‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cathoholic said:
You have had a multitude of examples of unexplainable “irregularities” and blown them off.
Click to expand...
And right here we see another common feature of conspiracy theories. They rely on “unexplainable” facts. But they aren’t really unexplainable. They are just not explainable in any obvious way to the casual observer. The promoters of a conspiracy theory have their explanation (which they cannot prove) but if a casual observer cannot immediately think of an explanation, it is tempting to accept the one given.

In actuality, there are many possible explanations to any “irregularity” you care to mention. Go ahead an mention one and we will give it a try.
Agreed. They are not evidence-worthy so far in a court of law.
How can they be
after a now-anonymous ballot is all that remains?
Click to expand...
That is the problem of the promoters of the theory.
Why should I think another example would persuade you?
Click to expand...
You probably shouldn’t. Nor should you think it would persuade anyone.
the conspiracy theorists have already moved on
The conspiracy theorists have been pushing a phony Trump-Russian-collusion narrative for years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That is false. There was in initial investigation into collusion, and that was it. The only thing that persisted is the true narrative that there was massive Russian interference in the 2016 election through social media. It is false to characterize that as a collusion narrative.
Then a fake impeachment sham…
Click to expand...
All done according to the law. No Presidential impeachment has ever succeeded in American history. That does not mean they were all shams.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Prove it.

Why are at least some of them not being arrested for such a “farce”?
Click to expand...
This is farcical.

" The double-hearsay in question came from Jessica Connarn , a designated poll watcher whose affidavit the campaign included to bolster its arguments, but her sworn testimony about scuttlebutt from an unidentified person failed to impress the judge.

“The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence,” Connarn wrote.

The campaign’s counsel noted that the mystery poll watcher who interacted with Connarn supposedly handed her a note to support the tale, but this too fell far short of a smoking gun.

“The note—which is vague and equivocal—is likewise hearsay,” the ruling states. “And again, plaintiffs have not presented an argument as to why the Court could consider the same, given the general prohibitions against hearsay evidence.”"


"Hearne: Right. I would say, Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge –

Judge Stephens: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now."

The affidavit was not illegal – on a legal basis it was laughable. The judge sounded incredulous that such was placed before her.

That’s farce.
 
Last edited:
Well, the certification goes forward in PA.

"HARRISBURG, Pa. (KDKA/AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the lawsuit from Congressman Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell to declare universal mail-in voting unconstitutional in the state and deny the votes of the majority of Pennsylvanians who voted by mail in the Nov. 3 election.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, threw out the three-day-old order, saying the underlying lawsuit was filed months after the law allowed for challenges to Pennsylvania’s expansive year-old mail-in voting law.

The state’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Shapiro, called the court’s decision “another win for Democracy.”

The week-old lawsuit, led by U.S. Rep. Kelly of Butler, had challenged the state’s mail-in voting law as unconstitutional."

 
Cathoholic said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
there was massive Russian interference
Click to expand...
Leaf. I notice you CHANGED my premise again.

What you addressed was not my premise.

Here it is again . . .
Cathoholic said:
The conspiracy theorists have been pushing a phony Trump-Russian-collusion narrative for years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, I understood your premise and it is wrong. There has not be a push (phony or otherwise) for the Trump-Russian collusion narrative. You may have thought that because there has been push for what I said, and it sounds a little bit like “collusion”, but it isn’t. I didn’t change your premise one little bit. I just refuted it.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The only evidence that there are 1.25 million extra votes is from the text in the meme claiming that all that data is available.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it is the same as the meme I encountered, but there is one that states the total number of democrats that requested absentee ballots, then it presents the number of democrats, republicans, and independents that mailed absentee ballots without being labeled as such.

When consulting the numbers reported by the state what happened is obvious. Otherwise one may be the victim of the bad math of another.
 
Last edited:
The only reason it gave for doing so was that Parnell and the other voters had waited too long to bring their lawsuit, and could not do so now, with the electoral college deadline being so close. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not address the fact that the mail-in voting legislation had not been passed in such a manner as to amend the Pennsylvania constitution.

