2020 Election Fraud Thread (Part 1)

Tom_Ch · 2020-12-17T04:16:11.521Z

PurpnGold:

Call_me_Ishmael:

Good for you. I’m not as generous to cheaters

You don’t see the irony of this statement?

He or she doesn’t. I guarantee it.

Snowfinch · 2020-12-17T04:23:44.100Z

johnwk2:

To the contrary!

Just for your information, it was argued in RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR REVIEW” that:

This … is … a … different … case.

It was not argued in my linked filing which is PAs response to the TX complaint. The complaint that does not bring up the issue in this case.

So your rejection of this argument IN … AN … OTHER … CASE does not play double duty as a response the PA filing in the case we are discussing.

So it makes no sense that you posted that you already addressed the PA response to Texas page 14 by addressing an argument in this OTHER CASE, and argument not made in relation to the Texas case. At all.

So not to the contrary.

(In addition, your position on the constitution controlling the legislature weakens the Texas case and strengthens PA’s response. I get that we have one party arguing opposing views in different cases, but as far as the Texas case your position aids PA to a degree)

Tom_Ch · 2020-12-17T04:33:02.974Z

Call_me_Ishmael:

Now that SCOTUS says they are staying out of it, there is no higher power above the president of the senate that will stop him from performing the function in the way HE thinks is consistent with the constitution…even if everyone else disagrees.And if THE SCOTUS doesn’t call it unconstitutional, it’s legit… as legit as your fraud.

He really has no option but to right the wrong that was done to America.

I doubt pence will do that. Considering he has not been outspoken about the “fraud” as his boss. He doesn’t want to be the man known in history to actually steal the election in front of the senate. Trump is not worth it. Seeing how trump will use you and throw you out like a piece of trash.

johnwk2 · 2020-12-17T04:34:48.508Z

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

To the contrary!

Just for your information, it was argued in RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR REVIEW” that:

This … is … a … different … case.

It was not argued in my linked filing which is PAs response to the TX complaint. The complaint that does not bring up the issue in this case.

So your rejection of this argument IN … AN … OTHER … CASE does not play double duty as a response the PA filing in the case we are discussing.

So it makes no sense that you posted that you already addressed the PA response to Texas page 14 by addressing an argument in this OTHER CASE, and argument not made in relation to the Texas case. At all.

So not to the contrary.

In response to the unconstitutional nature of no-excuse mail in ballots, the argument was in fact made as follows:

Pa. Const. art. VII, § 14(a) (brackets and numbers added). This provision singles out four categories of voters who must be allowed to vote by absentee ballot. It provides a floor, not a ceiling—the legislature must allow voters in these four categories to cast absentee ballots, but may go further and allow othercategories of voters to do so, including by allowing any voter to opt to cast a mailin ballot. Petitioners’ attempt to read Article VII, § 14 more narrowly violates basic rules of construction

SEE: RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR REVIEW

JWK

Snowfinch · 2020-12-17T04:41:36.922Z

johnwk2:

In response to the unconstitutional nature of no-excuse mail in ballots, the argument was in fact made as follows:

That’s fine and nobody is disputing that.

But you erroneously claimed it was argued in PA’s response to the Texas suit. It was not.

In fact you posted this directly in response to my post pointing out that this argument was not being made in PA’s response to Texas’s complaint.

johnwk2:

Snowfinch:

But that is not the argument in the PA response. At all. Not at all at all.

In fact an element of the response argues the opposite.

To the contrary!

johnwk2 · 2020-12-17T04:50:06.718Z

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

In response to the unconstitutional nature of no-excuse mail in ballots, the argument was in fact made as follows:

That’s fine and nobody is disputing that.

But you erroneously claimed it was argued in PA’s response to the Texas suit.

I did not erroneously claim what you suggest. I have been arguing the illegality of PA’s mail in ballots, and more specifically, no-excuse mail in ballots. And I offered the absurd thinking and “response” presented by PA to the Court in support of no-excuse mail in ballots.

JWK

Snowfinch · 2020-12-17T05:05:03.721Z

johnwk2:

I did not erroneously claim what you suggest. I have been arguing the illegality of PA’s mail in ballots, and more specifically, no-excuse mail in ballots. And I offered the absurd thinking and “response” presented by PA to the Court in support of no-excuse mail in ballots.

No you didn’t. And you didn’t offer PA’s response, I did, and it was to the Texas complaint not this other case. And to that you said:

johnwk2:

Snowfinch:

But that is not the argument in the PA response. At all. Not at all at all.

In fact an element of the response argues the opposite.

To the contrary!

I set the context of the PA response in this exchange not you. And it was in the TX case not this other case. And you were responding to that.

Switching the context of “the PA response” after the fact may look like you were not in error, but it was in fact an illogical response to the post it was directed to. And the “to the contrary” makes it hard to argue that it was an independent musing rather than a direct response.

PA did not make this argument in the filing we were discussing. I said that they did not and you said: “to the contrary” and posted a DIFFERENT filing from a DIFFERENT case.

Riding the tilt-o-whirl.

johnwk2 · 2020-12-17T05:18:56.858Z

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

I did not erroneously claim what you suggest. I have been arguing the illegality of PA’s mail in ballots, and more specifically, no-excuse mail in ballots. And I offered the absurd thinking and “response” presented by PA to the Court in support of no-excuse mail in ballots.

