Posts by Nathan Morris3

David Vaughn75 said:Look, I get it—I’m totally against mass, uncontrolled immigration myself.

I've actually been living in Austria for a while now, and I guess I haven't really met anyone who isn't against mass, uncontrolled immigration. Maybe those people only exist in the wild imaginations of certain presidential candidates. So, I suppose we probably shouldn't go back to this topic, especially since the elections are over and there's not much point anymore.

Well, it’s finally all wrapped up.

VdB: 53.8%
Hofer: 46.2%

Hofer lost about 100,000 votes over the last few months, and that gap grew from 0.7% to 7.6%. I think there are only three states left supporting him now. It might not mean they've hit their peak or that things are definitely sliding downward, but I guess a lot of different factors probably swayed how people voted.

One good thing, though, is the turnout at 74.21%—it went up from 72.65%, maybe partly because of the mail-in ballots. So, it feels like pretty solid legitimacy.
If I remember right, the voter turnout for the presidential election in America was around 59.05%, wasn't it?

Walter Long7 said:Globalization is just one of those trends that has been accelerating over the last twenty years or so, but everything eventually burns itself out—including this. Sure, some countries are going to lose a massive chunk of what makes them unique, but that's just how it works; much like any war, there are winners and losers. Personally, I don't think multicultural states can ever truly sustain themselves—the divisions are too deep, and it doesn't take much to spark a fire. Most of the wealth these nations enjoy was built by previous generations, yet as we move into the future, it looks like those foundations are being dismantled in the name of various ideologies...

I completely agree with that. War is almost inevitable at this point—human history is fundamentally driven by greed, power struggles, and ideology. Back in the late 60s, if someone had claimed that Germany would eventually host millions of Turks and Arabs, nobody would have believed them; yet, less than 50 years later, we're seeing exactly that play out. Who knows what the next 50 years will bring... we'll just have to wait and see.

What used to be called colonization is basically globalization today. And yeah, just like colonization ended, I guess globalization will too, though the consequences of both are pretty much inevitable. What wasn't natural, and what we should have avoided, was meddling in other people's business—toppling relatively stable regimes just to serve some third-party interests. It's sad to see people polarizing themselves over topics that were forced on them and that they didn't even cause (at least not directly). I mean, nobody asked me if I wanted us to send weapons to ISIS or Ali Nusri/Ali Kaidi. Nobody asked me if we should go tear down Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Now we're all arguing about whether to build a wall or not, instead of just putting the people who caused all this mess and lined their pockets behind bars. Because of our short-sightedness, I guess we'll end up wherever we're headed. I'm not feeling optimistic, so I might just keep my suitcase packed.

You started talking about certain Asian nations, but that "isolationism" cost them a lot, and it still does. Maybe the Japanese achieved some individual collectivism, but the Chinese definitely didn't, and I guess generations will feel the fallout from communism.

Sorry for going off-topic. Official results come out at 1:00 PM.

I guess I should probably get started on this soon. Maybe. Nathan Morris3 says:
I agree with part of that, I guess. But that idea about survival of the fittest? Maybe not quite... I feel like Japanese people would rather just fade away collectively than see their country turn into some multicultural melting pot, much like other Asian people might.

Yeah, that’s exactly why I figured they wouldn't make it—or like you put it, they'll just collectively die out. I guess I don't really see globalization as being good or bad, though. To me, it's just an inevitable fact of life. It feels like a natural flow, you know? People moving from struggling areas to better ones, or fleeing war zones for peace. Migration is just a natural consequence of that, just like how there's always going to be pushback or even that whole left vs. right divide. I don't think we can really control those things, but maybe we can at least try to address what causes them.

We see Nazis in Germany and fascists in Italy, but I don't really hear those labels used for Japanese people, even though they committed some truly horrific things during World War II. I guess the way they treated prisoners with those sick experiments and starvation tactics... maybe even the Nazis and fascists were being "mild" by comparison.

If you just look back at history over the last few hundred years, you'll see how the "bad guys" just keep swapping places. It’s endless, really. You've got the Japanese, the Ottomans, the British—who were probably the worst—and the Portuguese... there's no end to the list. Even today, everyone's pointing fingers at someone else, whether it's ISIS, Americans, or Russians. Nobody holds the title exclusively, I guess. But regarding Austria, I think it comes down to this: the generation that actually remembers where xenophobia and fascism lead is slowly fading away. These newer generations just don't have that collective memory. The people who lived through concentration camps, dictatorships, and the starvation and poverty following the war aren't around anymore. Memory only goes back a few decades now, so maybe that's why we keep seeing the same mistakes happen. It's the same thing with communism, which still pulls some people in, too. I suppose those who maintain a stronger collective memory will probably make fewer mistakes in the future.

