Democrat voter fraud is on!

[FriscoDog]

Interesting videos from PA...


https://twitter.com/Shannon51615584/status/1324551395790352384?s=19



I mean it takes a long time to count them if you have to fill them out first..

[Guisslapp]

They only do that to ones that don’t scan.

Typically you have adjudicators from each party involved when there is an issue of ascertaining voter intent.

[FriscoDog]

They only do that to ones that don’t scan.

Typically you have adjudicators from each party involved when there is an issue of ascertaining voter intent.

It's being reported that PA is not allowing adjudicators from Trump's campaign in the building to watch the recount defying a judges order.

[Guisslapp]

It's being reported that PA is not allowing adjudicators from Trump's campaign in the building to watch the recount defying a judges order.

No it’s not.

[dawg80]

They only do that to ones that don’t scan.

Typically you have adjudicators from each party involved when there is an issue of ascertaining voter intent.

Except when GOP observers are kicked out of the room, to the cheers of the commie bastards...

There is NO doubt the Dems cheated across the country. In some states the legit vote was such that the cheating was not enough to change the outcome. Of course without some research I don't know how many local elections were affected. But on the national stage Trump won states by HUGE margins and/or Biden won states with enough legit votes that the added cheating only added to the final totals, making Biden look better than he actually garnered.

Then there are these "contested" states where the legit vote was close...close enough that midway thru election night the Dems identified those they could cheat their way to stealing the election. That is why we saw "we have shut down the counting" in many key locations. The Lt Gov of Penn said they would just keep counting until Harris-Biden won...he said that! Bam! Might not matter now, since the Dems beat them to it in Georgia.

Now, the Dems WILL steal the pending Senate races in Georgia and probably NC too. That'll be enough to give them all three segments.

[Guisslapp]

Guys, people don’t count the votes most places. Certainly not in Pennsylvania.

Machines do the counting.

Adjudicators from both parties work together to determine and verify voter intent for ballots that aren’t able to be scanned. They also work together to determine eligibility on provisional ballots. Usually this involves generating a new corrected ballot to feed to the machine. Both the original and corrected get stamped and retained.

The lawsuit was about additional people from the party being allowed to watch the process - not participate in the adjudication process.

It should be noted that the Pennsylvania law in question merely says they have to be allowed in the room, which they were. The allegations of the lawsuit was that they were not allowed close enough to really see what is going on. If you are a die hard originalist, BTW, you would think the court decided it wrong.

[dawg80]

Guys, people don’t count the votes most places. Certainly not in Pennsylvania.

Machines do the counting.

Adjudicators from both parties work together to determine and verify voter intent for ballots that aren’t able to be scanned. They also work together to determine eligibility on provisional ballots. Usually this involves generating a new corrected ballot to feed to the machine. Both the original and corrected get stamped and retained.

The lawsuit was about additional people from the party being allowed to watch the process - not participate in the adjudication process.

It should be noted that the Pennsylvania law in question merely says they have to be allowed in the room, which they were. The allegations of the lawsuit was that they were not allowed close enough to really see what is going on. If you are a die hard originalist, BTW, you would think the court decided it wrong.

What are you referring to? The SC vote that ended 4-4 and left the Penn SC ruling in place?

[Guisslapp]

What are you referring to? The SC vote that ended 4-4 and left the Penn SC ruling in place?

PA statute pertaining to watching of the canvassing:

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-2...t-25-2650.html

Such watchers or attorneys may exercise the same rights as watchers at registration and polling places

PA statute regarding rights of watchers at polling places:

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-2...t-25-2687.html

After the close of the polls and while the ballots are being counted or voting machine canvassed, all the watchers shall be permitted to be in the polling place outside the enclosed space.

PA definition of polling place:

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-2...t-25-2602.html

(q) The words “polling place” shall mean the room provided in each election district for voting at a primary or election.

