Republicans are trying to play “Calvin ball”: election rules changes until they win.

Geez, Republicans did well down ballot, but that is not good enough.
“Why is Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger working so hard to add drop boxes and take other steps to make it harder for Republicans to win,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted.”

We work so hard to help Third World nations to hold fair elections and increase voter participation. Yet, here at home, the GOP is doing all they can to discourage people from casting ballots. 
The rallying cry is “voter fraud” unless Republicans win. Can we at least let Democrats count as 3/5ths of a person? There is Constitutional precedence for that. 
Uh, better make that 2/5ths. No ballot boxes. A poll tax might be nice, too. 

33 thoughts on “Republicans are trying to play “Calvin ball”: election rules changes until they win.

  1. SMH.

    Like the scorpion and frog; the salamander gonna be true to his nature.

    Anti-Amercan in the extreme as he attacks all those commie liberals down on Georgia.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Untended drop boxes are an invitation to voter fraud, either by removing and destroying ballots in GOP neighborhoods are to drop off illegally harvested ballots.

    Instead of asking why Republicans are so concerned about ease of voting, ask why Democrats are so intent on facilitating fraud?

    No ID, no signature matching, no witness signature, no envelope audits, no purging of dead and relocated from voter rolls.

    No innocent explanation for any of those.


    1. “No innocent explanation for any of those“

      Actually, after investigation after investigation by BOTH Parties, the explanation is that there is no “there” , there. But please educate me as to all those crimes that our legal systems have repeated determined are minor to the point of irrelevance.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Jimmie, I have tossed out that challenge and the Trump fans tap dance like Gregory Hines on meth.

        The lame excuse is that some suits were tossed on standing.

        The key word is “some”. Many, many judges looked at the evidence, which we have to assume was the pick of the litter, and said it was not credible.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. You really need to get out of the bubble.

      Yes, there were some issues. Not with fraud, that has been clearly shown to a virtually non-existent problem in the last election.

      No one has said what it would take to show to the Trump fans that fraud.did not take place. Judges at all levels looked at the proffered evidence and said over and over that there was no credibility to the suits.

      Not good enough. Hearings were held on videos. Officials, GOP in most cases, said they were normal operations. SCOTUS was handed a 1500 page suit. If there were any credibility, they did not see it.
      ( Yes, I know SCOTUS’ rejection of Paxton’s “pardon me please” suit was on standing, but they were correct. Trump lawyers couldn’t get to it through the appeals process with the crap they were offering.)

      Data “experts” purported to show that it was impossible for Biden to win. Less than one in quadrillion?

      Recounts galore. No change.

      What’s next? “Hey, you didn’t say ‘mother, may I’.

      So what in hell would Trump fans want that hasn’t been examined yet?

      The answer is simple. They, and you, don’t want this election to be credible. And think that most Americans are supposed to fall for the classic “well, prove fraud didn’t happen”.

      Well, actually, we did. Your team did the work in filing an unprecedented number of suits, challenging videos, hundreds of observers, etc. I believe in Michigan, Republican observers mobbed the counting arena with many more than allowed, but they stayed anyway. Cameras everywhere.

      All this, and you still lie and spread Trump BS designed specifically to divide us and fill his coffers.

      And here is the irony. Trump gained in the urban districts and lost big in the suburbs. Of course that doesn’t fit the racist narrative that Blacks can’t be trusted.

      Essentially, all the fraud allegations by Trump, and his fans, is projection. Cheating by him is so ingrained that he cannot imagine anything but that everybody else is a crook.

      So now it is time to keep changing the rules until Republicans win. That they did win more races than they lost in the tight contests escapes the petty thinking prevalent from the president on down.

      But, go ahead, spread lies, make sure we stay divided, and keep doing those things that will destroy our grand experiment for your children and grandchildren.


      Liked by 2 people

      1. Every time Trump (or his surrogates’) lawyers were offered to show evidence, they took a pass. That is what happened in Wisconsin and that was from the Judge who was hearing the case. I think it is a safe bet the same thing occurred in all of the other cases.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There were some direct references to submitted affidavits about how specious, vague or pointless they were. Including that classic “so what is your problem” when it turned out the lawyers at first lied about GOP observer access not allowed when it turned out it was.

          So I assume submitted evidence was studied in many cases.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Don’t bother searching with Google. but if you use BING, you’ll find plenty.

        For example, in Nevada. 1500 dead votes, 42,000 voted more than once, and over 30,000 requested ballots with addresses at Casinos or short term RV parks.

        There are similar problems on Arizona and Envelope audits are yet to be conducted in WI, MI, PA and GA.

        The Democrats seem to have gotten away with it, and might have even won without cheating, but there was cheating, on a massive scale, and there were unlawful changes made to voting in several states to facilitate that cheating.