I guess nobody's really looking to take the blame, or maybe they just won't hand over their country that easily. It’s no secret, I suppose, that Asian people tend to lead when it comes to intelligence, so some things just don't happen overnight.

I guess I'm a little worried that if we start talking about Asian people, things might drift off-topic. They have their own set of pros and cons, maybe, along with different issues too.

If you can't adapt, you probably won't make it. I guess we'll see how things turn out for the Swedish people, and maybe the English people too. They aren't doing great, especially since they live in big cities like New York City or Birmingham—those places feel pretty much lost already. It's better if they stay in rural areas... Hard to say what the future holds, though. Fifty years ago, all this stuff was just science fiction. Who knows what it'll look like in fifteen years?

I guess when I said "adaptation," I didn't necessarily mean something specific like "refugees welcome." Maybe in 50 to 80 years, national borders won't even matter anymore. There won't be an America or an Austria as we know them; nations might just shrink down to small tribal communities. Honestly, languages and identities probably won't last much longer either. Between colonialism, globalization, and capitalism... you can pretty much forget the world as it looks today. If we avoid a massive war, I suppose that'll be a win. The thing is, people seem to think they can just ignore how history actually moves. We spend all this time arguing over old political factions, but the reality is we're probably going to tear this planet apart in a few decades or millennia anyway. Maybe the visionaries will survive, while the left and the right just end up wiping each other out.

Sandra Barnes8 said:Come on, admit it: if someone had told you five years ago that a candidate running openly against abortion, gay marriage, and gender ideology would pull 46% of the vote in Austria, you would have called them insane.
But that is exactly what happened.

In six years, the Republican Party is going to win. The left is slowly dismantling itself. Over the next six years in Austria, there will be roughly 100,000 abortions, the Austrian population will continue its decline, fertility rates will hover at a dismal 1.2, and the Muslim population will grow.
Conservatives perform far fewer abortions—it’s just simple math. It’s the kind of math that is gradually eroding liberalism across all of Europe.

So, enjoy this era of gender ideology while you can. You can already see the writing on the wall.

I think you're being pretty selective with how you read these election results. I could flip your logic and say the left is destroying everything, since five years ago, it seemed impossible for a Green candidate to grab over 50% and become president. But the reality is that people didn't necessarily vote for Hofer because he's anti-abortion, and they didn't vote for VdBa specifically because of his views on gay marriage. A runoff election is really just meant to pit two polarized groups against each other, which usually lands the numbers somewhere between 40% and 60%. But I don't think that gives anyone the right to cherry-pick those percentages to fit a specific narrative.

As for demographic shifts, that's a global reality, and I guess it falls under those big periodic cycles. It's hard to see how Hofer or the Republican Party (even with walls or fences) could make a significant dent in that, whether they're in power or not. There are much bigger forces at play here—it's not like Americans told people to send weapons into Syria. The truth is, nation-states are just losing their grip and sovereignty. I honestly believe globalization was pushed forward specifically to tear down those borders. If you know history, you can see where we're headed, and I doubt the future involves Westerners suddenly deciding to have way more kids. And I don't think Hofer, the right wing, or Muslims are to blame for that; it's just human nature, I guess. That's why civilizations rise and fall, and it'll happen again because people always focus on the symptoms rather than the actual causes.

While we're busy blaming the left, the right, the Masons, Muslims, or walls... the world just keeps moving. And like it always does, I suppose, the ones who survive are the ones who adapt the fastest.

Carol Newman2 said:The best thing about the Republican Party right now is definitely Donald Trump, who’s basically the current Microsoft of politics. He’s only 30—well, let's just say he's incredibly young for this—but the guy is an undeniably talented politician.
He really ought to be the GOP's candidate for Chancellor.

