PA House Introduces a Resolution: The Election Process Shall Be Declared Improper.

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,045
Reaction score
21,577
Points
2,180
Location
in between
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,108
Reaction score
4,313
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
This was in response to Rump and his merry band of criminals slowing the USPS down. Would you rather that they just arrest Rump and his merry band of criminals for the crimes they were committing in the middle of the election?
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.


Huh?


What the fucketh?




Definition of overturn


invalidate, destroy the degree to which accident could overturn the schemes of wise men— Oscar Handlin


When ? How? By Whom were the elections VALIDATED within the meaning of the federal safe harbor provisions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 80,000,000 Million Americans are disputing the results .

Your boy is NOT going to get 270 EC votes.

The matter will be presented to the US House of Representatives pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

The US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are all Republicans.

The Honorable Donald J Trump will continue to reside in the whitehouse until January 2024.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
7,358
Reaction score
2,100
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
for in person voting yes.
But for mail in voting, they gave a 3 day extension as long as the ballot was dropped into the mail by the nov 3rd deadline.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.


Louis Dejoy had messed up the post office so much, they had to give the post office extra time.
 

iceberg

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,894
Reaction score
8,751
Points
490
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.
Let’s look at this one item.

Are you talking about Dominion?
Talking about a lot of things and possible connections between companies and who is invested in what.

In direct reference, yes to your question however. That said,
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.
Don't mean to sound like an ass, but I've lost count of times I've patiently asked for a reply and you simply ignored me.

Everyone today can point to their favorite source and cry victory.

I find the state of our media disturbing.

Not sure what *issue* you brought up, bilutci did read your opinions. I disagree with many top of the list Russia was, a legit concern. I've seen the left invent many issues and refuse to go by their own standards when they were found to be as bad if not worse than those they chose to attack and destroy.

I find it odd that you think everything the right does is wrong, everything the left does is fine and justified.

I see crap all around from everyone in a seriously tense time in our history. Both sides are on edge and attacking even "their own" to show THEY are the patriot.

This isn't about Trump to me. Who is our next president doesn't concern me in as much how we are destroying ourselves along the way in our own "justifiable" homicide.

Like I said as Hillary, Brennan and so many others wee forgiven for actions you'd, never let the right do, I said it simply sets up a "hold my beer" scenario and both sides keep pushing to the abyss because "the other side" sucks.

What is real and not real is, anyone's guess, by a screwed up media design. If Trump is in fact trying to circumvent the system I am against that just as much as if the dems *are* playing ballot games with ever changing rules that oddly enough the courts have said thry didn't have the power to do.

Yet you still proclaim mail in ballots at the last minute are fine.

I do not feel that way and have a huge issue with changing our election process at the last minute and giving all kinds of allowances that simply redefined it to their purpose.

So hey, I hate something from both sides.

Tag, you're it.

And my arguments are not personal but they are not based off emotion either. For example, we can't agree if Trump succeeded or failed if you flat refuse to discuss what success criteria would look like. Not personal, defining the topic and you refused.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,108
Reaction score
4,313
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.


Huh?


What the fucketh?




Definition of overturn


invalidate, destroy the degree to which accident could overturn the schemes of wise men— Oscar Handlin


When ? How? By Whom were the elections VALIDATED within the meaning of the federal safe harbor provisions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 80,000,000 Million Americans are disputing the results .

Your boy is NOT going to get 270 EC votes.

The matter will be presented to the US House of Representatives pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

The US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are all Republicans.

The Honorable Donald J Trump will continue to reside in the whitehouse until January 2024.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
:itsok:
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.


Huh?


What the fucketh?




Definition of overturn


invalidate, destroy the degree to which accident could overturn the schemes of wise men— Oscar Handlin


When ? How? By Whom were the elections VALIDATED within the meaning of the federal safe harbor provisions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 80,000,000 Million Americans are disputing the results .

Your boy is NOT going to get 270 EC votes.

The matter will be presented to the US House of Representatives pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

The US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are all Republicans.

The Honorable Donald J Trump will continue to reside in the whitehouse until January 2024.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
:itsok:

WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK YET


 

gmeyers1944

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
363
Reaction score
273
Points
193
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
for in person voting yes.
But for mail in voting, they gave a 3 day extension as long as the ballot was dropped into the mail by the nov 3rd deadline.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.


Louis Dejoy had messed up the post office so much, they had to give the post office extra time.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not authorized to extend the deadline!
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,266
Reaction score
13,361
Points
2,210
get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.
When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.



this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?
My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.
Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.
here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.
Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.
I've found a lot of things odd about our entire gov and the bullshit way both sides try and get things done.

I find it disturbing we use a voting system that got the Venezuela press elected. I find it disturbing the left refuses to believe ANYTHING in this election was even a little off or improper.

