If Trump loses and refuses to leave

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

42 minutes ago, I-town Bills said:

Election law requires a showing that the process deprived a candidate of a fair and free election that affected the outcome. Like the opinion states, elections are about ballots not briefs. Pointing out a sometimes sloppy process is evidence for improving the process for future elections. Elections are held twice every two years so there are always systemic problems. Abusing the legal process is clearly not what elections are about. I assume you know the significance of the burden of proof. 

Simply declaring “abuse of the legal process” does not make it so, that’s the beauty of the legal process.  
 

I offered no opinion on the righteousness of the decision, it’s irrelevant how I feel about that.   I simply pointed out why it’s a relatively straight line transaction from election results to concerns of widespread and systemic problems of which you speak.   
 

I can understand why those on the left want Trump to stand down, but by flushing out these problems now, at a minimum we can fix them moving forward.  Of course, that assumes there is any desire to actually fix the problems inherent in the system. 
 

In any given county for example, it seems perfectly acceptable to solicit feedback and clarity on ballots from a select group of voters.  On top of that, having no guidelines about who(m) can/cannot be counted varies by county, so the process is there is no process.  The potential for collusion among those responsible for ensuring accuracy county to county is substantial.  It can be as simple as “call any potential Biden voters and disregard Trump voters, and next county over—don’t call anyone”.  Does that make sense to you as a voter in 2020?  Is this a really complicated issue, having one standard?  It applies in every other aspect of life with the State. 
 

I guess what I’m saying is that when folks bemoan the assault on democracy as a campaign challenges results, it’s pretty easy to look at Pennsylvania and think “you people could &$@@ up a wet dream.”.  Let’s get it all out there.  There is no downside. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[HappyDays]

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The first concerns I heard regarding Pennsylvania dealt with restricted access for poll watchers, undue limitations on accessibility and concerns about fairness.  When speaking with a friend, he was quite animated about stories of poll watchers being kept 25 feet away from the “process”

 

There are no specific federal guidelines on poll watchers, it's left up to the states. But the Trump campaign failed to show any specific harm or discrimination towards Trump voters. Alleging unfairness is not the same as alleging fraud, and they didn't even prove unfairness. Their claim is not "poll watchers caught examples of fraud", it's "poll watchers were not allowed to be as close as they'd like" and it's impossible to argue that the second claim is worthy of throwing out the election given it has never been used as a standard before.

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’ll leave it to others to discuss and debate what’s fair or not, but this document states that voting laws and regulation in Pennsylvania amount to little more than ‘trust us, it’s fair’ while detailing that 67 different counties can choose 67 different methodologies within a broad framework of rules.

 

No, this is utter nonsense. Poll watching is just one aspect of how they monitor their elections. They still do signature checking, reviews of the voter record, registration requirements, etc. that are uniform throughout the state. The Trump campaign is hyper focused on poll watching in this case because they know it's their only shot, as thin as it may be. Since they are only contesting the results on the basis of poll watching, the court has to issue its decision on that basis. So they (correctly) state that poll watching guidelines have always been left up to the individual districts in Pennsylvania, and that the Trump campaign could not factually demonstrate how these differing guidelines hurt Trump voters. They aren't talking about "voting laws and regulation in Pennsylvania" as a whole because the Trump campaign didn't even bother trying to prove that any other part of the process was done unfairly. Their only claim is that the guidelines of poll watching and defective mail-in ballots are different in each district, and therefore the results of the election should be thrown out. They're missing about 5 steps between the initial claim and the conclusion, and the court is telling them to knock it off.

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There really is no guideline for poll watching beyond the fact that they stay 6’ away from voters.  So, some will be 6’, some could be 30.  The law is set up to court controversy, and I’d hazard a guess that any campaign that thought they were on the wrong side of the fair access standard would have an issue with this.  It’s absurd that there is not one standard established.

 

Okay. So find me an example where a state or federal court threw out the results of an election because poll watchers weren't close enough. Come on man. This is such a small technicality. Any campaign that tries to pursue it as a means of throwing out the results of an election they lost is not acting in good faith. That's the main point of the court's decision. The campaign is trying to throw out legally cast votes on technicalities without actually alleging that any fraud happened as a result of the technicalities. It's as undemocratic as it gets.

