Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 15 days ago)
35,658 posts, read 18,021,886 times
Reputation: 50699
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
travesty of justice imposed by democrats. confidence in voting purposely destroyed in an attempt to win the election by fraud and thousands of ballots will be rejected because of failing to complete the mail in ballot as directed in included IKEA style instructions. then the people opening the ballots make a mistake to compound the problem. As we all must use mail in ballots the people opening the ballots will be overwhelmed and prone to mistakes.
Compare a list of potential errors via mail in ballots vs pulling a lever in a booth. the process prone to the greatest amount of errors has been imposed by dem governors. This will never ever be forgiven. No one is above the law....unless you are a democrat on a mission to destroy the USA.
No name on the ballot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the heck?????????????
Once the ballot is separated from the two envelopes in which it is mailed there is no way to trace the ballot back to a specific voter! Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea??????????????????
that explains why the dems are running a diminished candidate who would have otherwise been eliminated from the campaign during any other election. Ask Dukakis or Perry. Dems may as well be running an empty cardboard box filled with far left zealots as by running harris/biden.
post election dems will figure how many votes they need and just fill in enough nameless ballots to get them over the line to a stolen victory.
the real Question, what states will secede from the union and to which state will you move?
When you vote in person, they tell you there's no name on your ballet and your vote is untraceable to a person.
I struggle to believe that, but that's what we're all told and expected to believe.
We are, Kracer, guaranteed the right to vote anonymously. To require a mail in or drop off voter to sign their ballot is opposite of that.
If PA has drop boxes, the ballots will not have postmarks.
That’s how it is in CO. Ballots just to be in the boxes by/before the cut-off on Election Day.
The ones in drop boxes will be collected at the close of polls, most likely inside the box itself. In other words, they will not be arriving to the Clerk’s office after Election Day. Those are not the issue.
The issue is ones that go through the post office. If there is no postmark and it was mailed a day or two after Election Day but arrives at the Clerk’s office three days after it is to counted. I am more than okay with counting ballots arriving three days after IF they have a clear postmark showing it was mailed before or on Election Day. The bit that bothers me is allowing them with no postmark or such a blurred postmark it is not possible to know what day they were placed in the mailbox.
I would also have way, way, way less issue with this if we were discussing states where those late ballots won’t make a difference in the final election, such as California or my own Kentucky.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I just want a "fair" election. Be aware of all the dead people voting, dog and cat votes, and be suspicious if one person mails out 600 ballots, all with his name on them.
I say if Trump wins, Great! If he loses, we need to recount everything (since the Democrats cheat all the time) and carefully scrutinizeevery single vote.
You all apparently don't understand the PA Code addressed the matter of challenges already in their code. You can look at EVERY States rules on this link.
You folks can stomp your feet, whine, cry false claims or pound on the floor until your blue. The PA Code already addressed the matter in their code, and the PA Supreme Court ruled 7-0 to the affirmative of the code.
You are obfuscating . The law doesn't say the election board shall, can not compare signatures. It is implied that they can to determine if the ballot info and signature is acceptable as that there is a signature requirement and a record of the voters signature.
This ruling prevents anyone in the election office from rejecting a ballot based on the signature and prevents anyone from challenging the ballot based on the signature.
You are obfuscating . The law doesn't say the election board shall, can not compare signatures. It is implied that they can to determine if the ballot info and signature is acceptable as that there is a signature requirement and a record of the voters signature.
This ruling prevents anyone in the election office from rejecting a ballot based on the signature and prevents anyone from challenging the ballot based on the signature.
There's no obfuscation, rather an inability by some to actual read the Codes that already exist- ergo the state already has a challenge procedure in place.
It's not my problem some people fail to understand that, and it's really basic. Even more surprising is this intransigence even in the face of the fact the PA Supreme Court ruled 7-0 on the matter- 5 D's and 2 R's.
Like I said- sounds like whiners stomping their feet and throwing a hissy because you can't have the law bend 'your way'. Well guess what- This ain't Burger King.
There's no obfuscation, rather an inability by some to actual read the Codes that already exist- ergo the state already has a challenge procedure in place.
It's not my problem some people fail to understand that, and it's really basic. Even more surprising is this intransigence even in the face of the fact the PA Supreme Court ruled 7-0 on the matter- 5 D's and 2 R's.
Like I said- sounds like whiners stomping their feet and throwing a hissy because you can't have the law bend 'your way'. Well guess what- This ain't Burger King.
I did read a lot of it and you are misconstruing. The Court prevented any challenge on signatures .
I wouldn't appeal this ruling to the US Supreme Court until after Amy Coney Barrett is seated next week. We've already seen how Roberts voted to allow PA to count ballots delivered up until 3 days after election day.
Roberts (and the other far-left bench-legislators) apparently decided based on the question, "Are the requests from Pennsylvania voting officials important enough, and likely to give "good enough" results, to justify our changing Pennsylvania law to incorporate the requests?"
Amy Barrett being an originalist, would very likely make her decision based on a question like, "Do the laws in Pennsylvania and the Constitution allow for ballots to be accepted after "Election Day" with no evidence proving they were mailed on or before that date?"
Barrett's question (if I guessed it correctly) is the correct one to ask.
In fact, the people making the requests were asking the wrong group. They should have asked the Pennsylvania legislature to make the changes to the law, not the Courts.
The legislature is empowered to change the law. The Courts aren't.
The legislature is empowered to change the law. The Courts aren't.
Barrett voiced pretty much that exact sentiment after she was sworn in by Justice Thomas. I have a good feeling about the Supremes for next few decades at least, and even more so if Trump has a chance to replace Breyer in the next four years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Be aware of all the dead people voting, dog and cat votes, and be suspicious if one person mails out 600 ballots, all with his name on them. 
If he loses, we need to recount everything (since the Democrats cheat all the time) and carefully scrutinize every single vote. 
. The law doesn't say the election board shall, can not compare signatures. It is implied that they can to determine if the ballot info and signature is acceptable as that there is a signature requirement and a record of the voters signature. 
