.

The constitution is pretty clear about people who fomented sedition not be eligible for the ballot.

And the NC law is clear in this case.

Which again leads us to— if NC law is so clear and this is such a pernicious issue, why are republicans only concerned about this “illegal activity” where they lost?

[Anonymous]

Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy to validate voters? Yeah, no it’s not. If there’s nothing to hide I do not see a problem. JFC.

Agree completely.

First off, the ballots should be excluded as they were cast by voters who were not properly registered because they did not provide their state driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers as a 2004 state law required.

Second, for all anybody knows, all 60k ballots could be for the republican candidate. You don’t know.

This case is a matter of ballot integrity. Do you want integrity or fraud?

To be clear: why is it “fraud” when Republicans lose elections? Or are you suggesting that all votes without these numbers be thrown out from all elections including those where Republicans won?

Is the gap small in other races?

Yes, even where Republicans won. It’s a law from 2004. Why are you ok with fraud? If the votes are not legal, they’re not legal. Seems simple

Great! Show us the efforts to invalidate votes in Republican victories.

You mean like trying to get Trump off the presidential ballot in three states?

Sorry, no tears for you.

The constitution is pretty clear about people who fomented sedition not be eligible for the ballot.

And the NC law is clear in this case.

Which again leads us to— if NC law is so clear and this is such a pernicious issue, why are republicans only concerned about this “illegal activity” where they lost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy to validate voters? Yeah, no it’s not. If there’s nothing to hide I do not see a problem. JFC.

Agree completely.

First off, the ballots should be excluded as they were cast by voters who were not properly registered because they did not provide their state driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers as a 2004 state law required.

Second, for all anybody knows, all 60k ballots could be for the republican candidate. You don’t know.

This case is a matter of ballot integrity. Do you want integrity or fraud?

To be clear: why is it “fraud” when Republicans lose elections? Or are you suggesting that all votes without these numbers be thrown out from all elections including those where Republicans won?

Yes, even where Republicans won. It’s a law from 2004. Why are you ok with fraud? If the votes are not legal, they’re not legal. Seems simple

Great! Show us the efforts to invalidate votes in Republican victories.

You mean like trying to get Trump off the presidential ballot in three states?

Sorry, no tears for you.

The constitution is pretty clear about people who fomented sedition not be eligible for the ballot.

And the NC law is clear in this case.

Which again leads us to— if NC law is so clear and this is such a pernicious issue, why are republicans only concerned about this “illegal activity” where they lost?

Bush v. Gore: “we lost, so we will keeping demanding unfairly-targeted county-recounts, until we win”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

[Anonymous]

https://bsky.app/profile/juddlegum.bsky.social/post/3lmxaoxr5ls2j

On Monday, we reported that 29 people whose ballots were invalidated by the North Carolina Supreme Court for never living in NC had, in fact, lived in NC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

People can read poll results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy to validate voters? Yeah, no it’s not. If there’s nothing to hide I do not see a problem. JFC.

DCUM liberals are the worse. Completely selfish. Unable to follow any laws

Laws that take away a citizen's right to vote are unconstitutional.

We settled this in 1865.

You're really here standing up for tyranny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

This is what I was asking. Are these 65000 votes already included in the total, or were they set aside on Election Day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy to validate voters? Yeah, no it’s not. If there’s nothing to hide I do not see a problem. JFC.

Agree completely.

First off, the ballots should be excluded as they were cast by voters who were not properly registered because they did not provide their state driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers as a 2004 state law required.

Second, for all anybody knows, all 60k ballots could be for the republican candidate. You don’t know.

This case is a matter of ballot integrity. Do you want integrity or fraud?

To be clear: why is it “fraud” when Republicans lose elections? Or are you suggesting that all votes without these numbers be thrown out from all elections including those where Republicans won?

Yes, even where Republicans won. It’s a law from 2004. Why are you ok with fraud? If the votes are not legal, they’re not legal. Seems simple

Great! Show us the efforts to invalidate votes in Republican victories.

You mean like trying to get Trump off the presidential ballot in three states?

Sorry, no tears for you.

The constitution is pretty clear about people who fomented sedition not be eligible for the ballot.

And the NC law is clear in this case.

Which again leads us to— if NC law is so clear and this is such a pernicious issue, why are republicans only concerned about this “illegal activity” where they lost?

Bush v. Gore: “we lost, so we will keeping demanding unfairly-targeted county-recounts, until we win”

Bush v Gore: "don't count the votes, because people will lose faith in the electoral system if the person with the most votes is declared the loser of the election".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

This is what I was asking. Are these 65000 votes already included in the total, or were they set aside on Election Day?

They are included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

This is what I was asking. Are these 65000 votes already included in the total, or were they set aside on Election Day?

This is bizarre! If a ballot is counted, there should be no way to know whose ballot it is.

So how could individual already-counted ballots be selectively cured??

This only makes sense if Democrat Riggs was losing and needed and needed uncounted ballots to win.

If Riggs is winning, the only way she could lose is if more Republican votes are counted, can only happen uncounted ballots are later counted.

That means that none of the 65K chalenged ballots are counted yet, and Griffin is hoping they lean R after some are discarded. But if that's the case, then a 734 margin would not be a "win" for anybody, and we'd all be waiting for the provisional ballot counts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the 700 vote difference before these 60000 votes are counted, or after?

What I don't understand is how you would know for whom these 60,000 people voted. Many of the voters being challenged voted in person after showing their IDs. They could have voted for either candidate. Or is Griffin angling for a new election to be held?

This is what I was asking. Are these 65000 votes already included in the total, or were they set aside on Election Day?

They are included.

Then how could they be unincluded later? They are secret ballots

[Anonymous]

Update:

[Anonymous]

Griffin has finally conceded this election to Riggs after trying to impose changed rules post-facto to the election, trying to disenfranchise 60,000 votes from 4 blue counties including servicemembers abroad.

Griffin has shattered the sanctity of the NC Supreme Court and laid out a blueprint for how other states and the Federal elections can be corrupted.

Bravo, GOP.