steeler wrote: 
Yes, but is my recollection correct about what happened and why ?  You have not stated anything about that yet, to me or miamiz.

 kurtster wrote:
 

The PA Supreme Court ruling still stands.   It has not been struck down but is expected to be appealed to US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled today that PA must segregate  those votes. 

 steeler wrote: 
My recollection is that regardless of intent, these changes were not done by the state legislature which has the sole authority to make any changes in the election laws and were struck down because the people making the changes did not have the authority to do so.

I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong.

Q: What's he hiding? A: Himself.

Hey, it's Jose...

How Claims of Dead Michigan Voters Spread Faster Than the Facts
Run-of-the-mill clerical errors have been used as false evidence of voter fraud in Michigan.

 buddy wrote:
 

To whom are you directing that and what is the problem you are complaining about? The exchanges between Miami and I seem to me to be relevant to the topic of this thread. Do you disagree or are you complaining about something else?

 miamizsun wrote:
 

The deadline was extended from received by Election Day to received 3 days after Election Day. Mostly, I believe, due to COVID concerns.

Barr, like Trump, was talking about massive fraud. See my original post regarding what constitutes fraud.

Many jurisdictions made changes due to COVID concerns. You may recall that Texas jurisdictions were making use of drop boxes because of expected delays in delivery afflicting USPS. The Republican Governor ordered that there could be only one drop box per county. He said he did so to mitigate possible fraud. Others said he did so to try to tamp down the Democratic vote.

Both parties try to enact laws or issue regulations governing the electoral process they believe will favor their party. That does not render votes cast pursuant to those laws/regulations fraudulent— even if the law or regulation is struck down subsequent to the election.

 steeler wrote: 

was the voter ballot deadline moved? and why? or what rules were changed/modified?

was it because of covid? and did they just mail/shotgun out ballots to everyone on a list?

is this what barr was yammering about?  (i think he said playing with fire) he seemed particularly tweaked

 Ohmsen wrote: 

i'm just taking wild wyoming stab at this

but it looks like the dems may have orchestrated a brilliant political move (or just out-foxed) trump and his home chickens

probably a series of legal or borderline legal moves executed with time running out for team orange

after it was in motion barr probably realized this and had an idea that they were about to get bent over

thus his flailing and probably telling trump "you may get fired if they pull this off"

i'd bet red dragon's boots that trump is going to have to say uncle very soon

 miamizsun wrote:
 

The PA Supreme Court decision was September 16.

Challenges brought by partisans are not uncommon. Sometimes prospective candidates are not permitted on the ballot because, for example, they did not obtain the required minimum number of valid resident signatures. This has happened several times that I can think of in the District of Columbia, including one time when incumbent Mayor Anthony Williams had just that happen to him. He still won as a write-in candidate.  These kinds of challenges usually are politically motivated. 

 steeler wrote: 

i'm certainly not up on all of this and i could be off here but

when and why did the pa supreme council rule on this?

i thought i gleaned on the web (maybe reason or the world socialist website) where the dems were trying to or did get the green party knocked off the ballot in pa (due to a technicality)

i think they called it skulduggery (i'd consider this sop for both parties-let's count votes that count for us type of thing)

and is any of this related to anything hawkfish?

regards

Keep in mind that these myriad Trump legal challenges in several states are or will be disparate challenges that — even if determined to be valid (a big “if”) — would not equate to massive fraud (I.e., fraud orchestrated by Democrats). In fact, in most if not all of these cases, they would not even involve any fraud.

For example, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to order Pennsylvania to segregate all ballots received after Election Day because Trump is arguing that all ballots received after Election Day should be disqualified. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously had ruled — before the election — that mailed ballots received within 3 days after Election Day could be counted, rejecting a Trump challenge. Voters relied on that and courts are reluctant to disenfranchise voters who relied in good faith on a prescribed election process. Even if theose votes ultimately were disqualified, that would not mean they were fraudulent.

It is no different, for example, than votes being disqualified because voters failed to put their ballots inside of the required secrecy sleeve before sealing them inside the envelope and mailing them (there is a challenge in Nevada, I believe, to approximately 600 such ballots). That kind of mistake may result in disqualification of a ballot but it would not constitute fraud.

The political narrative of Trump and his surrogates is that these disparate anomalies or violations should be seen as part of a whole — massive fraud by Democrats. In sum, disqualification of particular ballots does not in most cases equate with fraud, much less massive fraud across several states. 

Short version: Trump is lying.

Quite a 'trend' seeing the red in most US counties, with the exception of counties with major cities:

https://www.google.com/search?...

hey all at RP, just wanted to say good luck for the elections, although it looks very promising. From Penzance in Sunny Cornwall, UK.

Dear Melania, Thank you for NOT wearing a mask.  Many complain about unchecked population growth and it is so heart warming to see you take concrete action on this problem.  

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrumpSome or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process. Learn moreI easily WIN the Presidency of the United States with LEGAL VOTES CAST. The OBSERVERS were not allowed, in any way, shape, or form, to do their job and therefore, votes accepted during this period must be determined to be ILLEGAL VOTES. U.S. Supreme Court should decide!


And there you have it. The remedy sought by Trump for this alleged violation would be to declare all votes “accepted during this period” to be disqualified. Good luck with that argument.

 rgio wrote:
 
There are numerous ways to improve elections in both Canada and the USA but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.   Voting and ballot counting have been fairly and well conducted for a very long time.  I never doubt the treatment of my vote in Canada and have never read, heard or seen evidence to doubt the voting process in the USA.   Incidentally, the folks who conduct and observe elections in the USA strike me as very, very similar to the same folks in Canada.  I trust them, you should too.

kurtster, whether you actually have any integrity or not, the USA is yours to democratically ruin.  

American frivolous law suits are famous.    Wealth-destroying political rent seeking is famous.   I suppose that means that Americans share a lot more in common with Neo-Marxist heroes in Latin America like Presidents Allende, Chavez or now Maduro than most Americans will recognize or be willing to recognize.  Feeling proud?

Your iconic democracy is yours to ruin.   

 rgio wrote:
 

Also, from that hearing:  

 
When a judge opens a question by reminding the lawyer that he is a member of the bar, then that lawyer is on thin ice.