Yeah, I guess he really is the best thing the Republican Party has going for them (not like there's much competition anyway), and he'll definitely be the nominee, it's just a matter of when. So far, his positions have been kind of vague, and I get the feeling he's trying to please everyone without offending anyone. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose, but I'm not sure if he's quite ready to be President yet. If the Democrats go with Christian Kern (which they probably will), it's totally possible the Republican Party might pick an older, more seasoned candidate to win over their base. You have to remember the Republican Party is mostly made up of older conservatives, so who knows how they'd react to Sebastian Kurz as the lead candidate. Maybe it's just a little too early for him.

It's been a while since I checked in, but it looks like things haven't changed much here 😉.
Regarding the votes from those younger voters (around 16-18), I haven't seen any data on them yet. I'd guess the breakdown is pretty similar to what we see in the US: basically the working class voting for Hofer out of fear for their livelihoods, while everyone else votes against him.

The Democrats and Republicans are honestly sad stories on their own, but I think there are three main factors at play here:
- Christian Kern
- the fact that the populist party (specifically their frontman Hofer) is starting to lose some ground
- and how Hofer seems clearly stronger than Strache

Should be interesting to watch.

Gerald Palmer66 said:Does it really matter who or what we're talking about?
Why did you take that personally so quickly?

The reality is that the outsider has once again managed to make a massive mess of things, and it’s pretty obvious who stands to benefit from this chaos.
It turns out that murderous idiot made a decision yesterday regarding who will serve as the Vice President of the Republic of Austria.

And for what it's worth, I haven't exactly noticed any distinction being made between Canadians, Americans, or Mexicans over there, but perhaps you have?

Well, I used to think they didn't, but maybe the media does. It feels a little suspicious to me if the guy only holds citizenship from Canada.
I guess it's hard to say if the Freedom Party can actually gain anything here, since the xenophobes pretty much made up their minds a long time ago.

coastalbison6 said:Some guy from Canada robbed a grocery store in Vienna today and even hurt two cops.
http://derstandard.at/2000040287125/...insatz-in-Wien
The hate speech coming from the Republican Party on all these forums has honestly gone too far.🙂

We just have to accept that Van der Bellen's chances are basically zero now.

Just because "Blazenko" the "Canadian" and "Wolfgang" the "Austrian" were involved in the robbery doesn't mean it'll affect the election results. Besides, the media is labeling him a "Canadian," but from what I know, someone named Blazenko is probably an American too. I also wonder how the Freedom Party will talk about poor immigrant integration if you've got an American/Canadian and an Austrian committing robberies together.

Sadly, the young officer (only 23) passed away yesterday.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Look, as far as I am concerned—and I might be wrong here—the issue under discussion in court wasn't even about manipulation; it was about irregularities. Just because manipulation hasn't been proven doesn't mean it didn't happen, I guess.

The fact that envelopes were being opened the day before, and by people who weren't even authorized
, doesn't even need to be framed as "manipulation" to matter—it's more than enough if you just look at it as an irregularity.😁

It’s not like there’s proof someone didn't poison the water supply with drugs to brainwash people into voting for candidate XX, right? I guess we have to remember the topic was IRREGULARITIES. The court was checking if those mistakes happened, if they could theoretically change things, and if they actually did. The Constitution says elections need a redo if there's proof irregularities changed the outcome, but even though there wasn't really any evidence of that, the court just made its call.

There isn't a single shred of evidence for actual manipulation, so... yeah, that's pretty much where it stands.

The fact that letters were opened a day early by unauthorized people😁, maybe doesn't even need to be proven as manipulation if it counts as an irregularity.

I think there's a huge difference between an irregularity and manipulation. An irregularity is just sloppy work—really sloppy this time, I guess. Manipulation is a crime, you know, when there's intent. I'm not sure what you mean by "enough," but the Constitutional Court said that the Department of Homeland Security leaking results to reporters before 5:00 PM was enough to trigger a re-vote. Even if that happens almost every election, I suppose the law is the law.

Lawrence Cook said:You know there was no fraud, but the Supreme Court still found "irregularities."
Oh, so the Supreme Court was biased? By who? The Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, at least in "democratic" countries. According to your "sources," the errors happened in Hofer's districts? Really? Show us the proof. 👏
🤦
In Germany, they also MANIPULATE elections in Bremen, but that wasn't the Right wing.
But you rarely see people writing about that.☕
The Left wing is losing. They're weak, limp, and useless. People are fed up with their empty slogans.
The new Right wing in Europe is coming. Legally. Hopefully soon.

Maybe just take a breath, read what I actually wrote, and stop trying to force this whole left vs. right argument.

