Message from @duckherder
Discord ID: 793975816131313666
@Zuluzeit Some. If it’s not too much trouble, would you please direct my attention to a good explanation from a reliable source?
I thought you were talking about rulings on legislation that set precedent @Maw .
E.g: The legislation said no more ballots after arriving after Nov. 4th, despite having postmarks before nov 4th, the SC extended the deadline 1 week to accept pre-4th postmarked ballots.
I think Pennsylvania knows that. If you look at the election results and their website it says it does not include balance cast after 8:00 p.m. on election day. So even if a court were to throw out those extra ballots that came in after election day it wouldn't change the end result.
They put those ballots to the side since the ruling was so controversial. (And didn't tally them)
But it's not... All they did was attempt to extend the date that mail-in ballots could be received by 3 days - they still had to be postmarked by 11/3. Part of the justification for this is that Military ballots are given 10 days to be received (as long as they are postmarked by election day). It was an equal protection argument given the concerns about mail delivery issues and the increased mail-in voting due to the pandemic.
Lifeline
They did not need any postmarks at all
????
Protests, looting, burning and violence magically stopped because they won the political war.
No need to fund them anymore if they served their purpose.
Again we're talking 10,000 votes out of an 80, 000 spread so it's not going to change the election one way or the other.
Excuse the source it's the first one I found:https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/19/supreme-court-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-postmarked/
Noted... It's funny. The typical response is "how do we know they set them aside? They just snuck them in." Not realizing that cast ballot counts were determined on 11/3.
Huh, don't remember that part, and I read the entire thing.
Either way, the ones that arrived post-Nov. 4th weren't even counted IIRC.
They were stacked into a corner.
Because the ruling was so fresh.
> @Zuluzeit Some. If it’s not too much trouble, would you please direct my attention to a good explanation from a reliable source?
@Lorinda Depends on which claim. There are a good handful of them. Lol.
It should be said that I am here because this is a ground zero, absolute clinic regarding the war on epistemology. How people figure they 'know' the things they know is of great interest to me. The outcome of the election and fraud and whatnot are only on my radar because that's the context in which this particular system operates.
So said the people who are party to the dispute
Ah yes, it's just a part of some diabolical scheme to implement communism, I forgot.
Oh ffs commies again. Forgot.
I just read the PA SC ruling and they do not say that any ballot received within 3 days would be counted. Instead, it says that if the ballot was received without a postmark or the postmark was illegible, they should assume it was mailed in time - assuming it was a vote cast by a legal voter. If it is postmarked after election day, it would be rejected.
Another case of misleading news coverage.
Driving home. Bbl.
@Zuluzeit Ok! Thank you for your honesty. I’m here wanting to hear opposing points of view to determine if what I believe is true is the truth.
Things have quickly devolved....
I liked you better as the chairman.
At least I knew where our relationship stood.
We're trying...
I would have figured you would have been in some rides sharing co-op or the alike...
That is not a fair representation of what happened. To fully understand it we would have to get as deep into the weeds as appellate lawyers and courts do... But, there are some jurisdictions in the US under certain legal theories that allows Courts to chop out a bit of a law that it finds runs afoul of the state or US Constitution as well as pre-existing law.
I personally do not like the way the PA courts handle themselves or this situation. But the remedy is never going to be to adversely effect the votes casts by voters who cast them in accordance with the law at the time their votes were casts.
You simply cannot disenfranchise 100,000s or millions of MORE people to remedy the situation, as its no remedy at all.
Many of Trump's cases were asking the courts to toss out the votes casts by citizens who had a right to vote and voted in a manner that was prescribed by law at the time of the election. They did nothing wrong. They acted in good faith and to take away their votes would also violate the theory of detrimental reliance.
Carpooling with your antifa minions.
I'm also getting really tired of the partisan politics. Stop creating second-class citizens of your political opponents. This is a huge problem in America right now.
Just because they're politically opposed to you doesn't mean they're lying to you, that they have some diabolical plot to ruin your life.
This goes both ways.
Have you seen “The Eye of Vichy?” I happened upon it a few years ago. It showed how propaganda was used to fool the masses....
@Lorinda, you just advanced to level 4!
When you start thinking everyone in an opposing political party is just some sort of criminal (which the American people are horribly predisposed to treat like second-class citizens) means you're reaching a point of no return in my honest opinion.