(12-16-2020 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I have a grand idea --- in lad's view a commission policy memo can authorize as a legal action something that is prohibited under the statutes themselves.
lad, can you get me one of those super duper policy memos that says it will be okay for me to rob a bank with a gun? Obviously the commission policy memo stating that should make it good for me to do that.
Sound like a plan?
Again, I thought it was fairly common for agencies to interpret laws that need to be interpreted.
So in this case, when there was a question about how to implement an election law, the Election Commission provided guidance.
Regardless, this interpretation, since 2016, has NOT been limited to Democratic-leaning counties and is NOT evidence of fraud.
I see you haven't even touched the fact that your initial claim was bull**** in that this was only happening ONLY in Dem strongholds.
(12-16-2020 01:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]When I was in SF, protestors blocked off major streets. Nobody was harassed (other than perhaps some verbal 'eff you' when someone late to an appointment yelled at the protesters to move)... but because these were major routes (like freeways are) they certainly slowed response times of ambulances, fire and police.... or people trying to get to the hospital.
So while YOU may not have been scared, that doesn't mean that nobody was... or that nobody died as a result of the protest.
SOMEONE might have been scared they would be fired... or scared they would miss their plane... or scared they would miss their court hearing... or scared they would miss their audition. Or maybe the frustration they caused by the 2 hour wait on the Bay Bridge resulted in someone losing their cool with their kids or spouse and beating them. Maybe their kids were left home alone because mom or dad expected to be home before then, and something bad happened to them.
And I never began to claim the bolded, yet you argue against me like I had.
Reading comprehension problem again. No. I argued a point about fear that you attempted to gloss over/avoid. Your anecdotal experience is no different than those I mentioned. It renders your observation moot, it does not challenge it nor does it claim you said 'nobody else would have been scared'.
If you weren't trying to minimize the comment, then what the **** difference does your own personal 'fear' level matter to anything?
Quote:I said "I think there is a smidge of a difference between being stuck behind protestors on a freeway and being told to lay on the ground at gun point, but that's just me."
Not at all what I was responding to. This is an argument in the absurd and you know it. Just another deflection.
Quote:And yes, someone might find just being stopped in a non-violent protest scary - never said otherwise.
You didn't say it either. I did... and you agree. Hence again, your 'I wasn't scared' comment is meaningless... since you admit that just because you weren't doesn't mean nobody was.
I'd bring up once again the handicapped guy. It seems pretty obvious that the whole reason he made the mistake of hitting the bike was that he was either confused, disoriented or scared by the 'mostly peaceful' protesters.... and the biker COULD have been injured as a result... and I bet the guy was scared to death even before they started dragging him out of the car.
Quote:I made a distinction between different types of interactions with "protestors" (in a very broad sense) and that just being stopped by non-violent protestors is different than having a gun pulled on your and being forced to the ground.
But apparently, that distinction is not that large for OO and others...
Then take that up with them. You seem to think that I was speaking for them or about anything they said. I wasn't. I spoke for me in response to something you wrote. I didn't quote anything about 'guns' because I think that is a laughable alternative.... an argument in the absurd not remotely intended to carry on a conversation but instead to deflect from it.
Funny though once again at the 'artistic license' you allow yourself and then the strict interpretation that you require of others.
I'd be interested to see where someone said that being stopped by non-violent protesters is the same as being forced to the ground at gunpoint. I'm confident thats a construct that you inferred because it is easy to argue with. All I've seen anyone else argue is that you have no idea what 'risk' a non-violent protester is causing. If I'm in an ambulance from a stroke or have to get somewhere to protect my child and you've cut off what is really the ONLY way to get from SF to the East Bay by car as 'peaceful' BLM protesters did, you have NO IDEA what the potential consequences are.
So all you've really demonstrated is the meaningless point that if a protester who can keep you from escaping is violent engages himself in violence, then violence is all but assured... and if a protester who can keep you from escaping is peaceful, risk is less assured. What a brilliant observation that nobody else on this forum thought of. /sarcasm.
(12-16-2020 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I have a grand idea --- in lad's view a commission policy memo can authorize as a legal action something that is prohibited under the statutes themselves.
lad, can you get me one of those super duper policy memos that says it will be okay for me to rob a bank with a gun? Obviously the commission policy memo stating that should make it good for me to do that.
Sound like a plan?
Again, I thought it was fairly common for agencies to interpret laws that need to be interpreted.
