The good and bad and the unknown.

[DCandtheUTBand]

Bad : I did some research and seems the unsolicited ballots are in states that would not matter. Pa is absentee only. Some residents claimed that they got unsolicited ballots but Pa officials said they were applications for ballots. So Pa was pushing absentee. Wonder why? Absentee votes up 7000% over 2016.

The good: Now there was also about a 10% rejection rate during the primaries.

Unknown: If backdating occurred does SCOTUS throw out any counting done in secret? What exactly does SCOTUS do to remedy all the illegal/invalid stuff.

One option they have is to punt and say Pa legislature should decide electors themselves which under a pub legislature would usually be Trump. They didnt want to touch this and its why they appealed to SCOTUS to act BEFORE the election but a 4-4 vote left the PASC in place with ruling to be decided AFTER election with ACB in place.

An audit might throw out enough votes to put Trump back in the lead or maybe SCOTUS throws out anything after midnight Nov 3rd.

 

[fatman76]

Bad : I did some research and seems the unsolicited ballots are in states that would not matter. Pa is absentee only. Some residents claimed that they got unsolicited ballots but Pa officials said they were applications for ballots. So Pa was pushing absentee. Wonder why? Absentee votes up 7000% over 2016.

The good: Now there was also about a 10% rejection rate during the primaries.

Unknown: If backdating occurred does SCOTUS throw out any counting done in secret? What exactly does SCOTUS do to remedy all the illegal/invalid stuff.

One option they have is to punt and say Pa legislature should decide electors themselves which under a pub legislature would usually be Trump. They didnt want to touch this and its why they appealed to SCOTUS to act BEFORE the election but a 4-4 vote left the PASC in place with ruling to be decided AFTER election with ACB in place.

An audit might throw out enough votes to put Trump back in the lead or maybe SCOTUS throws out anything after midnight Nov 3rd.

What Trump is arguing is that the 450k mail in ballots in PA are not verifiable because observers were not allowed to be present for the opening of the envelopes...that critical step where name, postmark, address, etc. are verified. Once that envelope is in the trash there's no way of telling if the ballot was legally cast or not.

But that's just one of the lawsuits, could be as many as 10.

If, and this is a big if, it gets to SCOTUS and they deem unverified ballots can't be counted (Alito has set the stage for such a ruling by forcing them to be separated) that would have an obvious effect on the outcome in PA and Joe would be under 270. It would also end the practice of not allowing legal observers into counting locations in the future, which would be huge for the validity of future elections.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

What Trump is arguing is that the 450k mail in ballots in PA are not verifiable because observers were not allowed to be present for the opening of the envelopes...that critical step where name, postmark, address, etc. are verified. Once that envelope is in the trash there's no way of telling if the ballot was legally cast or not.

But that's just one of the lawsuits, could be as many as 10.

If, and this is a big if, it gets to SCOTUS and they deem unverified ballots can't be counted (Alito has set the stage for such a ruling by forcing them to be separated) that would have an obvious effect on the outcome in PA and Joe would be under 270. It would also end the practice of not allowing legal observers into counting locations in the future, which would be huge for the validity of future elections.

funny how dems always want to kick observers out. They tried to do it in Fla in 2000. 2 decades later still pulling the same sh*t

 

[kjfreeze]

Okay, I have a question. It appears that Democrats were running the vote counting. How is that possible? Why was it that any vote observer was kicked out. Shouldn't there have been in place bilateral party participation? I guess I missed something here.

 

[fatman76]

Okay, I have a question. It appears that Democrats were running the vote counting. How is that possible? Why was it that any vote observer was kicked out. Shouldn't there have been in place bilateral party participation? I guess I missed something here.

In many of these heavily blue cities you have elections commissions that are dominated by democrats. They pick who they hire to count the votes.

Go watch the video I just posted - she paints a picture about the environment in a Detroit counting center. Have a trash can handy, you're going to want to puke.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Odd quirk: John Roberts, Brett Kavanugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all involved with the legal team that won Bush the Florida recount in 2000.

 

[fatman76]

Odd quirk: John Roberts, Brett Kavanugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all involved with the legal team that won Bush the Florida recount in 2000.

I cannot bring myself to trust Roberts. Part of the reason we're in this mess is him.

 

[gator1776]

Okay, I have a question. It appears that Democrats were running the vote counting. How is that possible? Why was it that any vote observer was kicked out. Shouldn't there have been in place bilateral party participation? I guess I missed something here.

Well I know you know this but it comes from the outdated notions that Americans will be fair and the elections are run by whichever party is in control and that voting district. But the fact that we know elections won’t be fair is why they’re supposed to be pulled observers and the fact that they kick them out is actually illegal but will they do anything about it. If they don’t, well then it’ll just keep happening.

 

[BSC911]

Sounds like there’s some money to be made for anyone that really believes this stuff.

 

[BSC911]

If you’re willing to hear a realistic opinion, read this. I know, it’s not Red State or OAN. Only the WSJ.

Election 2020: What Are the Trump Legal Claims? — The Wall Street Journal

As President Trump and his allies pledged to intensify legal efforts to contest the presidential election, many of their lawsuits are limited in scope, making them unlikely to produce large vote swings even if successful.

apple.news

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

If you’re willing to hear a realistic opinion, read this. I know, it’s not Red State or OAN. Only the WSJ.

Election 2020: What Are the Trump Legal Claims? — The Wall Street Journal

As President Trump and his allies pledged to intensify legal efforts to contest the presidential election, many of their lawsuits are limited in scope, making them unlikely to produce large vote swings even if successful.

apple.news

Then that's more reason to stop worrying and let them run their course.