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The 67 different counties have potentially 67 different standards for voter outreach in the event there are technical discrepancies in a mail in ballot.  Some chose to contact voters.  Some did not.  The reality here is that not every county is built the same, has the same resources or the same capability for outreach.  By extension a voter in one county is treated as if his vote really matters, another irrelevant.  Again, how difficult is it to establish one standard instead of allowing 67?

 

Same as what said I above. This is a dumb technicality. It isn't going to be used to throw out an election. If Republicans want uniform standards they should try and pass laws before the election rather than seeking to throw out votes after the process has concluded. Running to the courts and asking them to throw you a life vest is really bad form. It really kind of disgusts me that they are trying to take away votes from people that cast their ballot in good faith. Why does it not disgust you?

 

Also, why do certain districts not contact early voters if they find defects on the ballot? Why would any of them throw out votes because the voter missed one little step rather than acting in good faith and sending it back to be corrected? Do you think technicalities like that should be used to determine if a vote should count? I for one think that is wrong. And what a coincidence, the districts that tend to let defective ballots go unfixed are mostly held by Republicans. Why do they try at every turn to stop American citizens from participating in the electoral process? What are they afraid of?

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The issue regarding timeliness of the amendment on page 10. The election was November 3rd, the case makes its way through the process with an amendment filed in November 15.  The campaign filed the amended complaint on November 20.  I thought this was interesting:

 

It would have mooted the existing motions to dismiss and required new briefing, possibly new oral argument, and a reasoned judicial opinion within seventy-two hours over a weekend. 
 

I’m thinking that by applying that standard, the notion of a free and important election is vital to our country, but any discussion thereof certainly must be shelved on November 7,8,14,15, 21 and 22 when the justices are at fundraisers, or perhaps watching the Eagles play. 

 

Oh, who really cares? The campaign has done nothing to show they can prove the claims they are raising. Even if they could prove their claims they still would not be proving fraud. They are literally just tossing as many technicalities at the system as possible and hoping one of them sticks. When all else fails, they try to just delay the process even more. Courts don't let that little kid stuff fly. I'm glad the court shot them down so thoroughly. Don't leave any more room for their BS.

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What I see here is evidence of a system so &$#@ed up that it can only have been designed by public servants at the highest levels of government.  It’s basically Electoral Thunderdome, and I’m not even debating the lawfulness of the ruling.  

 

Really? Because districts have different standards for poll watching and correcting defective mail in ballots, it's "electoral thunderdome?" Get a grip. There are plenty of electoral mechanisms in place to ensure voter fraud does not happen. A few cases are caught every election cycle and those found guilty are fined and go to prison. It is not easy to commit fraud and the risk/reward makes it stupid to try.

 

I find it especially comical that the Trump campaign is so focused on poll watching in Philadelphia. I mean really. Do they think anyone believes that if poll watchers in a Democratic stronghold had stood exactly 6 feet away from the ballot counters that somehow Trump would have made up an 80,000 vote deficit?

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What amazes me even more is that governmental agencies are famous for overreach.  Virtually everything we do requires a form submitted with appropriate documentation in triplicate, and failure to properly submit results in immediate disqualification.   I tried to get the enhanced Drivers License in NYS and was rejected because the DMV office didn’t like one of the forms of ID I submitted.

 

Getting a driver's license is not a constitutional right. Undue burdens on voter registration are unconstitutional. Of course they can't let it be a free for all - and it isn't one - but it can't be as difficult as it is to get a driver's license. For a federal court to allow for even a minor restriction on a constitutional right, the side bringing the claim would have to show specific harm that would arise if the restriction was not in place. Given that no independent reviews have ever found widespread fraud to the degree that would change an election result, I doubt burdensome requirements to register will ever be the standard. Which is how it should be.

 

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

When all is said and done here, many millions of voters will be convinced that voter fraud was rampant here

 

Good for them. Millions of voters believe that an anonymous poster on 4Chan had top secret access to a government plan to take down a massive pedophilia ring that involved Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates. We don't structure our democratic process around voters who believe things that aren't true. If those voters are truly convinced their votes are meaningless due to fraud, I would encourage them to not vote in future elections. No sense in trying if you honestly believe your vote doesn't matter.

