Trump purposely screwed the pooch in the Georgia Senate

But with GA, it's not moving the goal posts. It was widely talked about within the state that Abrams had groups making sure people submitted mail-in ballots. The old voting law was a joke for integrity.

Under the old law:
- There were no ID requirements to request an absentee ballot.
- Unsolicited absentee ballots could be sent out and they could be sent multiple times. The voter did not need to request.

So Abrams group could request absentee ballots for dark blue areas, and have them sent multiple times. You're not allowed to fill these out for others, but that's almost impossible to prove.

Then the groups would canvas the area and turn in the mail ins to the boxes.

The 1 person, 1 vote still applied. But had they not had 'help' they vote would not have made it in.

Found one article from WSB regarding a harvesting investigation:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/ga-elections-officials-subpoenaing-texas-group-claiming-they-have-evidence-ballot-harvesting/QNFBWOYS7VB6JCHLTYH3JNYYKI/

Texas group claims they have evidence of ballot harvesting in Georgia

Texas group True the Vote says they have evidence of ballot harvesting during the 200 elections, but hasn't revealed their source.

RememberTheDanny

110%er [7128]

TigerPulse: 96%

Posts: 9690

Joined: 10/6/21

Re: Here's why GA Repubs were willing to lose 2 senate seats

May 9, 2022, 7:30 PM [ in reply to Enough Republicans asked that in the GA Senate runoff to ]

The 'traditional' Republicans hate Trump more than the Democrats.

Long answer illustrated by one example ... it will make sense if you can wade through it.

Trump's rise to power without pandering to the funders of the traditional Republicans introduced a huge risk factor to the 'dark money' that enrich the 'traditional' Repubs & Dems. Their (justifiable) fear was that Trump might decide to push for legislation that would shut down these avenues for self-enrichment.

"Trump risk": Passage of a law that would prevent organizations which receive Gov't funding (i.e., colleges, universities, media outlets [including NPR]) from being able to donate to PACS or political campaigns. The 'ban' on such Gov't funded organzations from donating to political campaigns would be for 365 days after their most recent receipt of Gov't funds.

Why this would be important? Example: UGA is the biggest lobbyist in the State of Georgia; UGA's single biggest funder is the State of Georgia. UGA gets money from the State of Georgia, and then re-sends that money to their favored political candidates. This is racketeering ... a Federal crime ... but legal by virtue of crooked laws.

What about 'suppression of free speech'? The organization that wants to preserve its free speech can do so, but not if they 'bribe' the Gov't via contributions to political parties, candidates, or PACs. They can either take the Gov't money -or- speak up as they please ... but they do not get both.

Why does this matter to politicians?: You know this, but here goes anyways: The politicians use money send to their political campaigns to employ parents, offspring, siblings, nephews & nieces, etc. etc. They then get their family relations to donate to the politician's non-profit organization. The politician then pays his wife a fat salary for being a high ranking officer of the non-profit organization.

Punchline: Guys like Trump who are not part of the traditional politicians' fundraising racket pose a great risk of exposing it and then dismantling it. That's why the 'traditional Republicans' would rather lose the Senate than to win the Senate; losing the Senate would give the 'traditional Republicans' cover for when reform laws that Trump would propose would then have no chance of passing a Democrat-controlled Senate. The 'traditional Repubs and Dems' racketeering scheme remains intact.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Going to regret asking this, but...2000 Mules.

Re: Going to regret asking this, but...2000 Mules.

Absurd biases?

I don't think it was stolen...

I will say that if the election was stolen,

Can't speak to other states...

I meant more from the line the Trump team was carrying in

Re: Going to regret asking this, but...2000 Mules.

Okay, that's one theory.

Why?

So you think that the organization intentionally kept it

no, they did as much as they could

Good deal. Thanks for walking me through it.***

video proof is video proof

If this gets verified and it all leads to the conclusion the

Re: Why?

This is a terrible talking point, btw.

If it's massively lopsided, it's bad smelling fish

Re: If it's massively lopsided, it's bad smelling fish

That's where the people much smarter than I am come in

In my experience, even the smart people get the pre-election

The mules weren’t enough.

Stick with the mules.

Isn't it fascinating how independent auditors in all 5 of

I'll go by what the audit says. BUT

oh and forgot, they lied about pipes bursting

They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing

Re: They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing

Re: Going to regret asking this, but...2000 Mules.

What's the point of Republicans voting in rigged elections?

Enough Republicans asked that in the GA Senate runoff to

He basically endorsed Abrams over Kemp.

Re: Here's why GA Repubs were willing to lose 2 senate seats

Moon landing was faked. 9/11 was an inside job.

I think the ballot harvesting angle actually holds water as

I think your question #2, when flipped, spurs a lot of the

Yeah. I can see how that might puzzle them, though it's hard

TigerBoard POTD