(I fell for it, too. The “interest”, the “earnestness”, the “concern”—indeed, “so sad” is really a terrific line! Good job, Mark!)

But time to cut bait, I’m afraid….

(Still, at least he’s enjoying himself, I suppose, “pursuing happiness”, etc. Well, good for him!)

You dismiss the idea of the Hunter Laptop being a set up–while ignoring the fact that it says nothing material about Joe Biden (and that Rudy’s story about how he got it is ridiculous). (Note: I assume the emails are real. I think someone fed them to Rudy and see no reason to believe his story is true on the face of it).

You watch Trump ask about an “Email server” in Ukraine–a ludicrous request that makes less and less sense the longer you think about it–and instead of being insulted that your party thinks so little of you, you want more.

Can you even explain the server Trump thought he was asking for? In anything more than cursory detail? I assume you cannot–because to be able to explain it is to see through the nonsense.

I don’t think you’re the same person. The GOP certainly isn’t the same.

Yes, they all have “M” names. I see no evidence that they are all the same person. But they certainly have a similar m.o..

The neo of now and then is exactly the same.

I don’t dismiss, nor do I believe, evidence based on the track record of anyone, left or right. Evidence is evidence, and it is either strong or weak on its own merits. I evaluate evidence by one standard, as though I was a member of a jury.

That said, before seeing the actual evidence a person must at least take into consideration the speaker’s track record in terms of whether his/her evidence has tended to hold up to scrutiny or not. In addition, sometimes evidence can be convincing without being legally convincing.

I have applied those rules, for example, to “meToo” type allegations, and I think I have been fair-minded in judging evidence by its quality rather than by the source, and certainly not solely by the source. Nor do I care which side the target is on. The standards are the same for me.

Giuliani’s evidence, and Sidney Powell’s, will stand and fall for me on its own merits. As for their previous reputations for veracity, her track record in the Flynn case – which is the part of her background with which I’m most familiar – is good. Giuliani presented compelling evidence, in my opinion, regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and its provenance – something that the Biden family never denied. On the other hand, the claims that it was Russian disinformation didn’t pass the smell test, and no evidence was even offered except for a note signed by 50 ex-intelligence people who most likely detest Trump, saying that they hadn’t seen the laptop nor anything connected with it but just had a hunch it was Russian disinformation.

Giuliani is a politician, and as such he sometimes is a rhetorical flame-thrower. He may be exaggerating here; he may not have the goods. I have not found him in the past to be especially untrustworthy, however, and certainly would have no reason to dismiss what he says out of hand. Time will tell, and although the courts may not come through in terms of overturning the election (I happen to think it VERY unlikely they would ever do that), I look forward to hearing more about the evidence and then will make my own decision about its veracity.

I imagine she would–but things have changed, I guess.

I’ll agree you are sorry.

Vote by mail is no more likely to result in fraud than other kinds of polling. I’m sorry.

I’m not going to waste a lot more time dealing with you. But you are ignoring many opportunities for fraud that have already been stated, and once the envelopes are separated from the ballots, there is no way to tell which ballots were fraudulent if an investigation finds that fraud was committed. It is also illegal to get rid of observers.

My position is wait and see. They (Powell and Giuliani) may be alleging things that will not hold up, or they may be speaking the truth. It is too soon to tell. But there’s no reason to trust people who state that they know ahead of time that evidence doesn’t exist or that the evidence that does exist is worthless, without even knowing in detail what that evidence is.

There’s a reason all y’all’s court cases got thrown out and Rudy makes a fool of himself constantly: because it’s bullshit.

In the case of the (dumb, esp. for PowerLine which used to be decent) post the ID number you send in can come from things like a tribal ID. It still has to be a valid form of ID.

The note at the bottom just means that whichever number you use to request (SSN) MUST match the one you use on your ballot.

See? Not a conspiracy and not the stupid fantasy PowerLine floats.

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/elections/documents/AB_instructions_nonregistered_2020.pdf

https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/other-ways-to-vote/privacy-notice-for-absentee-ballot-application/