So in this case, when there was a question about how to implement an election law, the Election Commission provided guidance.
What question is there under the Wisc Statutes, lad? Seems pretty fing clear to me what the *statue* allows and what it does not. If you cite to me any section of the Wisc statutes that confers that power, then yes, there is a question as to which section amongst two conflicting sections prevails.
Absent that, cut with the 'there is a question' (i.e. a face-saving retreat) crap.
Quote:Regardless, this interpretation, since 2016, has NOT been limited to Democratic-leaning counties and is NOT evidence of fraud.
I see you haven't even touched the fact that your initial claim was bull**** in that this was only happening ONLY in Dem strongholds.
The evidence from Kaine county and the directives issued there, however, are such evidence.
Since you are so adamant that is 'happened all over' proffer up some fing facts to that effect, then.
The issue is that the evidence clearly showed the clerk *directing* the staff to do this *there*. At best that is negligence, and worst it is malfeasance.
And if you say 'well no bad it happened statewide' then the request should be to shitcan the entire state's mail in ballots instead of just the two Madison area counties in question.
This kind of tells you why the Wisc Supreme rather sidestepped the issue, doesnt it?
But, if you werent so inured to being spoon fed from Vox and the like, you might understand the issues at hand there.
(12-16-2020 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is patently false!
This wasn't a practice only employed in Democratic strongholds, the Trump legal team only file suit focusing on select strongholds.
A memo to ALL Wisconsin clerks was sent out on Oct 19 telling the clerks how to handle the signature issue:
"“Please note that the clerk should attempt to resolve any missing witness address information prior to Election Day if possible, and this can be done through reliable information (personal knowledge, voter registration information, through a phone call with the voter or witness). The witness does not need to appear to add a missing address."
"The WEC has determined that clerks must take corrective actions in an attempt to remedy a witness address error. If clerks are reasonably able to discern any missing information from outside sources, clerks are not required to contact the voter before making that correction directly to the absentee certificate envelope."
Really hard to argue that this is an issue, against state law, when the Wisconsin Election Commission provided said guidance too all County and Municipal Clerks in October 2020, and the process has been in place since 2016.
See above - the WEC explicitly told clerks to do this. So it's now fraud to follow the state election commission?
Source?
It seems like our definition of fraud is different. I agree that BOTH republican and democratic states made voting easier during the pandemic, and that could have increased the chance for fraud to occur. But that loosening isn't, itself, evidence of fraud.
And given that you just flapped your arms about a fraudulent claim of fraud above, I'm going to take your certainty of it occurring with a grain of salt.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Dems didn't overwhelming outperform expectations down ballot - pretty crappy attempt at fraud by Dems if you ask me.
Perhaps you should read a tad:
Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(2) provides that absentee ballots must be accompanied by a certificate. The certificate may be printed on the envelope in which an absentee ballot is enclosed.
Section 6.87(2) provides a model certificate, and directs that certificates must be in "substantially" the same form as the model. The model provides:
Quote:The witness shall execute the following:
I, the undersigned witness, subject to the penalties of s. 12.60 (1)(b), Wis. Stats., for false statements, certify that I am an adult U.S. citizen and that the above statements are true and the voting procedure was executed as there stated. I am not a candidate for any office on the enclosed ballot (except
in the case of an incumbent municipal clerk). I did not solicit or advise the elector to vote for or against any candidate or measure.
......Printed Name
..... Address
Signature
The plain language of the statute requires that the person affix the address, nor does the statute render to the any other person (let alone an election official) taking *any* action.
This is supplemented with Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(9), which explains what an election official *may* do if an absentee ballot is received with an improperly completed certificate or no certificate:
"[T]he clerk may return the ballot to the elector, inside the sealed envelope when an envelope is received, together with a new envelope if necessary, whenever time permits the elector to correct the defect and return the ballot within the period authorized under sub. (6)."
Section 6.87(9)'s plain language authorizes election officials to return the ballot to "the elector" to correct "the defect." It does not authorize election officials to make corrections, i.e., to write anything on the certificate.
In addition, Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6d) provides that "[i]f a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted."
So contrary to your pipsqueak that it is 'hard to argue it is against state law', it is pretty fing easy to argue its against state law when one actually reads the fing laws in question. But you know me, I guess it is horribly old fashioned to think that 'words matter' in such things like the law to the progressive set.