Edited November 28, 2020 by HappyDays

[TBBills]

10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s interesting that two people can read the same document and come away with different conclusions.  
 

The first concerns I heard regarding Pennsylvania dealt with restricted access for poll watchers, undue limitations on accessibility and concerns about fairness.  When speaking with a friend, he was quite animated about stories of poll watchers being kept 25 feet away from the “process”.  Having been a more-than-casual observer of the NYS civil justice system for 30+ years, my first question was this:  What are the rules established that dictate what a poll watchers can/cannot do, and what constitutes fair and reasonable access for a poll watcher?  
 

This document on an issue as simple as the activities of a poll watcher confirmed what I believed I already knew:   It’s...whatever.  6’. 60’. Whatever.
 

I’ll leave it to others to discuss and debate what’s fair or not, but this document states that voting laws and regulation in Pennsylvania amount to little more than ‘trust us, it’s fair’ while detailing that 67 different counties can choose 67 different methodologies within a broad framework of rules.   
 

A couple key points:  

1. There really is no guideline for poll watching beyond the fact that they stay 6’ away from voters.  So, some will be 6’, some could be 30.  The law is set up to court controversy, and I’d hazard a guess that any campaign that thought they were on the wrong side of the fair access standard would have an issue with this.  It’s absurd that there is not one standard established.

 

2. The 67 different counties have potentially 67 different standards for voter outreach in the event there are technical discrepancies in a mail in ballot.  Some chose to contact voters.  Some did not.  The reality here is that not every county is built the same, has the same resources or the same capability for outreach.  By extension a voter in one county is treated as if his vote really matters, another irrelevant.  Again, how difficult is it to establish one standard instead of allowing 67?
 

3.  The issue regarding timeliness of the amendment on page 10. The election was November 3rd, the case makes its way through the process with an amendment filed in November 15.  The campaign filed the amended complaint on November 20.  I thought this was interesting:

 

It would have mooted the existing motions to dismiss and required new briefing, possibly new oral argument, and a reasoned judicial opinion within seventy-two hours over a weekend. 
 

I’m thinking that by applying that standard, the notion of a free and important election is vital to our country, but any discussion thereof certainly must be shelved on November 7,8,14,15, 21 and 22 when the justices are at fundraisers, or perhaps watching the Eagles play. 
 

What I see here is evidence of a system so &$#@ed up that it can only have been designed by public servants at the highest levels of government.  It’s basically Electoral Thunderdome, and I’m not even debating the lawfulness of the ruling.  
 

What amazes me even more is that governmental agencies are famous for overreach.  Virtually everything we do requires a form submitted with appropriate documentation in triplicate, and failure to properly submit results in immediate disqualification.   I tried to get the enhanced Drivers License in NYS and was rejected because the DMV office didn’t like one of the forms of ID I submitted.   I spoke with a supervisor, showed her the form listed on the website, she acknowledged it and said more or less “Too bad”.  Where voting is concerned, as evidenced here, the proof that the process is fair lies in the fact that pretty much anyone can do anything they want. 
 

When all is said and done here, many millions of voters will be convinced that voter fraud was rampant here, and the sad fact is that in Pa, the foundation of the system was built on shifting sands just waiting to be debated. 

 

 

 

 

Well... Not many of millions... But you will soon it like that.

[Warcodered]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-overstock-com-ceo-says-he-s-funding-a-team-of-hackers-and-cybersleuths-in-an-attempt-to-prove-that-trump-won-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1bshFR?ocid=msedgntp

 

well this kind of sounds like someone planning to fund illegal activity.

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-overstock-com-ceo-says-he-s-funding-a-team-of-hackers-and-cybersleuths-in-an-attempt-to-prove-that-trump-won-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1bshFR?ocid=msedgntp

 

well this kind of sounds like someone planning to fund illegal activity.

The best part of this, most hackers actually don't like Trump so they attacked Parlor and a few pro Trump propaganda sites.