        Biden may well get into the White House, but he will never be free of the stench of fraud and corruption,


        1. No facts, just a lot of allegations. If this goes nowhere in court with all that evidence, will you accept the results as fair?


          Well it went through Nevada courts and Nevada Supreme Court.

          Both courts looked at the evidence and the Supreme Court ruling was 6-0 against Trump.

          So what is next? Acceptance or back to conspiracies?


          1. The NV Supreme Court ruled on the manner in which the lower court tried the case.

            The lower court rejected the evidence presented but has it under seal. I am unable to find the basis for the rejection, only characterizations.


          2. My understanding is that Supreme Courts don’t rehash the evidence as much as determine if the trial was fair and no breach of justice was committed by misbehavior of the courts and their officers.


          3. In order to take a case, the evidence is presented to the judge. He reviews it and decides what the next steps are. In some instances he questions the witnesses.

            I I went to court and said Don owes me $1000. I have no contract, bill or any evidence that you do owe the money. I will not get my case heard in court.

            Next case


          1. Really? I searched “Nevada Fraud” under Google and Bing and got very different results.

            Under Google I got only critiques of the claims but nothing on the basis.


          2. I use Bing, Duck Duck, as well as Google. I am not paranoid about any search engine. I don’t remember the exact wording I used, but it was along the lines of “allegations of election fraud in Nevada court cases”.

            Ok, update: I put in exactly what I wrote above and the Federalist article came up on page 2.


        2. “The Democrats seem to have gotten away with it…”

          This is so classic for conspiracy nuts.

          We cant find a thing that 50 lawsuits in 6 states through every level of jurisdiction from local, state, state appeals, state supreme, federal, federal appeals and SCOTUS (twice).

          So the Democrats “got away with it”.

          Perhaps for the tiny little thinking paths, the idea that there was no credible fraud on any scale that would tip the election is just to painful to grasp.

          And this BS that judges didn’t look at the evidence is a pure lie. Multiple statements from various courts have said they found the evidence to be crap, which would not be the case if they did not look at it. In fact they often specified some examples much to the chagrin of the lawyers.

          Conspiracy nuts just keep moving the goal posts. And of course, proof that fraud did not happen just means it did happen, just more secretly.


          1. This is really infuriating.

            So, basically, ‘we violated the law and the Constitution, but you can’t do anything about it. ‘

            Read the transcript below the video about the PA case and tell me specifically where Levin is in error.


            You can’t. It is all public record and Levin is precisely accurate. TO be sure, the PA voters, for the most part, acted in good faith, but their legislature, governor and State judges blatantly ignored their own constitution and ran an unlawful election.

            The judges, in particular, dismissed the case not on grounds but on ‘laches’ (or too late.) but the plaintiffs did not have standing until injured. So, a blatantly unconstitutional election law could not be challenged before the election because of standing nor after because of delay? There was no time at which the unconstitutional act could be corrected?

            How arrogant.

            If that doesn’t disgust you just because it works to your advantage I am very disappointed.


          2. Disgust? That law was passed a year before and was used in an election already. Trump waited until seeing the results of the PA election, then sued.

            That is disgusting. And you don’t think so?


          3. Trump didn’t file the suit, a congressional candidate did, and he was not a candidate on the previous election, so he did not have standing then either.

            But you evade the point. Did you read the transcript?

            Whatever the technicality of standing is, the PA constitution requires changes in election laws to be ratified by amendment. (By process much like in VA) That was not done.

            The voters may have acted in good faith but the current government, all three branches, did not. You don’t just follow your constitution when it is convenient.


          4. Yes I read most of the script. It is arm chair lawyering. If judges up and down the spectrum said there was no case, then I believe them more than Levin.

            Besides it was a Republican legislature that made the changes. You think that is nefarious work by Democrats?

            Get a grip.


          5. It doesn’t matter if it was Democrats or Republicans or Green party(Libertarians would not do that) the PA Constitution is clear, Officials of both major parties failed to follow it.

            Party doesn’t matter.

            Outcome doesn’t matter.

            COVID doesn’t matter.

            The law is what it is.

            Oh, and Levin is a lawyer. And he can read too.


          6. OK. I went back and read Levin’s hate filled opinion more carefully. But I considered it opinion so I let it pass.

            First case about the law changes was denied, legally and according to the law, because of lack off standing.

            The second time is was because of laches, or timing. Also according to the law.

            So Republicans screwed up by filing two cases badly and NOT in accordance with the law.

            In other words, if the Republicans had done their homework, they might have changed the law a year ago.

            But they didn’t.

            So until the voting regs are declared unconstitutional by the state, they stand.

            Republicans suddenly realized they lost. If they hadn’t, the case would never have surfaced until the next time they wanted to change the will of the people.

            So two time’s, the challenges were done illegally and two times the Rule of Law prevailed.

