(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

I hope the SCOTUS does. But if they don’t I suspect someone will.

(11-27-2020 05:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

An activist court?

An activist court is one that tries to make new law through their rulings, instead of ruling based on existing law. In this case, all that needs to happen is they rule based on what the laws say.

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

The problem is that when you accused fraud because you claimed someone is dead, but it turned out that it is another person with the same name like a father is SR while the son is JR. I am a JR since I share the same name as my dad. The problem is the government agencies tend to leave the JR/SR off and you do get these stupid claims from the Trump's camp who do not do their homework. There are a lot of voters that are mad at Trump and his people claiming them are dead, living in another state on a military base and so forth.

(11-27-2020 03:15 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:58 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The role of election challengers isn't to challenge signatures on ballots. This is from the PA guide for election challengers :

Authorized representatives (which includes poll watchers that have been designated by a candidate or political party to serve as authorized representatives during the pre-canvass or canvass) may not challenge an absentee or mail-in ballot during the pre-canvass or canvass of the ballots. Absentee and mail-in ballot applications may only be challenged prior to 5:00 pm on the Friday prior to the election, and only on good faith grounds that the applicant was not a qualified elector. No other challenges are permitted. Authorized representatives may not engage in, attempt to intimidate, nor interfere with the pre-canvass or canvass of the absentee and mail-in ballots. Challenges to mail-in or absentee ballots, based on signature analysis, are not permitted at any time.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...6-2020.pdf

Thanks for posting that. Now compare it to what was in place in 2016 and you can start to see how the fraud was planned. The inability to challenge signatures was added for this election.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...010-16.pdf

(11-27-2020 07:00 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 03:15 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:58 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The role of election challengers isn't to challenge signatures on ballots. This is from the PA guide for election challengers :

Authorized representatives (which includes poll watchers that have been designated by a candidate or political party to serve as authorized representatives during the pre-canvass or canvass) may not challenge an absentee or mail-in ballot during the pre-canvass or canvass of the ballots. Absentee and mail-in ballot applications may only be challenged prior to 5:00 pm on the Friday prior to the election, and only on good faith grounds that the applicant was not a qualified elector. No other challenges are permitted. Authorized representatives may not engage in, attempt to intimidate, nor interfere with the pre-canvass or canvass of the absentee and mail-in ballots. Challenges to mail-in or absentee ballots, based on signature analysis, are not permitted at any time.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...6-2020.pdf

Thanks for posting that. Now compare it to what was in place in 2016 and you can start to see how the fraud was planned. The inability to challenge signatures was added for this election.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...010-16.pdf

That looks to be a different set of guidelines, both are linked from here:

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...Tools.aspx

Since both are linked from the active Election Administration page I would assume that both documents were in use this year.

One is clearly labeled October 2016,’the other is October 2020.

(11-27-2020 07:09 PM)banker Wrote:  One is clearly labeled October 2016,’the other is October 2020.

Documents written at different time, for different purposes, can be in effect at the same time. They are both linked from the PA SOS elections page currently. If you write rules for football in 2016, and I write new replay guidelines in 2020 it doesn't mean that we threw out the football rules because we created new replay guidelines.

One document is focused on rules for in person poling places and includes much more information that just challengers/party observers. The other is specifically for party observers.

DOS GUIDANCE ON RULES IN EFFECT AT THE POLLING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY 10-16.pdf

Poll Watcher Guidance Final 10-6-2020.pdf

The titles and content clearly indicate they serve different purposes, the fact they are both linked in different sections from the PA SOS clearly indicates they are both still used. The document you posted doesn't even bring up mail-in, because the scope of that document is specifically polling places on election day.

PA SOS probably doesn't write a new doc on rules at the polling place unless the law that governs polling places changes.

(11-27-2020 06:41 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

An activist court?

An activist court is one that tries to make new law through their rulings, instead of ruling based on existing law. In this case, all that needs to happen is they rule based on what the laws say.

They don't comprehend it. Apparently the concept is too complicated.

The PA Supreme Court was an "activist" court in that, rather than ruling on the merit of the law, they changed the law.

And that helped lead to this...

BREAKING HUGE: Pennsylvania Judge Files Memorandum Stating 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors!

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

lol because the court has been SUCH a friend to Trump in his 4 years...

(11-28-2020 11:13 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

lol because the court has been SUCH a friend to Trump in his 4 years...

The problem the Pennsylvania SC has is changing those absentee election rules that are actually contained in the constitution without going through the long arduous process of constitutional amendment is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Will they simply ignore the state constitution? I guess the Supreme Court can ignore the constitution in a purely political act, but if they do something so obvious—then the legislature probably has the grounds to over rule the court and nullify the election themselves.

(11-28-2020 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 11:13 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

lol because the court has been SUCH a friend to Trump in his 4 years...

The problem the Pennsylvania SC has is changing those absentee election rules that are actually contained in the constitution without going through the long arduous process of constitutional amendment is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Will they simply ignore the state constitution? I guess the Supreme Court can ignore the constitution in a purely political act, but if they do something so obvious—then the legislature probably has the grounds to over rule the court and nullify the election themselves.

if they ignore extra-constitutional actions that usurp authority from a rightful legislative body or action they set a precedent for future meddling in PA and other states. They almost have to rule strictly or they open Pandora's box.

(11-28-2020 12:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 12:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 11:13 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

lol because the court has been SUCH a friend to Trump in his 4 years...

The problem the Pennsylvania SC has is changing those absentee election rules that are actually contained in the constitution without going through the long arduous process of constitutional amendment is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Will they simply ignore the state constitution? I guess the Supreme Court can ignore the constitution in a purely political act, but if they do something so obvious—then the legislature probably has the grounds to over rule the court and nullify the election themselves.

if they ignore extra-constitutional actions that usurp authority from a rightful legislative body or action they set a precedent for future meddling in PA and other states. They almost have to rule strictly or they open Pandora's box.

Exactly---but we will see. There are always unique and innovative arguments that get involved here. Ive never read the entire Pennsylvania Constitution (lol---why would I---ive never read the entire state Constitution for my own state of Texas), so who knows? There may be clauses in there that provide the state legislature with extraordinary powers during times of emergency. We will just have to see how this plays out.

(11-27-2020 02:13 PM)banker Wrote:  It’s like I said before, once the vote and envelope are separated there is no way to prove fraud because there is no way to show where the vote originated to verify if its fraudulent or not. This is why you have to control the counting process and keep observers back if you want to cheat. You have to be able to discard the envelopes (if there even was one) before the vote can be challenged.

horrible logic, bubby....

If the grocery store had an obtuse % relative to historical counts, its fair to assume other factors are in play... e.g. embezzlement