[Warcodered]

33 minutes ago, TBBills said:

The best part of this, most hackers actually don't like Trump so they attacked Parlor and a few pro Trump propaganda sites.

I'd say the best part is that this is apparently the guy that had to step down as CEO of Overstock.com after he was reported to of had a relationship with a Russian spy, which he then confirmed but said it was because the MIB told him to.

[Kemp]

As Trump continues to try and erode America because of his petulance, now we have a Court that has ruled that its okay to overrule health officials on matters of health.

 

How many more Americans did the Republicans kill with this Supreme Court ruling?

 

I don't care if Republicans want to kill themselves. That's their right, but why can't they leave the rest of us out of it?

[Backintheday544]

21 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Simply declaring “abuse of the legal process” does not make it so, that’s the beauty of the legal process.  
 

I offered no opinion on the righteousness of the decision, it’s irrelevant how I feel about that.   I simply pointed out why it’s a relatively straight line transaction from election results to concerns of widespread and systemic problems of which you speak.   
 

I can understand why those on the left want Trump to stand down, but by flushing out these problems now, at a minimum we can fix them moving forward.  Of course, that assumes there is any desire to actually fix the problems inherent in the system. 
 

In any given county for example, it seems perfectly acceptable to solicit feedback and clarity on ballots from a select group of voters.  On top of that, having no guidelines about who(m) can/cannot be counted varies by county, so the process is there is no process.  The potential for collusion among those responsible for ensuring accuracy county to county is substantial.  It can be as simple as “call any potential Biden voters and disregard Trump voters, and next county over—don’t call anyone”.  Does that make sense to you as a voter in 2020?  Is this a really complicated issue, having one standard?  It applies in every other aspect of life with the State. 
 

I guess what I’m saying is that when folks bemoan the assault on democracy as a campaign challenges results, it’s pretty easy to look at Pennsylvania and think “you people could &$@@ up a wet dream.”.  Let’s get it all out there.  There is no downside. 

I don’t think anyone in the left cares if he stands down for election reasons.

 

There is a downside in using state resources for frivolous pursuits. Bringing cases that he keeps losing while offering no evidence is using state resources that could allocated elsewhere. It’s also a waste of money for states to pander like this. (Luckily WI made him pay $3 million to find more Biden votes).

 

I don’t think anyone minds flushing out problems, but the issue is there have been no problems found, no cases won where any problems have any kind of relevant evidence.

[SoTier]

7 hours ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-overstock-com-ceo-says-he-s-funding-a-team-of-hackers-and-cybersleuths-in-an-attempt-to-prove-that-trump-won-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1bshFR?ocid=msedgntp

 

well this kind of sounds like someone planning to fund illegal activity.

 

Does the moron understand that he's publicly announcing that he's going to finance criminal activity?   If he actually does this, he opens himself up to all kinds of criminal charges, including RICO seizures.   Another Dumbass for Trump!  

 

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

As Trump continues to try and erode America because of his petulance, now we have a Court that has ruled that its okay to overrule health officials on matters of health.

 

How many more Americans did the Republicans kill with this Supreme Court ruling?

 

I don't care if Republicans want to kill themselves. That's their right, but why can't they leave the rest of us out of it?

 

I agree with your take generally.  I don't believe that religious organizations should be completely exempt from public health rules.   I think that in this case, however, the issue was that the regs imposed by the governor were arbitrary numbers -- 10 people I believe -- regardless of the size of the building while other "essential businesses" were restricted to a percentage of their capacity.   Many church buildings --- especially older Catholic churches in urban areas -- are huge and can easily hold hundreds of people and even more modern buildings are large enough to accommodate more than 10 people at 25% or 50% of capacity, which was the standard for businesses.

[Buddo]

40 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Does the moron understand that he's publicly announcing that he's going to finance criminal activity?   If he actually does this, he opens himself up to all kinds of criminal charges, including RICO seizures.   Another Dumbass for Trump!  

 

 

I agree with your take generally.  I don't believe that religious organizations should be completely exempt from public health rules.   I think that in this case, however, the issue was that the regs imposed by the governor were arbitrary numbers -- 10 people I believe -- regardless of the size of the building while other "essential businesses" were restricted to a percentage of their capacity.   Many church buildings --- especially older Catholic churches in urban areas -- are huge and can easily hold hundreds of people and even more modern buildings are large enough to accommodate more than 10 people at 25% or 50% of capacity, which was the standard for businesses.