            And SCOTUS allowed that states cannot tell other states how to vote. And certainly not after the fact because they lost.


          7. Hate filled? Is that what the left is calling plain facts these days?

            There was no time that the plaintiff could have challenged the law. He wasn’t a candidate until after the time the court eventually said was too late.

            You understand that is preposterous, right?

            And once again, the suit Levin is referring to was not by Texas but by a Mi congressional candidate, though I agree there is not just remedy at this point.

            But still the cases should go forward and those officials who willfully ignored the law and their own constitutions should be removed from office and in some cases, imprisoned.


          8. Hang them all!

            I know it was a pol that brought the first suit.

            By law he had no standing

            Suing after one learns the results is sour grapes, and also against the law in this particular case.

            So what law do you want to break to get what you want?

            Hate filled?

            “ the reason why reporters don’t cover this is either they are left-wing, or they’re too stupid to follow this.”

            “ and go to our five friends on the supreme court of Pennsylvania…”

            “… what was fraud 14 months ago, shouldn’t be legitimate today…”

            Fraud? Allowing more people to vote by mail or absentee is fraud?

            It may be overturned in court when a legal case can be made, but that at worst is a technical change, not fraud.

            Fraud is Trump demanding governors break their own laws and nullify the election. That is fraud by extortion.

            You are saying that the weak minded Republicans changed the law last year because Democrats wanted to commit fraud a year and a half later?

            Of course you are.


          9. Democrats have been working to open the doors to election fraud for decades, not just for this election, but as a matter of policy.

            But trying to defend that policy ties you into pretzels.

            The candidate who didn’t have standing to challenge the law because he hadn’t been damaged until he was harmed by it now can’t sue because he waited for the results?

            Do you see the logical impossibility there?

            For decades Democrats have tried to enable fraudulent registration of non-citizens and felons by eliminating ID requirements. They have sought to flood the postal system with ballots that people didn’t ask for and no longer live at those addresses, if they live at all. None of those ballots will go to waste ad the postal union turns them over to community organizers.

            Efforts to purge registrations of the dead and relocated meet lawsuits at every turn.

            Facilitating election fraud has been a goal of the Democrats for a long time, and it would be naive to believe they don’t exploit those opportunities on an industrial scale.


          10. Geez Don, you are really going off the deep end.

            The two most consequential and massive effort at election fraud were both Republican. One caused what is probably a multimillion dollar redo of an election. Both cases had charges of felony election fraud. Guilty pleas were made, but the cases are not over yet.

            Efforts to purge the dead or moved were rebuffed?
            Cite please.

            All your accusations are false, of course. So little voter fraud was found in all the swing states. At least among the Democrats. The same has been true for decades.

            See you have already admitted over the years that access to voting should be limited to the elite Republicans. Working classes need not apply. Forget the “urban” voters.

            So your arguments fall flat.


          11. Besides you have been referring to fraud. This was a case of whether or not a technicality of the election law, which was passed a year earlier and never challenged by anyone should suddenly affect an election in which millions followed the law.

            The best a court could do is to say the legislature should revisit the law and perhaps make changes as needed, if it were found to be unconstitutional.

            In Brown v. Board of Education, the “separate by equal” school laws were unconstitutional, but the educators, students, and administrators were not fired, made to take tests again or anything retroactive.

            That is what you want. A retroactive nullification of a technical aspect so that millions will lose their votes.

            That is shameful and you certainly know that.


          12. You didn’t read the Levion transcript, did you. He explained why it is election fraud at least a half dozen times.

            The voters did not commit fraud, the officials who counted the votes under an unlawful procedure committed fraud.

            If those voters were betrayed, it was not by the plaintiffs, it was by those who carried out a fraudulent election.


          13. And really Don, your contention is that the election was stolen?

            Even if Levin were correct and all the courts wrong, saying a Republican election law change caused the Democrats to steal the election is really pretty sleazy.

            Unless the latest conspiratorial crap is the the Republicans changed the law in 2019 with the idea that they knew it would be challenged in case Democrats won the state a year and half later.

            Meanwhile, I reiterate that all the accusations of fraud, stealing the election, etc. are not true, and certainly not with a Republican law.

            Apologies accepted in advance.


          14. I don’t know if the election was stolen in PA or not. And you don’t either. There is no way to know how the election would have gone had the law been followed.

            I don’t know the specifics of how a corrupted Presidential election is to be handled in PA, but in most states, it falls the the legislature


    3. “Instead of asking why Republicans are so concerned about ease of voting, ask why Democrats are so intent on facilitating fraud?”

      Maybe the question YOU should consider is why are Republicans so intent on keeping the number of people voting down and Democrats are intent on ensuring everyone who has the right to vote can do so safely and freely?

      By the way, numerous Republicans, including DJT, have indicated why: If everyone who is entitled to vote does so, there will never by another Republican President in this country.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s