[Guisslapp]

So, if you are okay with courts legislating from the bench and rewriting the statute and granting additional rights to poll watchers beyond that which is written in the statute, just be aware that is inconsistent with originalism.

[dawg80]

So, if you are okay with courts legislating from the bench and rewriting the statute and granting additional rights to poll watchers beyond that which is written in the statute, just be aware that is inconsistent with originalism.

That was not what I was referring to...but I will look into this. My first reaction is , No! I am not okay with any judges legislating from the bench. I believe I have been very consistent on that matter.

The US Constitution grants to state legislatures the power/authority to establish the rules by which elections will be conducted. I was referring to the Penn SC "over-ruling" the Penn legislature and allowing for ballots to be declared acceptable beyond the established deadline, and then the US SC's vote ending 4-4 thus leaving the Penn SC ruling in place. In BOTH cases the Penn and US SCs legislated from the bench, else the SC ruling should have been 8-0 to overturn the Penn SC ruling.

BTW, this so-called BS about Barrett making the US SC 6-3 conservative is just that, BS. If anything the court is now 5-4 conservative.

[Guisslapp]

That was not what I was referring to...but I will look into this. My first reaction is , No! I am not okay with any judges legislating from the bench. I believe I have been very consistent on that matter.

The US Constitution grants to state legislatures the power/authority to establish the rules by which elections will be conducted. I was referring to the Penn SC "over-ruling" the Penn legislature and allowing for ballots to be declared acceptable beyond the established deadline, and then the US SC's vote ending 4-4 thus leaving the Penn SC ruling in place. In BOTH cases the Penn and US SCs legislated from the bench, else the SC ruling should have been 8-0 to overturn the Penn SC ruling.

BTW, this so-called BS about Barrett making the US SC 6-3 conservative is just that, BS. If anything the court is now 5-4 conservative.

I wouldn’t get to hung up defending originalism. It is a losing proposition and self-contradictory as I have already pointed out.

The US is mostly based on common law traditions (except LA), and common law essentially acknowledges that judges through stare decisis shape law over time.

[Guisslapp]

That was not what I was referring to...but I will look into this. My first reaction is , No! I am not okay with any judges legislating from the bench. I believe I have been very consistent on that matter.

The US Constitution grants to state legislatures the power/authority to establish the rules by which elections will be conducted. I was referring to the Penn SC "over-ruling" the Penn legislature and allowing for ballots to be declared acceptable beyond the established deadline, and then the US SC's vote ending 4-4 thus leaving the Penn SC ruling in place. In BOTH cases the Penn and US SCs legislated from the bench, else the SC ruling should have been 8-0 to overturn the Penn SC ruling.

BTW, this so-called BS about Barrett making the US SC 6-3 conservative is just that, BS. If anything the court is now 5-4 conservative.

The PA statute doesn’t say the mail in vote must be received by Election Day, just that it must be marked and put in the envelope.

https://casetext.com/statute/pennsyl...il-in-electors

General rule.--At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o'clock p.m. the day of the primary or election, the mail-in elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed "official election ballot." This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector's county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election.

[Bone_afide_Dawg]

The PA statute doesn’t say the mail in vote must be received by Election Day, just that it must be marked and put in the envelope.

https://casetext.com/statute/pennsyl...il-in-electors

I’m curious are you retired or have a job because you sure have a lot of liberal time on your hands to do little else but be here undermining America and defending the Leftist Socialist agenda.

[inudesu]

Again.

The Dispatch did an excellent job interviewing secretaries of state yesterday in many battleground states -- mostly Republicans and a few Democrats. They are confident in the elections process and you should be too. The biggest concern for election officials is disinformation.

[Guisslapp]

I’m curious are you retired or have a job because you sure have a lot of liberal time on your hands to do little else but be here undermining America and defending the Leftist Socialist agenda.

It is my job to know the law and read and apply statutes. It is my professional and civic duty to support and defend the rule of law, the constitution, and the institutions that make our democracy possible.

My second and more profitable job is being a capitalist.