 

Valid points about the size of buildings. I would suggest, at least in part, that the numbers games, are a function of what happens in places of worship, where voices will be raised, both in communal prayers, and the singing of hymns etc. These are things that are known to give a greater risk of viral aerosol transmission.

 

 

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

Does the moron understand that he's publicly announcing that he's going to finance criminal activity?   If he actually does this, he opens himself up to all kinds of criminal charges, including RICO seizures.   Another Dumbass for Trump!  

 

 

I agree with your take generally.  I don't believe that religious organizations should be completely exempt from public health rules.   I think that in this case, however, the issue was that the regs imposed by the governor were arbitrary numbers -- 10 people I believe -- regardless of the size of the building while other "essential businesses" were restricted to a percentage of their capacity.   Many church buildings --- especially older Catholic churches in urban areas -- are huge and can easily hold hundreds of people and even more modern buildings are large enough to accommodate more than 10 people at 25% or 50% of capacity, which was the standard for businesses.

 

Of course they are arbitrary numbers because there are no truly acceptable numbers, whether it be a restaurant, a gym, or a church.

 

However the vote by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the numbers being arbitrary. The vote was straight down the line of beliefs of religion vs. government. That's not a coincidence. 

 

Those on the left don't believe religion should take precedence over health concerns. Those on the right believe religion should take precedence over health concerns. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

On 11/19/2020 at 10:57 AM, Bidens_basement said:

Two lawyers backed out, not exactly dropping like flies. That hatchet job of a write up by a progressive liberal hardly proves no case. 

Let's just let the courts sort it out. What are the Democrats worried about if everything is on the up and up?

After four years of saying election fraud, don't you think it should be investigated so it never happens again?

Boom 💥 !

 

Dude, you can cut and run, but you can't hide... 😉 😜 😘 

 

It's over Westie...

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

1. There are no specific federal guidelines on poll watchers, it's left up to the states. But the Trump campaign failed to show any specific harm or discrimination towards Trump voters. Alleging unfairness is not the same as alleging fraud, and they didn't even prove unfairness. Their claim is not "poll watchers caught examples of fraud", it's "poll watchers were not allowed to be as close as they'd like" and it's impossible to argue that the second claim is worthy of throwing out the election given it has never been used as a standard before.

 

 

2. No, this is utter nonsense. Poll watching is just one aspect of how they monitor their elections. They still do signature checking, reviews of the voter record, registration requirements, etc. that are uniform throughout the state. The Trump campaign is hyper focused on poll watching in this case because they know it's their only shot, as thin as it may be. Since they are only contesting the results on the basis of poll watching, the court has to issue its decision on that basis. So they (correctly) state that poll watching guidelines have always been left up to the individual districts in Pennsylvania, and that the Trump campaign could not factually demonstrate how these differing guidelines hurt Trump voters. They aren't talking about "voting laws and regulation in Pennsylvania" as a whole because the Trump campaign didn't even bother trying to prove that any other part of the process was done unfairly. Their only claim is that the guidelines of poll watching and defective mail-in ballots are different in each district, and therefore the results of the election should be thrown out. They're missing about 5 steps between the initial claim and the conclusion, and the court is telling them to knock it off.

 

 

3. Okay. So find me an example where a state or federal court threw out the results of an election because poll watchers weren't close enough. Come on man. This is such a small technicality. Any campaign that tries to pursue it as a means of throwing out the results of an election they lost is not acting in good faith. That's the main point of the court's decision. The campaign is trying to throw out legally cast votes on technicalities without actually alleging that any fraud happened as a result of the technicalities. It's as undemocratic as it gets.

 

 

4. Same as what said I above. This is a dumb technicality. It isn't going to be used to throw out an election. If Republicans want uniform standards they should try and pass laws before the election rather than seeking to throw out votes after the process has concluded. Running to the courts and asking them to throw you a life vest is really bad form. It really kind of disgusts me that they are trying to take away votes from people that cast their ballot in good faith. Why does it not disgust you?