Maybe click on the memos I linked to.
From the 2016 memo...
Quote:One of the components of 2015 Wisconsin Act 261 is the requirement for an absentee ballot witness to provide their address when signing the absentee certificate envelope.
SECTION 78. 6.87 (6d) of the statutes is created to read:
6.87 (6d) If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.
In implementing this requirement, the first question that comes to mind is “What constitutes an address?” The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) has set a policy that a complete address contains a street number, street name and name of municipality. But in many cases, at least one component of the address could be missing; usually the municipality...
The WEC clarified the law you're talking about in 2016 and told clerks that they MUST add in information about addresses if they are "reasonably able to discern any missing information from outside sources."
Apparently you think a commission can change the explicit language of a law. Good for you. Sounds about par for a progressive.
Please provide a source, any source, in the Wisconsin statutes that authorizes a clerk to do anything that you state that it can do. Otherwise, if I were, I would simply stfu on the Wisconsin law.
Lolz. A memo can supercede the written law. Double lolz.
I think that the relevant commission providing guidance is not evidence of fraud. It's clear that the commission found that there was uncertainty regarding the language in the law, and they took the steps to provide guidance.
What uncertainly is in the explicit Wisc law there, lad? Seems pretty fing clear to me what they 'may' do and what they 'cannot' do.
Quote:I believe this is similar to the Chevron deference in federal law, that allows agencies to interpret laws when need be.
But Chevron doesnt happen when there is an explicit law on point. And Chevron deference only applies to the situation where an *agency* interpretation of an agency rule (not law) is in question, and where "Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue" (not the case here). The precise issue is the actions that are authorized for a clerk to do in a very particular case of a mail or absentee ballot. There is no authorization for the clerk to do anything on that ballot. Period. Finito. End of story.
Nice try, but you still missed it by a mile.
This is starting to feel like the Black Night in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Not that election officials aren't sending their voter information to foreign countries or anything, but...
Kavtech is a private Pakistani-based business intelligence firm with close ties to the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. The Co-Founder Waqas Butt is cc’d on emails containing personally identifiable voter information from the Nevada Secretary of State.
I have to admit that's a heck of a name there: Wackus Butt! LOL. But he sure whacked Nevada's butts, the voters that is.
Copy of letter sent to Nev Sec of State:
Catherine Engelbrecht is the Founder and President of True The Vote the nation’s largest voters’ rights group.
The organization for over ten years now has been on the front lines of election fraud prevention by building action-oriented election integrity movements in key states, counties, and precincts. ‘True the Vote’ does not advocate for particular parties or candidates only for fair elections at all levels.
So the latest Georgia Senate Committee hearings were broadcast LIVE today on Cn, I mean on msnb, no...wait..on ab no nb, no wait, on cb nope, that's on pb, uh..on headli, well, actually on fo, hmmmm well they broadcast it LIVE and UN-censored on OANN,: One America News Network, where they don;t censor the news so you can decide for yourself, and this is a little of what was shown, you know, actual Evidence from people who were there:
full hearing here...for now:
WATCH the Coffee County, GA Election Offical SHOW YOU HOW ballots and votes can be changed right before your eyes...and then counted in the results without anyone knowing:
video begins 12:18 Fraud demonstration of vote-changing begins at 16:45
listen to the whole video and tell me that all of these people testifying are lying? You're crazy7. At least some of them are tellingf you and showing you the truth this election WAS a Fraud.
Watch it now before BigTech censors...you know, in the name of freedom, open-mindedness and transparency!
BREAKING: GA Senate passes motion to give Pulitzer access to Fulton County absentee ballots
GA State Sen. Beach goes over all the various different FRAUD Evidence at the beginning of this video.
"After 12 hours of testimony, you can't make some of this stuff up! I mean, it's just Unbelievable what we've SEEN in this 12 hours of testimony! I'm embarrassed--it's an embarrassment for our State, and I am more and more CONVINCED now that this was a well-orchestrated, well-coordinated effort BY SEVERAL GROUPS TO COMMIT WIDESPREAD AND SYSTEMIC FRAUD" and then he goes down through a list of all the different types of Fraud he believes was shown in today's testimony at the GA Senate Hearing.
Sally Grubbs Destroying the Members of Georgia's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections:
watch before BigTech censors it.
"The ballots in those boxes are EVIDENCE--there SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO SHREDDING (destroying of Evidence)!"
