PA SC again

[Panama pfRedd]

PA Supreme Court rules for RNC, declares undated mail-in ballots may not be counted

justthenews.com/government/courts-law/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-rnc-undated-mail-ballots-cannot-be-counted?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the Republican National Committee, holding that undated mail-in ballots may not be counted.

more at link



Of course, but they already ruled that and that c-word basically told the Court to f-word off. Time to now bring her to heel and FORCE them to stop counting those ballots before they “accidentally” mix them in with the others with no way to undo the fraud.

Time for criminal charges and consequences.

[canefan]

Of course. You think Dems in PA are any different than anywhere else. We are constantly told here that there is no evidence of voter fraud or cheating in the election. How hard is it to prove when the people in charge of doing the counting simply ignore court rulings and count anything they want?

[Walter]

Nov 19, 2024 7:12:18 GMT -5 canefan said:

Of course. You think Dems in PA are any different than anywhere else. We are constantly told here that there is no evidence of voter fraud or cheating in the election. How hard is it to prove when the people in charge of doing the counting simply ignore court rulings and count anything they want?

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error. And if the county goes by the postmark to determine if the ballot was cast before the deadline, what is the purpose of requiring the voter to date the envelope?

[canefan]

Nov 19, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 7:12:18 GMT -5 canefan said:

Of course. You think Dems in PA are any different than anywhere else. We are constantly told here that there is no evidence of voter fraud or cheating in the election. How hard is it to prove when the people in charge of doing the counting simply ignore court rulings and count anything they want?

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error.

I realize this is going to be difficult for you to do, but think about it. If those responsible for counting the votes knowingly count a ballot that is not legal, is it the voter who is cheating or the one counting the ballots who is cheating?

[Walter]

Nov 19, 2024 9:56:00 GMT -5 canefan said:

Nov 19, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error.

I realize this is going to be difficult for you to do, but think about it. If those responsible for counting the votes knowingly count a ballot that is not legal, is it the voter who is cheating or the one counting the ballots who is cheating?

How can it be the voter who is cheating? Casting an erroneous ballot isn't cheating. It's screwing up one's vote and invalidating it. It's self-disenfranchisement.

[oujour76]

Nov 19, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 7:12:18 GMT -5 canefan said:

Of course. You think Dems in PA are any different than anywhere else. We are constantly told here that there is no evidence of voter fraud or cheating in the election. How hard is it to prove when the people in charge of doing the counting simply ignore court rulings and count anything they want?

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error. And if the county goes by the postmark to determine if the ballot was cast before the deadline, what is the purpose of requiring the voter to date the envelope?

You’re parsing this for no good reason. Call it election fraud due to the election board actions. As the old saying goes….it’s about those who count the votes.

[Walter]

Nov 19, 2024 10:18:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 19, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error. And if the county goes by the postmark to determine if the ballot was cast before the deadline, what is the purpose of requiring the voter to date the envelope?

You’re parsing this for no good reason. Call it election fraud due to the election board actions. As the old saying goes….it’s about those who count the votes.

Only problem with that is that they announced what they were going to do before they did it. That's not exactly what one would do if they were truly attempting to 'steal the election'.
Clearly they were trying to provoke the lawsuit in hopes of winning. Had they prevailed in court, it would have re-enfranchised a bunch of people who made honest errors in filling out their ballots.
Though it is partisan in nature based on the constituency, I see nothing wrong with the strategy. Heck, the one woman announced in an open hearing what her intentions were about.

[kaz]

Nov 19, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 7:12:18 GMT -5 canefan said:

Of course. You think Dems in PA are any different than anywhere else. We are constantly told here that there is no evidence of voter fraud or cheating in the election. How hard is it to prove when the people in charge of doing the counting simply ignore court rulings and count anything they want?

Voter fraud? Cheating?
Quick question or two:

Is a ballot without a date on the outer envelope fraudulent? The court ruled that their irregularities do not conform to the standard, but did not rule they were fraudulent.
Did any voters cheat? Obviously not. Their mistakes actually disenfranchised them.

So while one can question actions of the election boards, one cannot accuse any voters of anything nefarious.

And BTW...What is the purpose of putting a date on the outer envelope? I had to do it here in CA, and have no idea why. If I drop the ballot in the ballot box prior to the cutoff time, what does it matter if there is a date on the envelope? The County has my vote, and they know it was cast before the cutoff time because they are holding it in their hands before the cutoff time. So....pardon my French, but WTF?