 

5.  Also, why do certain districts not contact early voters if they find defects on the ballot? Why would any of them throw out votes because the voter missed one little step rather than acting in good faith and sending it back to be corrected? Do you think technicalities like that should be used to determine if a vote should count? I for one think that is wrong. And what a coincidence, the districts that tend to let defective ballots go unfixed are mostly held by Republicans. Why do they try at every turn to stop American citizens from participating in the electoral process? What are they afraid of?

 

 

6. Oh, who really cares? The campaign has done nothing to show they can prove the claims they are raising. Even if they could prove their claims they still would not be proving fraud. They are literally just tossing as many technicalities at the system as possible and hoping one of them sticks. When all else fails, they try to just delay the process even more. Courts don't let that little kid stuff fly. I'm glad the court shot them down so thoroughly. Don't leave any more room for their BS.

 

 

7. Really? Because districts have different standards for poll watching and correcting defective mail in ballots, it's "electoral thunderdome?" Get a grip. There are plenty of electoral mechanisms in place to ensure voter fraud does not happen. A few cases are caught every election cycle and those found guilty are fined and go to prison. It is not easy to commit fraud and the risk/reward makes it stupid to try.

 

8. I find it especially comical that the Trump campaign is so focused on poll watching in Philadelphia. I mean really. Do they think anyone believes that if poll watchers in a Democratic stronghold had stood exactly 6 feet away from the ballot counters that somehow Trump would have made up an 80,000 vote deficit?

 

 

9. Getting a driver's license is not a constitutional right. Undue burdens on voter registration are unconstitutional. Of course they can't let it be a free for all - and it isn't one - but it can't be as difficult as it is to get a driver's license. For a federal court to allow for even a minor restriction on a constitutional right, the side bringing the claim would have to show specific harm that would arise if the restriction was not in place. Given that no independent reviews have ever found widespread fraud to the degree that would change an election result, I doubt burdensome requirements to register will ever be the standard. Which is how it should be.

 

 

Good for them. Millions of voters believe that an anonymous poster on 4Chan had top secret access to a government plan to take down a massive pedophilia ring that involved Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates. We don't structure our democratic process around voters who believe things that aren't true. If those voters are truly convinced their votes are meaningless due to fraud, I would encourage them to not vote in future elections. No sense in trying if you honestly believe your vote doesn't matter.

1. I didn’t argue anything to the contrary with respect to the judge’s decision.  If you see the State’s approach of ‘no standard is the standard’ as it relates to poll watchers, methodology of tabulating votes, purchase of voting booths etc, great.  
 

2.  Nonsense, shmonsense.  You’re making declarations and attempting to suggest they came from me.  I never said that poll watching was the only process employed for tabulating votes.  
 

3.  The Complaint included multiple counts, and at the risk of repeating myself, I acknowledged the decision.  You allege bad faith in pursuing the action, fine.  As to providing information on similar cases, if I was an attorney specializing in that sort of thing, I would have the resources to research and analyze case law and precedent specific to Pennsylvania or anywhere else.  I’m not, so let’s assume it’s never been an issue.  
 

Stepping back from that for a second, I’m uncertain as to why ‘poll watching’ is even a thing in Pa (or any state with similar rules).  It seems more political theater than anything else—giving the appearance of human oversight in theory but absent a standard easily written into the legislation, why bother?  To be completely honest, I’d feel slightly better if, as we approached this hotly contested election in a battleground state, there was some guidance provided to the counties anticipating this sort of complaint.  Instead, Thunderdome. 
 

4.  I reject your assertion that pursuing remedy is somehow abhorrent simply because you don’t like it.  It’s quite literally the process. As for being disgusted, it seems to me that lots of folk are suddenly woke and screaming about the unfairness of it all.  The irony is stunning. 
 

5. This is a great question.  I think the answer is clear—it’s beyond the capacity of a state the size of Georgia to establish any reasonable standard as to process, guidelines, budget or anything else.  Therefore, the standard has to be...67 processes apply, and we’ll let each of y’all independently decide who you want to follow up with.  Let’s be sure to limit mistakes in voting only to mail-in ballots, those pesky people who vote in person are on their own. 
 

