But you don't care about truth

You only want your guy to win. By any means necessary.

I loathe socialism and communism. What you changed the definition of socialism to not believing lies and requesting evidence of widespread voter fraud 😂

Im requesting evidence!! All i want is for the courts to hear the evidence! For both sides to present their cases for and against!!!!! That's all i want! There courts are apparently to scared to see evidence bc it was presented too late.

The courts and Democrats are not responsible for giving you a valid case because your feels

That's NOT OK! i don't care what latches says. If there is evidence provable in court that 10 million votes were stolen. Let's see it!!!!

Facts dont care about your feelings

Facts arent being seen!!!!!!!!!!

Also both sides did present their case in court. One guess whose side didnt hold up to any scrutiny

If they can be so easily dis proven... then lets play ball

Prove them to be so insanely ridiculous and im ok with that

The courts these take place in are heavily biased....towards Trump

But to shush them like they aren't worthy of being heard? Debated? You're not confident in your case. Period. Truth is supressed

I don't mind, though I appreciate your understanding. I'm not an expert, but I am someone that tries to stay informed. I think it is important to keep the dialog going. I hear folks on this server coming into the conversation every day being heavily partisan based on what they have been exposed to in their respective media echo chambers. I think it is why our country is so divided right now. We have forgotten that empathy is an essential component to understanding. Few people take the time to look at problems/circumstances from the opposite perspective. Understanding how a problem is viewed from each vantage point will go a long way to bringing us back to a place where reasonable people can disagree and still be respectful to each other.

They aren't hearing evidence.

They were heard and debated you had no case lol

No matter how far the lawsuits get to theres nothing

What possible control do you think dems have over Trump appointed far right judges to begin with 😂

I couldn't agree more. Im ok with being challenged. Im just not ok with the constant mockery. I don't mean to be rude or dismissive of others opinions. But i think we carn challenged eachother in postive ways. I apologize if ive been offensive.

These judges want to do Trump a solid for promoting them they just need something anything to latch onto to even pretend theres a case to be heard

No one wants to touch this. I pray for our future someone has the courage to combat it... or communism may be quickly approaching. I know you haven't been sensored.... bc you're on the side of sensors.. but take a look at your fellow Americans and you'll see the thing you abhor taking root in your homestead.

But its not challenging your ideals, so carry on.

I know what communism is. That nonsense anything I dont like is communism nonsense is lost on me 😂

Did you hear the last broadcast??? Can't say the "f" word

I mean really that people bought that whole moderate=liberal=progressive=communism=socialism=fascism nonsense. Words have meanings

"I'll tone it down" to make sure not to break the rules

A boring old white moderate corporate democrat isnt rocking any boats

I understand why but seriously!!? That he has to do this so that people can hear hisi opinion is infuriating!

Thank you for your agreement. It's a tough time. You obviously hold strong-held beliefs, which is good. With regard to the current state of things, I have tried to see it from both sides and try to understand it from both perspectives.I am glad you are open to new ideas - as am I.

Hey! I love all people. Even socialist communist Democrats that want to silence truth and silence me. If i walked a mile in your shoes i may be on the opposite end of this argument. Just know we're not all gullible idiot's who are full of hate. We just want the truth and the actual winner to prevail. No matter who that is. 🙏❤

Thanks for answering.
I appreciate that it might be irksome that what began as a private comment has become a public conversation.
I do have questions and comments though and would appreciate further elucidation.
First, the matters that I know little about, and I do appreciate your time. Is State Supreme Court the proper place to raise matters of federal constitutionality? If the Act 77 suites had achieved redress then there would have been no point raising the point of constitutionality which at SCOTUS 4-4 cannot really be said to have been settled. Essentially that decision seems to say, “Sort it out amongst yourselves – and if you can’t, get back to us.” Or does it not?
You made the point about the state having made a distinction between absentee and mail-in ballots, but the pertinent distinction is not the technical standing of each category but what effective measures were in place to verify the authenticity of the ballots received of both kinds - or have I misunderstood.

@English Remi, you just advanced to level 1!

To say that Pennsylvania officially verifies signatures is misdirection, I think. The question is whether and how well they apply their own rules – if the measure is that one letter should be the same, or as has been alleged elsewhere, that the machine that verified signatures was set at a level which makes no discernment between one squiggle and another, there is no point in such poor verification.
For example, was there verification of the boxes that were taken out from under the tables in the dead of night after observers were sent home, according to contemporary news reports and witnesses – if those ballots were verified elsewhere, then that part of the process needs to have been observed. The claim is that if this happened it occurred without observation, and while processes were applied to frustrate observation.
To say that signatures are never verified in recounts is also misdirection. What is necessary is a verification that the papers were sent by the people they were purported to have been sent by. This was no longer possible. However other details in a hand recount are possible and are being denied by the show process of running stacks of paper through a machine who's ability to count is not in dispute.
I am new to this forum and unfamiliar with how to navigate it. If you have discussed these in detail I would you please tell me where I can view the conversation.

Federal district, supreme or circuit courts are all equipped to handle questions of Constitutionality. If a US scotus ruling makes sense for a case they follow suit. If it seems like new territory they give off lower court rulings or their own judgement. The SCOTUS doesnt have to weigh in theres different reasons they do or would. There was already a lower court ruling it kicked back to.

How do you reconcile your assertion that PA verify signatures with the rule that they do not: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ ?

..

interesting, seems they are doing signature verification in the sense that they verify there is a signature "The only expressly noted situation in which a voter’s declaration can be deemed insufficient, according to the memo, is an instance in which there is no signature contained in the declaration area whatsoever." but are not allowed to reject the ballot based on signature analysis ALONE “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.” Further more this is to promote consistency among the counties Boockvar’s guidance fashions the rule as an effort to “promote consistency across the 67 counties” of Pennsylvania. So why did they do this? They were being sued, of course. Guess we should replace that old expression with "sued if you do, sued if you don't" "The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relaxed controversial verification rules for the processing of mail-in ballots last week in a decided victory and boon for voting rights advocates. The decision also short-circuits a voting access lawsuit already in progress."

@English Remi also add that I was having a conversation with a friend of mine on FB over a month ago and he was going about how they mailed out ballots in PA and he knew folks that got multiple ballots and I said "oh really" and that his friend should report this to the PA Election Board, etc. Turned out applications were mailed out. Like most things you hear second hand, the details are usually not exactly correct. So in PA the voter had to apply for a mail-in or absentee ballot and that application goes through a approval process and once approved a ballot is sent out. Further the outer envelope of the ballot that the voter is to return the ballot in is uniquely identified to the voter that it was mailed out or given to. “Once the qualified voter’s absentee or mail-in application is approved, the voter is mailed a ballot with instructions and two envelopes,” the memo explains. “The outer envelope includes both a unique correspondence ID barcode that links the envelope to the qualified voter’s application and a pre-printed Voter’s Declaration that the voter must sign representing that the voter is qualified to vote the enclosed ballot and has not already voted.” and when it is returned: Election officials are also encouraged to “examine” and cross-reference the voter’s name and address with a database for registered and absentee voters. Additionally, ballots by people who died are supposed to be be thrown out at this stage.

@English Remi some of the above contains direct cut-n-paste from the very article you linked

@Maw

<@&778710125850394654> need a removal