No you didn’t.

I most certainly did. You simply are misconstruing my use of “to the contrary” which was intended to apply to PA’s response to the argument that no-excuse mail in ballots violate PA’s constitution.

I hope that clears this up.

JWK

When our judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

GrandWazoo · 2020-12-17T05:33:18.286Z

Tom_Ch:

I doubt pence will do that. Considering he has not been outspoken about the “fraud” as his boss. He doesn’t want to be the man known in history to actually steal the election in front of the senate. Trump is not worth it. Seeing how trump will use you and throw you out like a piece of trash.

McConnell is telling the Republicans in the Senate not to try anything that would be embarrassing.
That might not stop one or two of them to raise a ruckus. But then it would go to committee and be shot down. All of this should be automatic. And there are enough R’s that are making this a circus.

Tom_Ch · 2020-12-17T06:59:43.900Z

GrandWazoo:

Tom_Ch:

I doubt pence will do that. Considering he has not been outspoken about the “fraud” as his boss. He doesn’t want to be the man known in history to actually steal the election in front of the senate. Trump is not worth it. Seeing how trump will use you and throw you out like a piece of trash.

McConnell is telling the Republicans in the Senate not to try anything that would be embarrassing.
That might not stop one or two of them to raise a ruckus. But then it would go to committee and be shot down. All of this should be automatic. And there are enough R’s that are making this a circus.

Yes. Just delaying the inevitable.

Paul_Thomson · 2020-12-17T07:45:23.930Z

Tom_Ch:

I doubt pence will do that. Considering he has not been outspoken about the “fraud” as his boss. He doesn’t want to be the man known in history to actually steal the election in front of the senate. Trump is not worth it. Seeing how trump will use you and throw you out like a piece of trash.

Pence might be quite willing to go down in history as the man who stopped the handing over of the US to the Chinese Communist Party via compromised Democrat Party personnel.

Ceasar · 2020-12-17T07:47:28.534Z

It will go down as the biggest election fraud ever. Biden & Harris illegitimate.

mobiusptc · 2020-12-17T08:02:49.641Z

Paul_Thomson:

Tom_Ch:

I doubt pence will do that. Considering he has not been outspoken about the “fraud” as his boss. He doesn’t want to be the man known in history to actually steal the election in front of the senate. Trump is not worth it. Seeing how trump will use you and throw you out like a piece of trash.

Pence might be quite willing to go down in history as the man who stopped the handing over of the US to the Chinese Communist Party via compromised Democrat Party personnel.

I’m looking forward to seeing how that.

How exactly will it occur? And what time and date?

biggestal99 · 2020-12-17T09:41:54.845Z

Paul_Thomson:

Biden’s so-called “win” depends on the unaudited vote count in only four Democrats controlled cities with Democrat controlled electoral boards that are resisting attempts to have their ballots accurately audited. Without those four cities’ anomalous vote tallies, he loses

No need for quotation marks around win. Joe Biden won. Donald trump lost. Those unadulterated facts.

Allan

biggestal99 · 2020-12-17T09:44:31.848Z

Ceasar:

It will go down as the biggest election fraud ever.

Maybe to you. But you are but one person. Most citizens will recognize biden as president and of course more importantly the military will recognize him as CIC.

He won the presidency.

Allan

Paul_Thomson · 2020-12-17T09:49:04.178Z

mobiusptc:

How exactly will it occur? And what time and date?

According to Trump’s 2018 EO re election interference, intelligence agencies are due to report to Trump on what they have observed in terms of foreign interference 45 days after election day. if collusion with China by US businesses and politicians has been traced, there are severe sanctions in place for both China and those US citizens assisting them. Those reports will be presented before the end of December. If the DNC and the Biden campaign were colluding with China, the greatest threat to international freedoms, it’s hard to see how the reins of power will be handed over to them.

Paul_Thomson · 2020-12-17T09:52:15.568Z

peek-a-boo:

I really don’t have to watch all of the minutia being presented in the hearings to know that nothing that would change the outcome of the election has been found. If it had, it would have been front page news.

How naive.

biggestal99 · 2020-12-17T09:52:38.760Z

Paul_Thomson:

According to Trump’s 2018 EO re election interference, intelligence agencies are due to report to Trump on what they have observed in terms of foreign interference 45 days after election day. if collusion with China by US businesses and politicians has been traced, there are severe sanctions in place for both China and those US citizens assisting them. Those reports will be presented before the end of December. If the DNC and the Biden campaign were colluding with China, the greatest threat to international freedoms, it’s hard to see how the reins of power will be handed over to them.

It’s not handing over the reins. Biden won the election. It’s in the constitution.

Now if he is such a great threat, there is the impeachment process to remove him.

Allan

Paul_Thomson · 2020-12-17T09:55:10.424Z

biggestal99:

Now if he is such a great threat, there is the impeachment process to remove him.

If the DNC was colluding with China to take the presidency, no Democrat should be in the presidency. Impeachment would simply replace one of the colluders with another.

biggestal99 · 2020-12-17T09:57:22.493Z

Paul_Thomson:

If the DNC was colluding with China to take the presidency, no Democrat should be in the presidency. Impeachment would simply replace one of the colluders with another.

So no Democratic Party candidate can ever be president again?

Maybe we should just ban opposition to the republicans.

Allan