Second, if I vote after the cutoff and backdate the outer envelope before putting it in the mailbox, how would the county know? Ironically, THAT would be voter fraud, but the county would have to accept it. It's ass-backward logic, seems to me. It rewards fraud and invalidates obviously honest error. And if the county goes by the postmark to determine if the ballot was cast before the deadline, what is the purpose of requiring the voter to date the envelope?

Great arguments for in-person voting. Thanks, wally!

[oujour76]

Nov 19, 2024 10:27:39 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 10:18:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

You’re parsing this for no good reason. Call it election fraud due to the election board actions. As the old saying goes….it’s about those who count the votes.

Only problem with that is that they announced what they were going to do before they did it. That's not exactly what one would do if they were truly attempting to 'steal the election'.
Clearly they were trying to provoke the lawsuit in hopes of winning. Had they prevailed in court, it would have re-enfranchised a bunch of people who made honest errors in filling out their ballots.
Though it is partisan in nature based on the constituency, I see nothing wrong with the strategy. Heck, the one woman announced in an open hearing what her intentions were about.

Spin it any way you want.

[Walter]

Nov 19, 2024 10:32:31 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 19, 2024 10:27:39 GMT -5 Walter said:

Only problem with that is that they announced what they were going to do before they did it. That's not exactly what one would do if they were truly attempting to 'steal the election'.
Clearly they were trying to provoke the lawsuit in hopes of winning. Had they prevailed in court, it would have re-enfranchised a bunch of people who made honest errors in filling out their ballots.
Though it is partisan in nature based on the constituency, I see nothing wrong with the strategy. Heck, the one woman announced in an open hearing what her intentions were about.

Spin it any way you want.

<shrug> Admittedly a spin, but it isn't like the strategy of deliberately defying a law to precipitate a lawsuit is anything new.

[oujour76]

Nov 19, 2024 10:44:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 10:32:31 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Spin it any way you want.

<shrug> Admittedly a spin, but it isn't like the strategy of deliberately defying a law to precipitate a lawsuit is anything new.

Maybe if they’re lucky some ambitious prosecutor will figure a way to turn it into multiple felonies. 😎😂

[canefan]

Nov 19, 2024 9:59:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 9:56:00 GMT -5 canefan said:

I realize this is going to be difficult for you to do, but think about it. If those responsible for counting the votes knowingly count a ballot that is not legal, is it the voter who is cheating or the one counting the ballots who is cheating?

How can it be the voter who is cheating? Casting an erroneous ballot isn't cheating. It's screwing up one's vote and invalidating it. It's self-disenfranchisement.

That was my point. In PA it is obvious it's those counting the ballots who are knowingly violating the law by counting ballots they should not.

[canefan]

Nov 19, 2024 10:27:39 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 10:18:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

You’re parsing this for no good reason. Call it election fraud due to the election board actions. As the old saying goes….it’s about those who count the votes.

Only problem with that is that they announced what they were going to do before they did it. That's not exactly what one would do if they were truly attempting to 'steal the election'.
Clearly they were trying to provoke the lawsuit in hopes of winning. Had they prevailed in court, it would have re-enfranchised a bunch of people who made honest errors in filling out their ballots.
Though it is partisan in nature based on the constituency, I see nothing wrong with the strategy. Heck, the one woman announced in an open hearing what her intentions were about.

Or they just figure they are a blue state and nobody will hammer them on it. And if they are doing it how many others are doing it and not admitting it.

[Walter]

Nov 19, 2024 11:13:33 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 19, 2024 10:44:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

<shrug> Admittedly a spin, but it isn't like the strategy of deliberately defying a law to precipitate a lawsuit is anything new.

Maybe if they’re lucky some ambitious prosecutor will figure a way to turn it into multiple felonies. 😎😂

That's the kind of thing Trump's going to spend the next 4 years doing.
If there is a law against it, have at it. They're grown-ass people.
But there isn't, even if Trump and the GOP Congress do pass the "Lawyer's Full Employment Act" on day one.

[oujour76]

Nov 19, 2024 11:49:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 19, 2024 11:13:33 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Maybe if they’re lucky some ambitious prosecutor will figure a way to turn it into multiple felonies. 😎😂

That's the kind of thing Trump's going to spend the next 4 years doing.
If there is a law against it, have at it. They're grown-ass people.
But there isn't, even if Trump and the GOP Congress do pass the "Lawyer's Full Employment Act" on day one.

Hope you’re wrong re: Trump.