‘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.
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Louisiana have joined the Texas lawsuit.

Edit: It appears Louisiana has joined but no other state has actually joined the suit but are expected to shortly. Their AGs have written official letters of support but not joined.
 
Last edited:
Balto1 said:
48.png
HarryStotle:
This point is exactly why the voters in states such as Texas and Louisiana have standing. Their votes for president were diffused to less than one person one vote, if hundreds of thousands of votes in other states were unlawfully cast.
Click to expand...
Voters don’t elect the president, the electoral college does. If we amended the constitution to make the popular vote elect the president (something I support) then Texas might have an argument against other states. We haven’t done that so Texas has no standing here because Texas voters weren’t harmed in any way.
Click to expand...
The electors are decided by the votes for president in each state. Merely because an extra link is in the chain does not throw out the chain.
 
HarryStotle said:
The electors are decided by the votes for president in each state. Merely because an extra link is in the chain does not throw out the chain.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Texas voters picked the electors in Texas. They weren’t harmed in any way by voters in other states selecting their own electors.
 
Miss Ruby in Georgia filling out bins of blank absentee ballots. Perhaps she can, while she is at it, fill out a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury explaining what she was doing and what happened at the State Farm Center after the monitors were sent home?


The entire video is worth watching. There are shenanigans going on.
Balto1 said:
Texas voters picked the electors in Texas. They weren’t harmed in any way by voters in other states selecting their own electors.
Click to expand...
Voters in other states are harmed if tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots were filled out and scanned by one person.

Ruby, minimally, ought to be seriously investigated along with those bringing her those ballots to fill out.

And still finding ballots in sock drawers in NY.


Nothing says trustworthy like a well run election and finding exactly 12 ballots when the D candidate was down by 12. 🤡
 
Last edited:
Balto1 said:
They weren’t harmed in any way by voters in other states selecting their own electors.
Click to expand...
Only if it was the “voters in other states” that did the selecting. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play here.
Although Clause 2 seemingly vests complete discretion in the states, certain older cases had recognized a federal interest in protecting the integrity of the process.
…
More recently, substantial curbs on state discretion have been instituted by both the Court and the Congress. In Williams v. Rhodes,6 the Court struck down a complex state system that effectively limited access to the ballot to the electors of the two major parties. In the Court’s view, the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored some and disfavored others and burdened both the right of individuals to associate together to advance political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast ballots for electors of their choice.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-1-2-1/ALDE_00001121/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There are no equal protection issues here. Texas voters were not prevented from selecting their candidate/electors. A state doesn’t get to throw a temper tantrum and eliminate another state’s electoral college votes just because it doesn’t like the candidate the other state voted for.
 
HarryStotle said:
Voters in other states are harmed if tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots were filled out and scanned by one person.
Click to expand...
No, if that happened voters within that state could be harmed. Voters in other states would not be harmed, votes in State A don’t have any effect on votes in State B.
 
Last edited:
Balto1 said:
We haven’t done that so Texas has no standing here because Texas voters weren’t harmed in any way.
Click to expand...
I had a question on standing as soon as I heard of this. It hasn’t been established that these states have any obligations to each other as far as voting goes.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Really? I allowed the possibility of 0.00001% of the 161 million votes being illegal. That’s 16.1 illegal votes. So, who got disenfranchised by 16 incorrect votes? That’s less than a typical recount error - which has nothing to do with fraud. It’s just honest errors.
Click to expand...
Your right.
My bad.
I missed a decimal point in your imaginary numbers.

You have no real evidence or facts behind the numbers you made up.
But given the margin of error you made up essentially takes the possibility of errors to such a low number…

Either you made up the wrong number, and accept disenfranchisement of voters; or you made up a right number, and believe, as I do, the any disenfranchisement is wrong.
 