"We got scolded, we got yelled at, we got belittled, we got harassed 9while trying to monitor election counting)."
"There were Two DAYS of voter-review panel going on WITH NO REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATION AT ALL!" (As she points out, Against the law as this was done at a non-government facility, not to mention the exclusion of any Republicans from the process, also against the law.) "I was purposely told NOT to go in there" (obstruction--also against the law.)
"They're shredding ballots!" (illegal)
"They wouldn't take a report (after we go to the county precinct to make a report)" (also illegal)
"I made a report with the (GA) Sec of State."
"I've listened to the press conference with the GA GBI. I've gotta tell you that Gabe Sterling, and " (GA elections official who his own home address was used fraudulently in the election0--by Gabe's own admission to the media!)
"and Gordon Fuchs and the (GA) Sec of State's Office HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT OBSTRUCT, BELITTLE and BEMOAN (see video above at 4:30) "
(see video about 5:09 above) "This is the State of Georgia, this is the City of Atlanta, and I WANT MR. Sterling to ANSWER for Accusing people Like me who have a job and children and Families, I WANT Him to COME IN HERE and Explain To M E how I'm Like someone from Iran trying to Steal an election!" (Sterling was quoted in media as comparing people who oppose Biden as being from Iran stealing elections--which is actually kinda like Biden is trying to do, no less.)
These are good, honest American citizens who love our country who are stepping up and telling about the FRAUD they saw and how they are all being IGNORED by the officials whose job it is to protect their rights--and those officials are not doing their job and they are showing by their actions don't care about the citizens of this country or about the Constitution!
Jovan Pulitzer EXPOSES MASSIVE FRAUD in Georgia Election:
Dec 30, 2020
The current election results are flawed:
"This isn’t the beating of a drum this is the burning of a city.“
Our country was founded on a piece of paper! Pulitzer can look at the paper and determine almost immediately if a ballot is fraudulent or not. Pulitzer notes that he can look at 500,000 ballots in a couple hours.
In the last video he's talking about using Kinematics, which is The Branch of Mechanics concerned with the Motion of Objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion. His process looks for Kinematic artifacts which is the study of physics that when two forces or two meta-materials come together and bend and apply force to eachother IT LEAVES A TRAIL. So every time a paper ballot gets folded, it WILL leave a kinematic artifact, or several. SO...How can it be a REAL ballot if it has NO SIGNS of Kinematic artifacts? Answer is: it cannot be a real ballot. So that is how he can quickly determine which ballots (mail-in and absentee) which by definition HAD to be folded several times in the process of real people receiving them and filling them out legitimately and sending them in properly either by mail or by dropping them into a legitimate recepticle for that purpose. BUT, FAKE ballots which are mass-produced quickly don't have these Kinematic artifacts (as they appear to have been during the massive ballot dumps which magically turned the tide in Several Swing Sates from President Trump being ahead to "prez-reject Biden" allegedly gaining ahead suddenly in the middle of the night when ballot counting was suspiciously stopped for "water main breaches", "technical glitches", "machine problems" being too tired" et cetera, et cetera....
Does his analysis mean there weren't also other additional fraudulent means of changing votes or stuffing ballots or destroying Trump ballots? No, but it can tell us quickly if and how many fraudulent ballots were mixed into the system and thus are being illegally and inaccurately counted as legitimate when they are NOT at all legal or real votes. SCIENCE! Remember how the Left SCREAMS that Conservatives don't use Science? Well, here's your d@mn Science lefties, now who doesn't believe in Science?
Rice folks, this guy should be your hero, no matter your politics: Pulitzer is the kind of geeky nerdy guy (self-admitted if you watch the video!) who changes the world for the better, using Science!
EVERY Ballot in America should undergo Pulitzer's quick-scanning process and compared with the numbers to see if it's real; and every state using mail-in ballots or drop-in ballots has ENVELOPES which, though separated, should be present (for 22 months according to GA state law) and able to be separately counted to see if that total matches the alleged mail-in ballot total, which of course the various State and county election officials KNOW they DO NOT, since they were never in existence in the first place because of the fraud. So, lesson here is NEXT time they do election fraud, they need to take the time to make sure each and every fraudulent ballot is folded and placed in a fraudulent envelope! Science! Which Rice guys (and gals) are against using the Scientific Method to show the results of this election are true? If not, exactly WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF SCIENCE--Why are YOU a Science -Denier?