The reality is that there are rules for reasons.  I think if a vote does not meet the standards set to be counted, it should be discarded.  Standards exist for a reason, and its to give the appearance the election is fair and legitimate.  Choosing to provide special consideration for a select group of voters while disregarding others flies in the face of that.  Why even have a ballot at all, why not just allow people to write in crayon on the back of an envelope?  
 

In the end, the voter hurt here is the one who made a mistake but wasn’t called, or chose not to be bothered because he/she assumed they were getting a call from a telemarketer and disregarded the call, or one who lived in a rural county that lacks the resources for a ‘dialin for Biden’ blitz.  Finally, who checks the checkers?  If I receive a call, what processes are in place to ensure that Jim from Harrisburg properly inputs my vote?  
 

6.  Then you gave nothing to worry about.  
 

7, 8, 9.  Your thoughts regarding the precious right to vote are honorable, but when you treat it like a “First F Free Friday” at a Nevada brothel, you get what you get. Pennsylvania is a perfect example.  We’re long past free-for-all. 
 

10. Ah, the disenfranchise the deplorable approach.  Sweet. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

I don’t think anyone in the left cares if he stands down for election reasons.

 

There is a downside in using state resources for frivolous pursuits. Bringing cases that he keeps losing while offering no evidence is using state resources that could allocated elsewhere. It’s also a waste of money for states to pander like this. (Luckily WI made him pay $3 million to find more Biden votes).

 

I don’t think anyone minds flushing out problems, but the issue is there have been no problems found, no cases won where any problems have any kind of relevant evidence.

The states have resources for exactly this sort of thing, and in theory the states answer to all the citizens, not just those who see things one way or the other.   

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Of course they are arbitrary numbers because there are no truly acceptable numbers, whether it be a restaurant, a gym, or a church.

 

However the vote by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the numbers being arbitrary. The vote was straight down the line of beliefs of religion vs. government. That's not a coincidence. 

 

Those on the left don't believe religion should take precedence over health concerns. Those on the right believe religion should take precedence over health concerns. 

 

The excerpts from the decision that I heard/read seemed to emphasize the fact that the Exec order treated places of worship differently from businesses, primarily that businesses could have X% of capacity while houses of worship were limited to a specific number no matter what the size.   I'm willing to apply the same standards to religious places as to business places, but by the same standard, I think that when masks are mandated to be worn and social distancing observed, that that applies to houses of worship as well.  

 

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The states have resources for exactly this sort of thing, and in theory the states answer to all the citizens, not just those who see things one way or the other.   

States do not have resources for frivolity suits. A judges time is finite. The time he needs to waste on these frivolous arguments is time he could be working cases with actual merits.

 

but Trump should keep bringing these cases. It’s awesome to see that loss record keep piling up.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

States do not have resources for frivolity suits. A judges time is finite. The time he needs to waste on these frivolous arguments is time he could be working cases with actual merits.

 

but Trump should keep bringing these cases. It’s awesome to see that loss record keep piling up.

“He”?   That’s an odd thing to say in 2020. 
 

But either way, sounds like we agree on principle that the case(s) should be pursued as the campaign feels appropriate.  

[Backintheday544]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

“He”?   That’s an odd thing to say in 2020. 
 

But either way, sounds like we agree on principle that the case(s) should be pursued as the campaign feels appropriate.  

Then perhaps what we disagree on is the degree of utter incompetence Trumps legal team has. Where you view losing all these cases as being admonished by judges as only semi-incompetent while I view it as utterly incompetent.

 

Even the 0-16 lions won pre-season games.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

50 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Then perhaps what we disagree on is the degree of utter incompetence Trumps legal team has. Where you view losing all these cases as being admonished by judges as only semi-incompetent while I view it as utterly incompetent.

 

Even the 0-16 lions won pre-season games.

I see it as a campaign against nearly insurmountable obstacles doing what needs to be done.  
 

Good point on the Lions.  I had forgotten about their commitment to preseason excellence.  The guys will always have that memory. 

[shoshin]

How are the cases going? Lots of winning and tons of evidence holding up in court?