I seldom fight for "Trump" per se, but more the process by which people get so emotional they are willing to lie about what he says and who he is and get very upset if you don't agree.

ie, trump never said to drink bleach. yet the left swears he did.
biden can say flat out they have an elaborate voting fraud scheme but somehow that's not what he meant.

speculate what was said by one side and deny what the other flat out says.

names and people here don't matter. sides don't matter.

when you make up evidence to frame someone in a RUSSIA attack and look the other way cause you hate Trump, how can I think you are being objective to an election you feel you won?

you simply refuse to give the idea the dems are trying to pull a fast one but would rather believe someone who couldn't pull 20 people to a rally got more. votes than Obama.

I find that odd. yet if I question it, I'm a troll or being stupid.

or defending Trump.

I want to define what we are talking about not jump around constantly on the attack.

I'd rather talk issues, not people.

but we can't do that these days in identity politics.
You bring up a whole lot of stuff. Stuff that has nothing to do with the argument. Out of all that, you do't ONCE address the ISSUE I brought up.

Partisan LEGISLATURES picking electors to overturn an election.


Huh?


What the fucketh?




Definition of overturn


invalidate, destroy the degree to which accident could overturn the schemes of wise men— Oscar Handlin


When ? How? By Whom were the elections VALIDATED within the meaning of the federal safe harbor provisions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 80,000,000 Million Americans are disputing the results .

Your boy is NOT going to get 270 EC votes.

The matter will be presented to the US House of Representatives pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

The US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are all Republicans.

The Honorable Donald J Trump will continue to reside in the whitehouse until January 2024.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
From where do you get 80 million Americans? You have to take your shoes off just to count past 10. And even if you pull your pants down, you still can't count higher than 20.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,266
Reaction score
13,361
Points
2,210
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
for in person voting yes.
But for mail in voting, they gave a 3 day extension as long as the ballot was dropped into the mail by the nov 3rd deadline.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.


Louis Dejoy had messed up the post office so much, they had to give the post office extra time.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not authorized to extend the deadline!
Matters not as they didn't count ballots that arrived after 8pm on election night.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,516
Reaction score
23,406
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
The PA SC noted that election officials have flexibility in applying election rules and laws.

That's one reason why the justices on the PA SC who are all Republicans dismissed it with PREJUDICE

But you keep living in your alternative reality where you tribe is 1-39 in the courts

derp derp derp derp
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
The PA SC noted that election officials have flexibility in applying election rules and laws.

That's one reason why the justices on the PA SC who are all Republicans dismissed it with PREJUDICE

But you keep living in your alternative reality where you tribe is 1-39 in the courts

derp derp derp derp

The State of Pennsylvania has been duly warned
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
He did not.
You're a little slow, aint' cha?

The PA law says all ballots have to be turned in by 8:00 voting night. No if's and's or but's about it. A PA judge said screw the law. Ballots can be turned in for the rest of the week. Of course he changed the law. He said by his ruling, ballots no longer have a 8:00 limit on election night. They can be turned in three days later.
The PA SC noted that election officials have flexibility in applying election rules and laws.

That's one reason why the justices on the PA SC who are all Republicans dismissed it with PREJUDICE

But you keep living in your alternative reality where you tribe is 1-39 in the courts

derp derp derp derp
The Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Knew or should have known that SCOTUS has ruled that:


592 U.S.__(2020)


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.


v.


WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE, ET AL.


No. 20A66


United States Supreme Court


October 26, 2020




"For important reasons, most States, including Wisconsin, require absentee ballots to be received by election day, not just mailed by election day. Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Moreover, particularly in a Presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner. See 3 U.S.C. §5. The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: "[L] ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode." Pildes, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, U. Chi. L. Rev. Online (June 26, 2020) (online source archived at www.supremecourt.gov). The "longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen." Ibid."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


We are not conceding , we are not going to roll over and play dead





.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
67,419
Reaction score
15,918
Points
2,290
The PA SC noted that election officials have flexibility in applying election rules and laws.

That's one reason why the justices on the PA SC who are all Republicans dismissed it with PREJUDICE
Which is why they will be defeated when it gets to the Supreme Court. Election officials (like federal justices) have to abide by the law. That's besides the fact the elections officials didn't extend the deadline time or date--the court did.