LIVE: AZ Arizona Voter Fraud Revealed - Press Conference at AZ State Capitol 12/30/20:
The Numbers Don’t Lie: Data Scientists Break Down Voter Fraud in Arizona and It’s Shocking – 790,000 Laundered Votes Injected Into the System
People living in official government buildings and sports arenas (so their voting records addresses show) in AZ! Wow!
Quote: Absolutely breathtaking systemic fraud is what I see when I look at Arizona’s results. The number of ballots cast was 3,420,565 in 2020 versus 1,037,550 in 1998. The Great State of Arizona had 2,383,015 MORE people vote in 2020 vs 1998.
The number of people in the Great State of Arizona grew by 1,756,241 by my estimate. The Bogus estimate is showing that the population of the State grew by 2,216,503. WOW. This is SUPER DUPER IMPRESSIVE.
The Great State of Arizona had every SINGLE NEW PERSON added to its population VOTE – 100% of all new Arizonans that entered the State since 1998 voted (so no one under 18 must have entered) + 166,511 More People Voted than the population growth; hence the creation of Phantom Sleeper Voters.
Data scientists took a closer look at what happened in 8 counties in Arizona including Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties, and it’s shocking. These data scientists identified a whopping 790,175 laundered votes that were injected into the system across 8 counties in Arizona!
Not to enter this discussion, but the Arizona statistics appear to be amazingly incorrect...(I have a client that opened an office to develop property in Phoenix so I thought I would check the numbers).
From Wikipedia - the current population of Arizona is estimated at approximately 7.4MM. The population in 1998 was estimated at 4.7MM (an increase of nearly 2.7MM).. The population of Phoenix alone is in excess of 4.5MM).
(12-31-2020 01:02 PM)Houston Owl 2 Wrote: [ -> ]Not to enter this discussion, but the Arizona statistics appear to be amazingly incorrect...(I have a client that opened an office to develop property in Phoenix so I thought I would check the numbers).
From Wikipedia - the current population of Arizona is estimated at approximately 7.4MM. The population in 1998 was estimated at 4.7MM (an increase of nearly 2.7MM).. The population of Phoenix alone is in excess of 4.5MM).
Am I missing something?
Shhhhhh, he's numberizing... don't poke the insane poster
Ho, ho, ho...here's GA's DEMOCRATIC Senator Elena Parent in 2019 in this video saying the exact same thing in 2019 that the Republicans are saying now! But somehow Elena Parent in 2020 now tells a completely different story about those same voting machines she was AGAINST in 2019 on the GA Senate Floor hearing on March 13, 2019 in HB316 Open debate! Whaddaya know!
Quote:“We’re suggesting let's set up a … bipartisan commission to organize all the allegations…. acknowledge the problem areas that have not been explained so that we can restore confidence in the election system,” he said.
“This is an unsustainable state of affairs now. That's all we're saying. As long as someone will be objecting to this, let's propose a solution of transparency, investigation and with a commission,” he said.
I thought that Dems were supposed to be for transparency but curiously here they are doing the exact opposite of what they did with fake impeachgate, fake kavanaughgate, fake russiagate, etc... wonder what they are trying so hard to hide from The people?
A sworn affidavit was delivered to Congress yesterday detailing confessions by an employee of Italian defense contractor Leonardo SpA. The affidavit was written by the employee’s lawyer and delivered to Congress by Maria Zack, Chairwoman of NationsInAction.org, a government accountability advocacy group.
This pesky Evidence just keeps showing up all over the place.
![[Image: true-the-vote-pakistan-sos-isi-redacted--378x479.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/true-the-vote-pakistan-sos-isi-redacted--378x479.jpg)
![[Image: engelbrecht-1-666x479.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/engelbrecht-1-666x479.jpg)
![[Image: PA-Vote-Count.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/PA-Vote-Count.jpg)
![[Image: PA-Vote-Count2.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/PA-Vote-Count2.jpg)
![[Image: facebook_1604861060099_6731275163820513710.jpg]](https://www.libertynation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/facebook_1604861060099_6731275163820513710.jpg)
![[Image: image-42.jpg]](https://www.libertynation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/image-42.jpg)
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2021-01-07-at-2.44.47-PM.png]](https://i0.wp.com/itnshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Screen-Shot-2021-01-07-at-2.44.47-PM.png)