What Happens Next?​

If other lawsuit litigation is any predictor, Parnell and the other voters will now seek an expedited petition for a writ of certiorari. They will most likely also apply to Justice Alito—as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit—for an emergency injunction barring the Pennsylvania Secretary of State from certifying the results of the election pending resolution of the cert petition. To obtain the Court’s review, Parnell and the other voters must show that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision somehow violates federal law. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision is rooted in state law, a good argument can be made that it involves a federal question.
Click to expand...
 
I ave never known you to reject truth! How can you say there was no push to connect Trump to Russia collusion in the last election
 
Haaaaa,that’s rich given what this Nation has endured at the hands of the apoplectic sore loser Dems ,the past four years. :roll_eyes::roll_eyes::roll_eyes::roll_eyes:
 
Petra202 said:
I ave never known you to reject truth! How can you say there was no push to connect Trump to Russia collusion in the last election
Click to expand...
Thank you for the compliment. But there were no figures of any standing who were pushing any sort of Trump-Russia collusion narrative. If you think there were, then please cite a speech by a prominent political figure who said that. (A posting on Facebook from some guy about collusion does not count!)
 
This is exactly why even voter fraud on a small scale is vitally important to fight against and prevent.

Voter fraud does not merely impact top of the ticket it can actually impact the down ballot candidates and local and statewide initiatives and ballot measures. Voter fraud does not have to large or wide scale to be detrimental. All voter fraud is an attack on our representative republic. All American citizens should want legal and only legal votes.

This is a race for our US Congress - decided by a mere 6 vote margin …

 
Last edited:
YADA said:
Voter fraud does not merely impact top of the ticket it can actually impact the down ballot candidates and local and statewide initiatives and ballot measures. Voter fraud does not have to large or wide scale to be detrimental. All voter fraud is an attack on our representative republic. All American citizens should want legal and only legal votes.
Click to expand...
You fail to mention two facts: Voter impersonation (the only thing that is affected by voter ID laws) is so infrequent as to be termed “rare” Plus, vote fraud almost never causes a different outcome in an election.

For all the closeness in IA, no one said that fraud determined the number of votes which either candidate received.
 
Nepperhan said:
For all the closeness in IA, no one said that fraud determined the number of votes which either candidate received.
Click to expand...
Depends upon which IA vote you are talking about and WHO made the claims of fraud.
Republican claims are ignored.

.

Blue State Blues: Remember When Democrats Alleged Fraud — This Year?​

JOEL B. POLLAK

27 Nov 2020

The 2020 election began with allegations of fraud — by Democrats.

On Monday, February 3, the Iowa caucuses were held — the formal beginning of the presidential primary. The state had decided to use a new system of voting…

The voters in each community would meet and deliberate, then gather in different parts of the room, raising their hands to indicate their choices. That much remained the same as in previous years.

But in 2020, there was a new twist: candidates who received less than a 15% threshold of votes would be eliminated in the first round of voting.

Then, in a second round, those voters were freed to vote for other candidates; to pool their votes … for a candidate who had failed to clear the threshold in the first round; or not to vote at all.

As if that were not confusing enough, the state’s Democratic Party had adopted a new smartphone application for the reporting of results.

On the crucial night, with the nation watching, the app failed. News anchors muttered in frustration in front of their multimedia screens as the vote count stood stubbornly at zero.

Sensing opportunity, Pete Buttigieg — the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor who had built a fundraising juggernaut as the first openly gay presidential candidate — delivered a victory speech.

“Iowa, you have shocked the nation,” he said . “With hope in our hearts and fire in our bellies, we’re going on to New Hampshire … to chart a new course for our country.”

It soon emerged that Buttigieg’s campaign had paid tens of thousands of dollars to the company that had developed the app, whose unfortunate name was “Shadow.” There were other links to Buttigieg, too, through investors in Shadow.

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cried foul. They claimed Buttigieg had stolen the election from the Vermont socialist, who would later be confirmed as having won the popular vote in Iowa. (A statewide recount would confirm that Buttigieg narrowly won the race for delegates.)

The hashtags “#PetetheCheat” and “#MayorCheat” trended on Twitter.

These same bizarre conditions would be repeated on a national scale in November.

A new system of voting (vote by mail); delays in reporting; shadowy voting software; premature declarations of victory.

The same factors that led to confusion and suspicion in Iowa virtually guaranteed that there would be perceptions of fraud in the November election…
Click to expand...
 
Why is this thread still open. Pennsylvania certified their votes a week ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top