Look, the Constitutional Court didn't find any fraud, but they did find procedural errors.

What am I supposed to show you? You can probably find everything on Google in ten seconds:
http://www.oe24.at/oesterreich/politic...iten/241755725
Basically, we're talking about the districts where Hofer mostly won, and where his own observers signed off on things before later retracting those signatures.

I mentioned that the Supreme Court basically had its hands tied. Let me try an analogy: imagine police search a suspect's house and find illegal weapons, but the search happened two hours before the warrant was even valid. Instead of proving innocence, the defense attacks the validity of the search itself to toss out the evidence. The court has to rule that the search was irregular, which could theoretically change the outcome, even if no one actually rigged anything. So, because of those irregularities, the search is voided, the evidence is tossed, and the suspect goes free. In the Austrian case, the Constitution says elections don't necessarily have to be rerun unless the errors actually changed the result, but since the political pressure was so high, the Constitutional Court decided to play it safe.

Some experts are even coming out and saying the Supreme Court should have prioritized the voters' will over technicalities, suggesting the decision to redo the vote should be overturned:
http://diepresse.com/home/recht/rech...-achten-mussen

And of course, they'll probably just strike those rules from the books—like the part about not counting votes on the same day—along with any other nonsense that gives someone a way to contest an election whenever they lose😁.

In case anyone is looking for this, here’s a decent summary regarding the decision to rerun the elections:
https://www.facebook.com/arminwolf.j...81502795194920

It’s in German, but I guess Google can probably handle the translation. Basically:
- The Constitution says elections should be rerun if it's proven that irregularities actually changed the outcome (which wasn't really the case here).
- The Supreme Court ruled that since those mistakes *could* theoretically have swayed the result, they had to step in. It's a stricter interpretation than what's in the Constitution, mostly because they feel democracy is so vital that everything needs to be 100% spotless.
- There were issues in 14 districts (my take: mostly where Hofer won).
- They have to redo the whole thing across the entire United States of America, not just the affected areas, because mail-in ballots from the second round could have come from different districts or something like that, I think.
- The biggest issue—which the Supreme Court said is enough reason on its own to restart—was that the Department of Homeland Security sent results from closed precincts to the media before 5:00 PM. If someone still waiting to vote hears those numbers, it might influence them. Sending info early has always been the standard practice, but the Supreme Court hadn't weighed in on it before because nobody had officially asked them to.
- The voter registration lists stay exactly the same as last time (so, if someone turned 16 in the meantime, I guess they still don't get to vote).
- Trivia: If one of the two candidates drops out less than 31 days before the election, the whole thing gets redone.

My thoughts are still pretty much the same:
- People should definitely report any irregularities.
- But I guess the Republican Party looks like a bad loser for demanding a rerun when there isn't actually proof of manipulation.
- The Supreme Court didn't really have much of a choice, I suppose.
- United States of America: It's kind of a shame how sloppily these big things are handled, especially knowing how close the race would be.

Brenda Johnson65 said:It is quite fascinating, really. Previously, driven by your own visceral distaste for one particular candidate, you and your cohort spent the entire election cycle—before, during, and after the vote—insisting that any irregularities were non-existent, or at most, trivialities that couldn't possibly sway the results; you even argued they were so minuscule they fell under the umbrella of "normal procedure." Yet, now that the Supreme Court of Austria has issued a ruling—one that clearly deems these irregularities significant enough to necessitate a complete rerun of the election—you have pivoted entirely. Suddenly, the Republican Party are "sore losers," the election was "instrumentalized," the ruling is "unfair" to the Republican Party (who act like weeping children), and you are grasping at every linguistic straw available...
But please, continue; while I am busy philosophizing, dodging questions, and performing verbal acrobatics, the Republican Party remains nothing more than sore losers. 🙄

"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

There is no evidence of manipulation, yet the established irregularities could have impacted 77,926 votes. Do you still truly believe that Hoffer's appeal is without merit?

I guess I still think Hofer is pretty bad news for the United States of America, just like maybe Van der Bellen might feel he's harmful, so what? I wrote what I wrote and laid out my points. You can try to lie and claim I said there weren't any irregularities—which is a huge stretch since I actually said there were—but for the sake of a decent debate, could you please just quote me if you disagree? It’s kind of tough having to defend myself against things I never even said. Whatever. Yeah, the Republican Party are losers, and I suppose it was fine that they reported issues, but I think it was a mistake to try and overturn the election when they knew there wasn't any proof of fraud. But oh well, the Supreme Court made the right call. We'll just have another round and everyone will be happy, which is probably what matters most.

