‘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.
Other than counting illegal ballots,ok to do that after the e,ection is over,apparently🙄
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, that’s the thing, the voting commission changed the law and did not have the authority to change it.
 
Victoria33 said:
That depends. I don’t live in 1860 but if the Courts ruled in favor of slavery with the Dred Scott law, I’d not accept it.
Click to expand...
Easily said. What if you had sworn an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Your stance may have to be different.
 
How about proving with incontrovertible evidence that fraud did not happen?
Click to expand...
That’s no the way the legal system works. It is not up to the defendants to prove something did not occur–in this case fraud. It is up to the plaintiffs to prove fraud DID occur. The burden on proof is on the plaintiffs.
 
Last edited:
Here’s what i don’t understand… given everything that Trump has said and done in the past four years, why is it so difficult for him and his supporters to believe that a majority of the country was sick of him and wanted him out. The 2018 mid-terms were a window into that.
 
Published 4 hours ago

Cruz explains why he agreed to argue Pa. election case if Supreme Court takes it up​

GOP lawsuit challenges state’s 2019 no-excuse mail-in voting law​

By Charles Creitz

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told "Hannity Monday that he agreed to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a key election-related case – should the high court take the matter up – because the matter “raises very serious issues.”

The case brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and Pennsylvania GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell, alleges that a 2019 state law allowing no-excuse mail-in voting is unconstitutional. If the court agrees, according to KDKA, Kelly and Parnell said most of the commonwealth’s mail-in votes in this past presidential election could be thrown out.

Kelly and Parnell were initially granted a stay by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration summarily filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court; a 5-2 Democratic majority. The higher court sided with Wolf, and Kelly’s team moved to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule.

The plaintiffs argue that the state does not have grounds to allow non-absentee vote-by-mail without a constitutional amendment. Nearly 30 Republican members of the state legislature have signed a document in amicus with Kelly and Parnell’s case.

ALITO MOVES UP PENNSYLVANIA’S RESPONSE DATE ON EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO DAY BEFORE SAFE HARBOR DEADLINE

“We supported passage of Act 77 because we believed every Pennsylvanian should have more opportunities to participate in our democratic process,”. . .

“The legislation was carefully drafted to protect the integrity of our elections and included specific provisions relating to deadlines and signature verification,” they continued, adding that the State Supreme Court later “overrule[d] the will of the legislature and governor by changing deadlines and eliminating provisions requiring signature verification, thereby applying much looser standards to mail-in ballots than are applied to ballots cast in person.”

“It raises pure issues of law, and I believe the Supreme Court should choose to take the case,”…

“Right now, it is not healthy for democracy, what we’re seeing, and in Pennsylvania, the problem was made worse because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a partisan Democratic court that issued multiple decisions just on their face contrary to the law,” … “That’s not how elections are supposed to work.”

Cruz noted that the U.S. Supreme Court feels the “urgency” of the moment, given the upcoming “safe harbor” deadline for selecting electors. . . .

Cruz explains why he agreed to argue Pa. election case if Supreme Court takes it up | Fox News

 
Last edited:
Pennsylvania is only one state. The outcome won’t change Biden’s election.

So, let it continue. I can’t see throwing votes out as a remedy, but it seems the Republican way is to prevent people from voting, if that doesn’t work, get the votes thrown out.
 
Victoria33 said:
That depends. I don’t live in 1860 but if the Courts ruled in favor of slavery with the Dred Scott law, I’d not accept it.
Click to expand...
You say that with 20/20 hindsight. But if you lived in the era when the verdict was handed down, your opinion might be different because your upbringing might have been different as compared to it now. All things are relative.
Nepperhan said:
Easily said. What if you had sworn an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Your stance may have to be different.
Click to expand...
IE If she took the oath of a person joining the Military.
 
SouthCatholic1 said:
Here’s what i don’t understand… given everything that Trump has said and done in the past four years, why is it so difficult for him and his supporters to believe that a majority of the country was sick of him and wanted him out. The 2018 mid-terms were a window into that.
Click to expand...
If you read the data you would realize that Trump outperformed 2016 in virtually every jurisdiction except the four or five cities in the states still in play. He is far more popular in 2020 than he was in 2016.

Biden underperformed Obama and even Hillary everywhere except in those same 4 or 5 cities that all had very suspicious stoppage of counting for hours that were pretexts for getting rid of monitors while counting continued. Jurisdictions that had massive influxes of mail-in ballots with virtually no ballot verification or chain of custody requirements being applied to those counted in the middle of the night.
SouthCatholic1 said:
The 2018 mid-terms were a window into that.
Click to expand...
The 2018 midterms absent Trump saw the Republicans lose many House seats. In 2020 they won back many of those.
 
Last edited:
RootKitWarrior said:
You say that with 20/20 hindsight. But if you lived in the era when the verdict was handed down, your opinion might be different because your upbringing might have been different as compared to it now. All things are relative.
Click to expand...
A modern correlative to the issue of slavery would be the issue of abortion. Just as reasonable people then could justify slavery as a social institution on some pretext or other, people today justify abortion according to some currently acceptable rationalization.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
If you read the data you would realize that Trump outperformed 2016 in virtually every jurisdiction except the four or five cities in the states still in play. He is far more popular in 2020 than he was in 2016.
Click to expand...
That’s just another way of saying the nation is more polarized in 2020 than it was in 2016. Nothing surprising about that.
HarryStotle said:
Biden underperformed Obama and even Hillary everywhere except in those same 4 or 5 cities
Click to expand...
So, Biden did not underperform Obama or Hillary overall, which is what matters in elections, not cherry-picked collections of regions.
HarryStotle said:
that all had very suspicious stoppage of counting for hours that were pretexts for getting rid of monitors while counting continued.
Click to expand...
 
Texas is suing and well they should and other states may join them, suing the states that can’t run their own elections that may well be fraudulent or compromised. It affects us all.
 
Victoria33 said:
Texas is suing and well they should and other states may join them, suing the states that can’t run their own elections that may well be fraudulent or compromised. It affects us all.
Click to expand...
Victoria, can you explain why Republicans only have issues with the voting in states that Trump lost? If other states were also fraudulently conducting elections, doesn’t it affect us all?
 
PaulinVA said:
Victoria, can you explain why Republicans only have issues with the voting in states that Trump lost? If other states were also fraudulently conducting elections, doesn’t it affect us all?
Click to expand...
The expected answer?
There was no fraud in states where Trump won.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top