HarryStotle said:
Suppose no finding occurs here, so Republican states begin flooding mail-in ballots out to all and sundry in their counties, relaxing all the legal requirements for ballot verification and hold off counting until the early morning or the next day, week, month or year. Where does it end?
Click to expand...
There are no 100% Republican States. There are just majority Republican states. There are non-partisan eyes on the structure of elections. And most Republicans in power don’t want to cheat anyway, and will call out their colleagues who do cheat, because they love America more than they love their party. So, no, I’m not overly worried about what Republicans will do. And even if such a Republican cabal did exist in a state that was majority Republican, the most they could do would be to swing the state to elect the Republican ticket, which, by the Electoral College, was going to go to the Republican ticket anyway. So doubly no worries!
HarryStotle said:
If the shoe really were on the other foot…
Click to expand...
Speculation, not worth indulging further.
HarryStotle said:
What happened to Do unto others as you would have them do to you ?
Click to expand...
It hasn’t gone anywhere.
HarryStotle said:
If this is not settled in a fair way,…
Click to expand...
A majority of the country would think that overturning Biden’s victory by legislative or court decree would not be fair to those that voted.
HarryStotle said:
Imagine if Trump (who heads the federal executive branch) unilaterally changed election rules
Click to expand...
More speculation.
HarryStotle said:
Because this election was fraught with flagrant abuses of ballot verification.
Click to expand...
Assuming as a predicate that which has not been proven. So we slip from a misplaced burden of proof to circular reasoning.
HarryStotle said:
In which past election were observers shut out from doing what the Constitution requires
Click to expand...
By “observers” do mean one observer who showed up at the wrong precinct? Or the duly assigned observers? Because the latter did not happen in this election either.
…what the Constitution requires to be done - verify signatures to authenticate ballots?
Click to expand...
The Constitution says nothing about verifying signature to authenticate ballots. In fact for many years their were no ballots at all. People cast their vote by voice.
HarryStotle said:
This point is exactly why the voters in states such as Texas and Louisiana have standing. Their votes for president were diffused to less than one person one vote, if hundreds of thousands of votes in other states were unlawfully cast.
Click to expand...
If you want to talk about diffused votes, let’s talk about the Electoral College, which diffuses the power of a voter in California while inflating the power of a voter in Montana.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
You have no real evidence or facts behind the numbers you made up.
But given the margin of error you made up essentially takes the possibility of errors to such a low number…
Click to expand...
The point of my admittedly made-up numbers was that numbers do matter. So it is not enough to point to the possibility of a few votes being cast improperly and say that…
vz71 said:
if there is fraud at all, it needs to be investigated thoroughly and corrected and we need the responsible parties put in prison.
BEFORE the outcome is decided upon.
Click to expand...
We should not suspend the election until every last bit improper voting has be thoroughly investigated. Yes, we should investigate every case of improper voting, and strive to eliminate all of them with reasonable means, just as we should also investigate every case where a legitimate voter who wanted to vote was unable to do so. The numbers involved in that issue are much higher than the number of improperly counted ballots. So let’s do both, starting with the larger one, OK?
 
vz71 said:
As a state in the union, they will be governed in part by the outcome of the election these other states compromised.
Click to expand...
One state cannot sue to block or overturn laws passed in another state.

If they could, can you imagine how many lawsuits to overturn abortion restrictions California would file every day!?
 
billsherman said:
One state cannot sue to block or overturn laws passed in another state.

If they could, can you imagine how many lawsuits to overturn abortion restrictions California would file every day!?
Click to expand...
Yep this one will fail once it comes before the Supreme Court.
 
vz71 said:
They haven’t.
Click to expand...
Oh, but they have:

The filing by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accuses government officials in the four states of using the COVID-19 pandemic to make changes to their states’ election laws through “executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”

As I mentioned above, it is interesting that the Texas Solicitor General is not involved in this case. He always argues their cases before SCOTUS. That he isn’t involved with this one, is an especially bad sign for the merits of the case.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top