Quincy:

The Supreme Court made sure to point out that they didn't find any proof that anyone actually rigged the election results, I guess. It looks like those confirmed irregularities messed with about 77,926 votes that might have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen—so, I guess that’s technically enough to flip the whole election result." There isn't any hard evidence yet, but I guess some irregularities have been flagged... maybe? Maybe, I guess. So, that’s about 77,000 votes at stake. I guess you still think Hoffer's appeal doesn't have any merit? Maybe.

Like I said—there’s just no proof of any manipulation. Then you get some smart aleck on the forum starting up all these conspiracy theories about rigged systems. I mean, it was pretty obvious there would be repeats if they found that many issues at the polling stations; I think I even mentioned that before. It feels like the same sloppy mistakes happening every election cycle. The Republican Party and everyone else should definitely report those errors, and I’m all for that. But calling for entirely new elections because of those slip-ups? I guess that might be a bit much. Still, if they already pushed to void the results, I think the Supreme Court made the right call.
Someone’s always going to nitpick over small stuff just to score some points, I guess. It’s nothing new. The issue is that since the margin was so thin, they're pushing for another round. So, I think you're looking at it the wrong way; the appeal isn't baseless. I mentioned there were irregularities, and after the Supreme Court looked into the number of precincts involved, they made the right call. But asking for a total redo of the election feels a bit like a Spaniard demanding a rematch against Germany just because the game kicked off 30 seconds late. If it had started on time, maybe the result would have changed, or maybe not—we don't really have proof either way—but hey, rules are rules. You don't rerun a ballgame over formalities, but elections are a much bigger deal. In a democracy, I suppose deciding to hold them again is probably the right move.

Brenda Johnson65 said:My dear fellow, had you bothered to read my response with any degree of scrutiny, you would have noticed I specifically wrote "irregularities or manipulations." It appears, however, that you might be letting your emotions cloud your judgment in this debate. While a distinction between the two concepts certainly exists, the line becomes quite blurred when determining at what point a mere irregularity morphs into deliberate manipulation—especially when proving intent is such a Herculean task. Furthermore, the fact that the court officially stated there was no evidence of manipulation does not mean manipulation didn't occur, particularly when you consider such a suspiciously high volume of "irregularities" paired with such a razor-thin margin. There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.

So, are you making the responsible assertion that the court has been instrumentalized? Those are some rather heavy accusations to toss around.
Likewise, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect a court to issue a verdict publicly declaring that an election was riddled with errors. Various nations and their institutions are protective of their reputations; it is perfectly logical for the ruling to be framed pragmatically "in the interest of the democratic order" rather than "due to numerous irregularities."
To dismiss irregularities occurring in 94 out of 117 voting districts as "minor" is a stretch. This is a substantial matter, and within the context of the Supreme Court of Austria, it was sufficient to alter the election result:
"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...van-der-bellen

Therefore, it seems a bit audacious to claim that a rerun election will inevitably yield the exact same victor.

The real question remains: are we looking at a sore loser, or a fraudulent winner?...

Whether you mean it or not, I think you're being a bit dishonest there. You mentioned "irregularities or manipulations during the election that clearly existed (confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria)." So, I guess it's not quite right... the court confirmed there were irregularities, but using the word "manipulation" feels a little biased to me. The court didn't actually confirm that part, so maybe we shouldn't make things up.

There’s definitely a distinction between the two, though it’s tough to say exactly when an error turns into actual manipulation—especially since proving intent is such a headache. Even if the court officially announced they found no proof of fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened, especially when you look at those suspicious irregularities alongside such a razor-thin margin. I guess there’s enough there to warrant some doubt.

I guess you're just making excuses now. What kind of conspiracy theories are you even talking about? The court ruled based on the evidence provided, and since there’s zero proof of any tampering, the verdict isn't about manipulation at all—you might just have to accept that. Manipulation and unfairness are two totally different things in legal terms, especially when we're discussing the judiciary. I don't really get why you're trying to overcomplicate things like this.

So, are you really saying the court is being used as a political tool? That's a pretty heavy accusation, I guess.