Your argument is ridiculous. In comparison, it's like saying the DA of your city decided they will not pursue felony charges against an armed robber because the police don't think it's that big of a crime. The DA nor police can change the law at will. Armed robbery is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. They can't drop it to a misdemeanor.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
67,419
Reaction score
15,918
Points
2,290
for in person voting yes.
But for mail in voting, they gave a 3 day extension as long as the ballot was dropped into the mail by the nov 3rd deadline.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.
There are not two deadlines for in person and mail in voting. ALL ballots have to be received by 8:00 pm on Tuesday of the election. "They" are the judges, and judges do not have the authority to change laws on the bench. If you want to change laws, that has to be done by the legislature be it temporary or permanent.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
67,419
Reaction score
15,918
Points
2,290
This was in response to Rump and his merry band of criminals slowing the USPS down. Would you rather that they just arrest Rump and his merry band of criminals for the crimes they were committing in the middle of the election?
If Trump (or anybody) slowed down the postal service, it's not up to a judge to change laws to accommodate your incompetence. Ballots were mailed out several weeks before the election. You had more than enough time to mail in your ballot no matter what the PO is doing. And if you still don't trust it, you can vote in person to insure your ballot will be counted.

We can't keep destroying our country to placate idiots.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,108
Reaction score
4,313
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
This was in response to Rump and his merry band of criminals slowing the USPS down. Would you rather that they just arrest Rump and his merry band of criminals for the crimes they were committing in the middle of the election?
If Trump (or anybody) slowed down the postal service, it's not up to a judge to change laws to accommodate your incompetence. Ballots were mailed out several weeks before the election. You had more than enough time to mail in your ballot no matter what the PO is doing. And if you still don't trust it, you can vote in person to insure your ballot will be counted.

We can't keep destroying our country to placate idiots.
In Penn, the law read that the cutoff for receiving the ballots ended at 8pm on the day of the election. Not a single vote was counted that was received after the cutoff. You are just throwing more bullshit into the ball game. The State Laws were NOT broken by counting votes received after the cutoff. I know the routine. If you say a lie enough times, does that make it the truth? Nope,it's still a lie.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
7,358
Reaction score
2,100
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
for in person voting yes.
But for mail in voting, they gave a 3 day extension as long as the ballot was dropped into the mail by the nov 3rd deadline.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.
There are not two deadlines for in person and mail in voting. ALL ballots have to be received by 8:00 pm on Tuesday of the election. "They" are the judges, and judges do not have the authority to change laws on the bench. If you want to change laws, that has to be done by the legislature be it temporary or permanent.
oh really

 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Formally Introduce Resolution To Dispute 2020 Elections Results

The resolution calls on the secretary of the Commonwealth to withdraw the “premature certification” of the presidential election and delay certifying other races...

“Officials in the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Commonwealth infringed upon the General Assembly’s authority under the Constitution of the United States by unlawfully changing the rules governing the November 3, 2020, election in the Commonwealth,” the resolution (pdf) states.​

The proposed text lists three steps illegal taken by the judicial and executive branches to change the rules of the election.
First, on Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “unlawfully and unilaterally” extended the deadline by which mail ballots could be received, mandated that ballots without a postmark would be treated as timely, and allowed for ballots without a verified voter signature to be accepted, the resolution says.
What's next? Mail in drug tests?
Second, on Oct. 23, upon a petition from the secretary of the commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that signatures on mail-in ballots need not be authenticated.
What's next? No more pin verifications for cash withdrawals?
And third, on Nov. 2, the secretary of the commonwealth “encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects,” the resolution says.
All of the changes are contrary to the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires mail-in ballots to be received at 8 p.m. on Election Day, mandates that signatures on the mail-in ballots be authenticated, and forbids the counting of defective mail-in ballots.

“The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately.”
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,266
Reaction score
13,361
Points
2,210
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Formally Introduce Resolution To Dispute 2020 Elections Results

The resolution calls on the secretary of the Commonwealth to withdraw the “premature certification” of the presidential election and delay certifying other races...

“Officials in the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Commonwealth infringed upon the General Assembly’s authority under the Constitution of the United States by unlawfully changing the rules governing the November 3, 2020, election in the Commonwealth,” the resolution (pdf) states.​

The proposed text lists three steps illegal taken by the judicial and executive branches to change the rules of the election.
First, on Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “unlawfully and unilaterally” extended the deadline by which mail ballots could be received, mandated that ballots without a postmark would be treated as timely, and allowed for ballots without a verified voter signature to be accepted, the resolution says.
What's next? Mail in drug tests?
Second, on Oct. 23, upon a petition from the secretary of the commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that signatures on mail-in ballots need not be authenticated.
What's next? No more pin verifications for cash withdrawals?
And third, on Nov. 2, the secretary of the commonwealth “encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects,” the resolution says.
All of the changes are contrary to the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires mail-in ballots to be received at 8 p.m. on Election Day, mandates that signatures on the mail-in ballots be authenticated, and forbids the counting of defective mail-in ballots.

“The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately.”
I see the lies just keep on comin'


None of the ballots that were counted came after 8pm on election day.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top