2020 Election Fraud Thread (Part 2)

[Ombudsman]

@johnwk2

And we all know what the PA Constitution actually states with regard to ballots which are mailed in. But thank you for the interpretation.

Only Johnwk is allowed to interpret the PA constitution.

[LucyLou]

@WorldWatcher

Let’s cut through the demagoguery, and examine the question from a logical standpoint using set theory.

Premise:

• There is a population consisting of A, B, C, D, E, and F (the set).
• The State Constitution says that A, B, and C ** SHALL ** be afforded and opportunity, upon advanced request, to vote via mail.
• Anyone in sub-set A, B, and C that chooses not to vote via mail can still vote on Election Day.
• Those in sub-set D, E, and F will have the opportunity to vote on election day.

The legislature updates the law after reviewing the State Constitution that says:

1. Persons in sub-set A, B, and C shall have the ability to vote via mail because of inability to vote on Election Day.
2. Persons in sub-set D, E, and F shall also have the ability to vote via mail if they choose not to vote on Election Day.

With the new Republican passed legislation (Act 77):

1. The Constitutional ** SHALL ** requirement for those in sub-set A, B, and C are still met as they are afforded the opportunity to use mail-in ballots if the choose.
2. The legislature extending no-excuse mail in voting to sub-set D, E, and F does not restrict sub-set A, B, and C.

The legislature is free to allow no-excuse mail-in voting because it affords, at a minimum, mail-in voting the sub-set A, B, and C. Since the state Constitution does not limit mail-in voting to sub set A, B, and C - the legislature can make it available to sub-set D, E, and F with no conflict.

WW

Thanks for that cogent explanation.

[WuWei]

@DougBH

@WuWei

Show 2 cases.

Two cases of someone being influenced by another person to fill out a ballot a certain way, or being paid to vote a certain way, or that it is possible to put social pressure on someone to vote a certain way?
No. That is silly.

Then it is not a concern and no reason to make voting harder. Unclench your fist and let it go. If we can bank on line, we can vote from home or on line.

Trump wasn’t cheated, he lost.

[WuWei]

Not bad.

[johnwk2]

@WorldWatcher

Let’s cut through the demagoguery, and examine the question from a logical standpoint using set theory.

No. Let us look at what the PA Constitution actually states with regard to ballots which are mailed in.

§ 14. Absentee voting:

“(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.”

Why is the Democrat Party Leadership and its partners in crime, so intent on forcing no-excuse mail-in voting on the people when countless countries have banned no-excuse mail-in voting?

Please explain how to confirm that the one who filled out a no-excuse mail-in ballot and made the choices thereon and sent it in, is the actual person whose name appears on the ballot.

JWK

[LucyLou]

@johnwk2

Why is the Democrat Party Leadership and its partners in crime, so intent on forcing no-excuse mail-in voting on the people when countless countries have banned no-excuse mail-in voting?

They haven’t banned it. They just haven’t set it up yet.

USA is a leader, not a follower. We’re better and freer than Europe.

[johnwk2]

@LucyLou

@johnwk2

Why is the Democrat Party Leadership and its partners in crime, so intent on forcing no-excuse mail-in voting on the people when countless countries have banned no-excuse mail-in voting?

They haven’t banned it. They just haven’t set it up yet.

Baloney. They certainly have banned it.

Developed countries ‘ban’ mail-in voting, US would be ‘laughing stock’: Report

[DougBH]

@WuWei

@DougBH

@WuWei

Show 2 cases.

Two cases of someone being influenced by another person to fill out a ballot a certain way, or being paid to vote a certain way, or that it is possible to put social pressure on someone to vote a certain way?
No. That is silly.

Then it is not a concern and no reason to make voting harder. Unclench your fist and let it go. If we can bank on line, we can vote from home or on line.

Trump wasn’t cheated, he lost.

I have never said there was sufficient evidence for Trump to legitimately claim that the election was stollen from him.
This has nothing to do with the principle that, when there is no undue hardship, secure voting precautions should be used to guarantee the legitimacy of our elections.
Showing up and using ID to vote in a secret ballot is not undue hardship.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

This has nothing to do with the principle that, when there is no undue hardship, secure voting precautions should be used to guarantee the legitimacy of our elections.

Whose “priniciple” is that?

It’s certainly not one of ours.

[DougBH]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@DougBH

This has nothing to do with the principle that, when there is no undue hardship, secure voting precautions should be used to guarantee the legitimacy of our elections.

Whose “priniciple” is that?

It’s certainly not one of ours.

Certainly not a principle of Democrats to want to guarantee secure, legitimate elections. I agree.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Certainly not a principle of Democrats to want to guarantee secure, legitimate elections. I agree.

Yes, I think it’s safe to say that “Democrats” don’t support the “principle” that voting rights can be restricted as Republicans wish, unless those restrictions present an “undue hardship.”

Do you understand what “undue hardship” means? It’s a well-defined legal term.

[DougBH]

Yes, we know you went to law school recently.

Commonly, undue hardship means hardship that isn’t undue.

Like catching a ride about half a mile to your latest polling place, showing your ID, and secretly, in private, casting your vote free of intimidation or fraud.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Commonly, undue hardship means hardship that isn’t undue.

What “hardship” is due, for someone who wants to exercise their right to vote?

“Undue hardship” is a legal defense - a specific set of circumstances that allows one who owes a duty to be exempt from fulfilling that duty.

In the context of voting, it is the state that owes the duty to the citizen, not the other way around.

[DougBH]

This is not a legal brief, this is a post in a political forum.

Come back down to earth, man.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

This is not a legal brief, this is a post in a political forum.

Come back down to earth, man.

You’re the one who used the term, to sound all legal and stuff.

Again - what hardship is due, from a citizen seeking to exercise their right to vote?

[DougBH]

Undue is a word in English.
Hardship is a word in English.
Words in English have relevant meanings in sentences when they are not used as phrases of art in some legal brief.
Put down that legal dictionary.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Undue is a word in English.
Hardship is a word in English.

Yes, they are.

Again - for the third time - what hardship is due?

What hardships should someone who wants to exercise their right to vote be subjected to?

[DougBH]

Just change “undue hardship” to “a great deal of hardship”.
Happy?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

Just change “undue hardship” to “a great deal of hardship”.
Happy?

Ok. But you haven’t answered the question.

How much hardship do you believe an American citizen should be subjected to, in order to be allowed to vote?

What does “a great deal” mean? Is it ok to subject citizens to a medium amount of hardship?

[WorldWatcher]

@johnwk2

Why is the Democrat Party Leadership and its partners in crime, so intent on forcing no-excuse mail-in voting on the people when countless countries have banned no-excuse mail-in voting?

It was Republicans that passed no excuse mail in voting in PA with Republicans voting 27-0 in a passage vote of 35-14.

WW