I don't think He/Him are neopronouns as the prefix neo- means new. Surely His would be old (paleopronouns), or timeless (aeternuspronouns), rather than new

This seems entirely testable

Yep. They might be enemies within. Head on a swivel, guys!

The term is "red mirage", not "red wave". In American elections, a red or blue "wave" is when a bunch of seats flip to that color's associated party.

No shit, strategists. Now strategise about what you do to protect the election

Just seems right to me. Fucking trash

I do too. Paranoid delusions

I completely disagree.

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted.

You cannot audit law enforcement by attempting to commit crimes and use that as an excuse to get away with it. While, yes, receiving a second ballot is not in itself a crime, doing it intentionally is clearly an action that serves no legitimate purpose and only serves to allow them to commit the crime of voting multiple times. He inarguably took substantial steps to commit a crime. And he had the intent to do what he did (i.e. he didn't forget or get confused or was misled. He knew what he was doing and did it anyway). Therefore, this was pretty clearly attempted voter fraud.

If you still disagree because he only tried to collect a ballot, but hadnt yet attempted to cast it, let me give you a comparable situation that may make the crime a bit more visceral feeling. Your landlord gets caught installing a hidden camera in your bathroom. Technically, all he had done at that point was responded to your notice of a broken outlet, entered your apartment with the necessary notice, removed your broken bathroom outlet, and had a hidden camera outlet device on hand and no other replacement outlet. Technically none of the individual acts were illegal and you caught him with the device before it was installed. He claims that he was never going to turn it on, he was just testing you to see if you were being vigilant against such dangers and checking for hidden cameras in your home. So did he attempt to commit a crime? If your answer to this is yes, but not to the ballot thing, please explain the fundamental difference legally for me?

You see, he doesn't have evidence, but he has concepts of evidence.

Dafuq you say about me?

I doubt Biden planned that, I genuinely think he misspoke or failed to filter by accident. But I agree that that is how her campaign is considering and treating it. It got that opinion out there but allowed her the grace to walk it back.