Which is the endgame, and why they use the dehumanizing language they do.Quote:
If you make it so that someone so toxic in the legal community that they can't hire a lawyer you've really denied that person any form of justice.
Which is the endgame, and why they use the dehumanizing language they do.Quote:
If you make it so that someone so toxic in the legal community that they can't hire a lawyer you've really denied that person any form of justice.
There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.richardag said:No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.eric76 said:I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".richardag said:So you don't believe in the rule of law.eric76 said:
I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.
It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.
As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.
Ellis Wyatt said:
Their side won, therefore anyone who suggests shenanigans is a conspiracy theorist and a threat to democracy.
Have they, though?AgLiving06 said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Their side won, therefore anyone who suggests shenanigans is a conspiracy theorist and a threat to democracy.
This is right.
The left knew this would likely only work once, but they took full advantage of it. Under the cover of COVID, they implemented a plan to change the rules, just long enough, to get Biden elected, and now the rules have reverted.
They knew what they did was likely wrong and unconstitutional, but the ends justified it.
If Biden loses (and hopefully he does), we should have clear stats to prove out that the claims were correct and when they can't change the rules, suddenly they aren't as successful as they were.
In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.eric76 said:
There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.
Is that what you are talking about?
I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.Ellis Wyatt said:In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.eric76 said:
There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.
Is that what you are talking about?
Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.eric76 said:I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.Ellis Wyatt said:
In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.
However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.
That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.Ellis Wyatt said:Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.eric76 said:I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.Ellis Wyatt said:
In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.
However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.
Both happened in 2020.
Not necessarily. For the most part those judges and election officialsare themselves elected. Not allowing the public to know their malfeasance so they can be booted out of office is a disservice to those voters.Quote:
That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.
Eric said,"Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it."eric76 said:There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.richardag said:No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.eric76 said:I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".richardag said:So you don't believe in the rule of law.eric76 said:
I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.
It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.
As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.
Is that what you are talking about?
Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it.
Again, that is on whoever did that, but you can't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters for following the rules that were given to them.
I'm not saying that those changing the rules should not be reprimanded or prosecuted for their actions. If they acted illegally, prosecute them for that.aggiehawg said:Not necessarily. For the most part those judges and election officialsare themselves elected. Not allowing the public to know their malfeasance so they can be booted out of office is a disservice to those voters.Quote:
That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.
I wish people would learn how to post.richardag said:eric76 said:There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.richardag said:No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.eric76 said:I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".richardag said:So you don't believe in the rule of law.eric76 said:
I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.
It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.
As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.
Is that what you are talking about?
Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it.Again, that is on whoever did that, but you can't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters for following the rules that were given to them.
- they broke the law because those votes were illegal
- So you don't believe in the rule of law
Thanks for the clarification. I edited my post.aggiehawg said:
FTR: The votes are not "illegal" they are invalid. There's a difference.
There very well could some illegal actions that lead to votes being invalid then again there may not have been. In either event, invalid votes are not to be counted.
And the inability to sequester questionable votes effectively is at the heart of the issue in going from precinct level counting to central counting centers. Those central counting seemed very counterintuitve during covid. Made zer sense to cram more people into the same place, unless the goal was to exclude the observers.
The votes should have been thrown out as per the law. We are supposed a country that believes in the rule of law.Ellis Wyatt said:Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.eric76 said:I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.Ellis Wyatt said:
In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.
However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.
Both happened in 2020.
She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.Quote:
She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.
Thanks for correcting me. I will edit my post. I was thinking she accessed the data improperly alone and was required to has other people present.aggiehawg said:She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.Quote:
She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.
aggiehawg said:
I just want to say that those of you who have taken the time to read that very long piece, THANK YOU!
I remember when the polls closed, Trump had a commanding lead in Penn, over 400K.richardag said:
aggiehawg
Quote from the article;Where are the journalists @ABC, CBS, NBC?
- To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that: 120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania was 80,000.
So those deciding whether or not they match are going to base their decisions on nothing but bias?PA24 said:
"The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That means no signature was ever going to get disqualified and in Fulton County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature verification".
In full view For all to see and no laws were broken as Sec of State approved the deal months before the election.
The Secretary of State is not the legislature. Unless he was specifically granted the authority to make decisions like that, he doesn't have that power.PA24 said:
"The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That means no signature was ever going to get disqualified and in Fulton County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature verification".
In full view For all to see and no laws were broken as Sec of State approved the deal months before the election.
richardag said:Thanks for correcting me. I will edit my post. I was thinking she accessed the data improperly alone and was required to has other people present.aggiehawg said:She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.Quote:
She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.
Not confined to election denial at #CSPOAVegas, Tina Peters goes full conspiracist, telling the crowd that the Lahaina Hawaii fire was intentionally caused by a "microwave weapon that's in a tube of a laser." pic.twitter.com/2jOJpfCXAa
— Devin Burghart (@dburghart) April 17, 2024
Both Biden and Trump.TRADUCTOR said:
Identify law, abuse and disrespect the law. People follow suit. Lemmings... look at the border patrol employees ignoring and abusing law as ordered to do by really smart evil people. Evil that can chart a path and skate to their goal assisted by lemmings. Integrity should not go out the window doing as told. History shows otherwise.
Weak people comprise the massive foundation of #FJB
Quote:
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) A Texas appeals court has ruled that Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton can face discipline from the state bar association over his failed effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
A disciplinary committee of the State Bar of Texas accused Paxton in 2022 of making false claims of fraud in a lawsuit that questioned President Joe Biden's victory. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeals said Paxton can be sanctioned by the committee because the lawsuit seeks to punish him in his personal capacity as an attorney and not as a public official.
"The focus of the Commission's allegations is squarely on Paxton's alleged misconduct not that of the State," Judge Erin Nowell, an elected Democrat, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.
The lone Republican on the panel, Judge Emily Miskel, was in dissent.
A similar lawsuit was also brought against one of Paxton's top deputies. Earlier this week, a coalition of state Republican attorneys general urged the Texas Supreme Court to reject efforts by the bar to impose discipline. All nine members of the state's highest civil court are Republicans.
"As in that case, we will appeal this ruling and we have full confidence the Supreme Court of Texas will not allow false claims by the State Bar and partisan political revenge to affect professional licensure of the state's lawyers," Paxton spokeswoman Paige Willey said in a statement.
A spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas and the committee accusing Paxton declined to comment on the ruling.
Paxton is among the highest-profile attorneys to face a threat of sanctions for aiding in efforts led by former President Donald Trump to throw into question Trump's defeat.
Free link via Yahoo.