Man, please read what you’re responding to. I didn't say the court was being instrumentalized. And even if I had, what's the big deal? I mean, Sanders instrumentalized the court too (and his own trial) just to score political points. Maybe you're overreacting a bit with all this talk about "serious accusations"?

I guess it's also pretty tough to expect a court to just come out and say an election was full of irregularities. Some countries and their institutions really care about their reputation, so they'll probably just use some pragmatic excuse about acting "in the interest of democratic stability" instead of actually admitting there were issues.

Maybe we could just move all the conspiracy theories over to a different thread? I guess.

I mean, having irregularities in 94 out of 117 precincts... that's actually a pretty big deal, I guess. It feels serious enough that even the Supreme Court of Austria could potentially flip the whole election result.

Of course, that's why they made their ruling, and I think it's fine. An irregularity would be something like counting ballots at 11:00 PM instead of 9:00 AM just because people didn't want to wait around anymore. There could be 500 little things like that where the procedure wasn't strictly followed, even if there's zero proof that the timing actually changed the election results. But I guess the court just wants everything to be spotless, which is okay. You're spinning these conspiracy theories and throwing around words like "manipulation," but come on.

So, I guess it might be a bit bold to say that a runoff election would definitely end with the exact same winner.

The real question is whether we're looking at a bad loser or just the wrong winner...

I mentioned before that it's tough to call, but if there isn't any proven manipulation, then maybe the result stays the same if everyone votes just like they did last time. It’s hard to know how people who change their minds or new voters might act, though. I guess since no candidate has really messed up big time yet, and you have someone like Kern coming out and effectively chipping away at the Republican Party, it's tricky. Plus, I'm not really sure what kind of impact Brexit might actually have here.

Brenda Johnson65 said:By what logic does one become a "poor loser" simply by pointing out irregularities or manipulations during an election—irregularities that were quite clearly present, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria, and were undeniably significant enough to warrant a complete redo of the entire electoral process?

Hmm, I get the feeling you came here to vent without actually reading the court's reasoning. There isn't any proof of manipulation, so maybe don't throw terms around just because it suits you.

A loser because they couldn't find any evidence of fraud—actually, they even signed protocols saying everything was fine. I guess everyone should point out mistakes; that's not really up for debate. There were major issues, and it's honestly shameful. But elections aren't rerun because of "obvious manipulation" (like you're claiming), but rather because it was judged necessary for the democratic order. So, I'm with the ruling.
As for the irregularities, nothing happened that hasn't happened in previous elections, but I suppose someone decided to weaponize the process this time, so here we are.

Gerald Palmer66 said:Let's go, my friend, I'm waiting...☕
It makes me happy to think there might still be some hope left for Austria.

btw.
Please don't derail the conversation by bringing up the Dark Ages or other similar nonsense.

Mail-in voting isn't "nonsense," it's just how democracy works. I guess I don't know anyone sane who'd be against it.

Charles Brown9 said:Did I catch that correctly—is it just the second round of the presidential election being repeated, rather than the entire election process?

Yeah, just the second round, I think. The voter turnout might shift a bit since some people might skip it and others might show up, so maybe it isn't a true "repeat" exactly, but I guess it's the least messy way to handle it. It'll be interesting to see if the number of Mail-in voters goes up or down, though I'm already making jokes about it. It feels kind of silly that Mail-in voting itself has become such a huge talking point, almost like people want us to go back to the Stone Age or something.

Chloe Sullivan88 said:That completely contradicts your whole argument about how legitimate the previous election was. 😂

You spent days trying to convince everyone otherwise. 😁

I think you might have me confused with someone else. I've actually been pointing out irregularities from the start (if you check back a few pages). I mean, fraud hasn't been proven, but the whole atmosphere—we all know who's responsible for that—is just so tense that maybe a re-vote is the only way to quiet everyone down. I guess I'm okay with that, even though it’s a bummer it had to come to this.

Brenda Ross47 said:Honestly, it’d be great if Nathan Morris3 would just chill out regarding this thread, though it’s pretty obvious why he hasn't...

?

Charles Brown9 said:When is the next election scheduled to take place? Does anyone have any solid predictions regarding the outcome?

People were mentioning September 25th, but I guess that didn't pan out.
Since nothing much has really happened lately, I suppose there's no reason to think the result would change. Maybe turnout will be higher this time, since people realize every single vote counts now... so those undecided folks might actually show up. But, I don't know, you'd probably be smarter if you tried to predict something 😁.