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

[Cathoholic]

I think the answer to your question is “NEVER, EVER, EVER” a stomp of the foot, followed by a “so there”. A sticking out of the tongue may be added by some for extra emphasis.

These are (in many cases) testimonies under oath.

These are not mere emotional arguments.

 

[HarryStotle]

Why should this election be subject to a criterion that was never required of any other election in history?

One very good reason…

The large number of mail-in ballots that were accepted in the states still in play where ballot authentication and chain of custody requirements were entirely disregarded by election officials.

There are literally millions of votes in those states where proof of identity for who cast those ballots was not required. And there was no measure put in place to even authenticate signatures and no way for independent, neutral or bipartisan monitors to assess whether the supposed matching was accurate or done at all.

In PA, the justices of the Pennsylvania court decreed that no ballots would be rejected solely on the basis of the signatures not matching. Ergo, they left no way to determine whether the ballot actually belonged to the person casting the ballot nor if the person casting the ballot had a legal right to do so.

 

[billsherman]

These are not mere emotional arguments.

What kind of argument is this, if not emotional?

You have no evidence at all. It is literally based on nothing more than your desperate hope and supreme belief in Trump.

One probably is, a number are politically affiliated and the rest are merely human and do not want to risk their careers or lives on a ruling that will have enormous repercussions for the entire country. Better to be quiet and find some pretext to get out of making a serious determination than to potentially expose the entire Democratic establishment to complicity in the election outcome.

 

[Balto1]

How about proving with incontrovertible evidence that fraud did not happen?

There were 155 million ballots cast. Some of them were fraudulent. Of course not enough to change the outcome.

When did all of the non-polling metrics that have had 100% accuracy in predicting elections in the past suddenly all get battered at the same time in this election?

This guy’s article is really funny and it explains so much that he’s a pollster.

Ted Cruz on Twitter: “If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument."

T’would be a fitting end to the Trump campaign, dying after a Cruz SCOTUS appearance like so many Texas death penalty victims.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

One probably is, a number are politically affiliated and the rest are merely human and do not want to risk their careers or lives on a ruling that will have enormous repercussions for the entire country. Better to be quiet and find some pretext to get out of making a serious determination than to potentially expose the entire Democratic establishment to complicity in the election outcome.

Well, at least we know you have lost all faith in anything that isn’t named Donald Trump.

No actually, I haven’t.

I have lost faith in a large portion of Americans who do not know or understand their own Constitution, do not appreciate their freedoms, and do not comprehend that justice requires sound moral principles consistently applied.

 

[Balto1]

and do not comprehend that justice requires sound moral principles consistently applied.

How do the supposed issues with the 2020 election compare to the same issues with the 2016 election?

 

[billsherman]

I have lost faith in a large portion of Americans who do not know or understand their own Constitution, do not appreciate their freedoms, and do not comprehend that justice requires sound moral principles consistently applied.

So your faith is limited to those people who agree with you 100%.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is literally based on nothing more than your desperate hope and supreme belief in Trump.

An incredibly convincing “argument” there.

Presenting the viewpoints of others as an Aunt Sally to dismiss them without actually engaging with them.

Well done you!

I suppose it fits well with the unwilling to do the work but still get paid philosophy of the left.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Got Dragged For “Unwilling To Work." Advocates Of Universal Basic Income Say That’s The Point.

In this case, it is to be unwilling to work to present a strong counter argument but still get paid by the plaudits of those on your side.

On the other hand, her nonchalance did earn AOC employee of the month recently.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/07/...-cortez-employee-of-the-month-failed-boycott/

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I have lost faith in a large portion of Americans who do not know or understand their own Constitution, do not appreciate their freedoms, and do not comprehend that justice requires sound moral principles consistently applied.

So your faith is limited to those people who agree with you 100%.

Back at you big fella!

Anyone can type rhetorical flourishes. It takes no energy at all.

Fact check: It would take a few dozen millijoules.

 

[billsherman]

Back at you big fella!

Unlike you, I agree to accept the judgement of courts (even when they don’t agree with me), and I spend most of my professional career refining and changing my arguments based on what people who don’t agree with me think.

Relatively few people agree with me 100% politically.

Criticism is healthy. Regardless of what Trump thinks of it. It’s the only way we improve.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Back at you big fella!

Unlike you, I agree to accept the judgement of courts (even when they don’t agree with me), and I spend most of my professional career refining and changing my arguments based on what people who don’t agree with me think.

We shall see.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Back at you big fella!

Criticism is healthy. Regardless of what Trump thinks of it. It’s the only way we improve.

Which is why you want to reduce anyone who disagrees with you to a Trumper.

Perhaps self-improvement is warranted?

 

[billsherman]

We shall see.

Whether or not I’ll accept the judgement of courts?

I will. I always have before, even when I disagree with their opinions. Why would this time be any different?

Which is why you want to reduce anyone who disagrees with you to a Trumper.

Are you suggesting that that is an unfair assessment of yourself? You just wrote above that the only people you haven’t lost faith in are those who agree with you 100% that Trump won the election.

 

[HarryStotle]

You just wrote above that the only people you haven’t lost faith in are those who agree with you 100% that Trump won the election.

That would be you reading into what I wrote your own interpretation. You may want to think over the possibilities that aren’t obvious to you?

 

[billsherman]

You may want to think over the possibilities that aren’t obvious to you?

Why don’t you just tell me. It would be easier.

Is there anyone you have faith in that doesn’t think Trump lost the election due to massive fraud?

 

[sallybutler]

Why

Que sera, sera.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Trump team will never, ever, ever, ever, win a case.

Like, ever.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You may want to think over the possibilities that aren’t obvious to you?

Why don’t you just tell me. It would be easier.

Is there anyone you have faith in that doesn’t think Trump lost the election due to massive fraud?

Didn’t require “massive fraud.” It only required massive throwing out of the Constitutional requirements to validate ballots by some valid means of authentication.

I am done this discussion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

sallybutler:

I think the answer to your question is “NEVER, EVER, EVER” a stomp of the foot, followed by a “so there”. A sticking out of the tongue may be added by some for extra emphasis.

These are (in many cases) testimonies under oath.

If you are referring to signed affidavits that sitting in a binder somewhere, or waved around at a rally, no, that does not constitute a sworn testimony under oath. For that you would need to have an actual court to accept the affidavits into evidence as part of a lawsuit. I don’t recall that ever happening.

During the McCarthy era, Senator McCarty was famous for waving around a piece of paper that he claimed contained the names of communists in America. But he never showed anybody the list long enough for them to read it. It was just a prop. I wonder if the supposed evidence of massive voter fraud is not the same thing?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why should this election be subject to a criterion that was never required of any other election in history?

One very good reason…

The large number of mail-in ballots that were accepted in the states still in play where ballot authentication and chain of custody requirements were entirely disregarded by election officials .

Just an allegation, yet you state it as if it were an established fact.

There are literally millions of votes in those states where proof of identity for who cast those ballots was not required.

Proof is a relative term. The election officials and the state law determined the proof to be good enough for them.

And there was no measure put in place to even authenticate signatures…

You mean there was no signature on record for the voter? None at all?

and no way for independent, neutral or bipartisan monitors to assess whether the supposed matching was accurate or done at all.

That has yet to be determined.

In PA, the justices of the Pennsylvania court decreed that no ballots would be rejected solely on the basis of the signatures not matching.

That is the law in Pennsylvania. If Republicans wanted a different law, they should have thought of that before the election. You can’t change the rules after the election is over.