PA Election Law

[Vol Main]

Have you considered addressing the actual arguments being made rather than the arguments you think you can win? I honestly don't give two ***** about the election anymore, but just glancing over the thread, you're ignoring the arguments that conflict with what you want to believe and then just insulting people when you do respond.

OK. I believe this concern is covered in my post which addresses the authenticity of so-called evidence. Guys here throw a lot of mud at the wall, and it is not really my responsibility to reply to all of it and to correct every questionable post. Still I'm trying to hold up my end, but it seems like a lot of folks just believe whatever they want to believe and dismiss anything they don't happen to like. I don't want to be like that. I want to establish true from false and have reasonable discussions, if that is even possible on this forum.

Addendum: Yes, I occasionally call out posts for being plain old fashioned stupid. I was accused of copying and pasting an original post which I wrote and supporting it with the Statutes written by the Pennsylvania State Legislature, which I of course did not write. How do you suggest I respond to that kind of behavior, with infinite patience and generosity? Reality is that some of the stupidest, most ignorant and hateful people in the world have a right to post on this forum -- and they do.

 

[Vol Main]

Except it wasnt this issue that got punted out of the Supreme Court. It was dealing with election deadlines.

You brought up some minor argument to ignore the bigger. Which as it turns out is sticking as is so the necro effort on Trumps election is still dead.

U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Pa. mail-ballot deadline case as election challenges meet dead end

You post as if the Supreme Court is the only court, that every case must be heard by the Supreme Court. That is not true. The case was heard in other courts, and there were judges who did their jobs. Why are you so dismissive of that fact? Your candidate lost. Is that the reason?

 

[LouderVol]

You post as if the Supreme Court is the only court, that every case must be heard by the Supreme Court. That is not true. The case was heard in other courts, and there were judges who did their jobs. Why are you so dismissive of that fact? Your candidate lost. Is that the reason?

I see you are still new here. Trump is not my candidate. Never was, never will be. I just dont like him for the same reason I didnt like other presidents. He was a **** representative of this country and many of his policies hurt our nation.

I know you wont like that because it cant be summed up as "orange man bad" but that's the truth of it

And to your point yes other courts heard it before SCOTUS. Not sure what that has to do with the overall point.

I was pointing out there was a case that made it all the way to the US SC, and yet you chose one little argument that didnt even make it out of the states court. If you are wanting to poke holes in the trump won argument, you should start with the big ones. Not dust off some obscure case no one on this board was even talking about.

And again I know your binary brain wont understand this but I believe Trump lost. Wouldnt matter if PA flipped, trump lost by a couple states. No skin off my back. Instead of the old worst president this country has ever had we now have a new worst president ever. Yay.

Try dealing with the message instead of making up arguments about the poster. You will go further.

 

[Vol Main]

I see you are still new here. Trump is not my candidate. Never was, never will be. I just dont like him for the same reason I didnt like other presidents. He was a **** representative of this country and many of his policies hurt our nation.

I know you wont like that because it cant be summed up as "orange man bad" but that's the truth of it

And to your point yes other courts heard it before SCOTUS. Not sure what that has to do with the overall point.

I was pointing out there was a case that made it all the way to the US SC, and yet you chose one little argument that didnt even make it out of the states court. If you are wanting to poke holes in the trump won argument, you should start with the big ones. Not dust off some obscure case no one on this board was even talking about.

And again I know your binary brain wont understand this but I believe Trump lost. Wouldnt matter if PA flipped, trump lost by a couple states. No skin off my back. Instead of the old worst president this country has ever had we now have a new worst president ever. Yay.

Try dealing with the message instead of making up arguments about the poster. You will go further.

Louder, I chose to post about an argument I have seen repeated many, many times. It was foremost among the seditious rhetoric which incited the assaults at the Capitol on January 6, it came from the mouths of those who were there, and it has been repeated by others who defend or excuse what they did. Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing? I do not even know wtf you are talking about that I did to you, but I do get the general point about making assumptions about someone else. It is one of the pitfalls of participating in a forum like this. I get it all the time. Now, if you choose to defend a false argument fabricated by the Trump Campaign or to ridicule me for posting about the Trump Campaign's malicious lies, then I think it is reasonable for me to infer that you sympathize with the group you are defending and oppose the group you are attacking.

 

[Weezer]

...but it seems like a lot of folks just believe whatever they want to believe and dismiss anything they don't happen to like.

Welcome to the PF. Maybe hold both sides to the same standard. And stop labeling anyone who disagrees with you a "Trumper". That's just lazy. If you "don't want to be like everyone else", try having an actual discussion before resorting to insults.

 

[LouderVol]

Louder, I chose to post about an argument I have seen repeated many, many times. It was foremost among the seditious rhetoric which incited the assaults at the Capitol on January 6, it came from the mouths of those who were there, and it has been repeated by others who defend or excuse what they did. Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing? I do not even know wtf you are talking about that I did to you, but I do get the general point about making assumptions about someone else. It is one of the pitfalls of participating in a forum like this. I get it all the time. Now, if you choose to defend a false argument fabricated by the Trump Campaign or to ridicule me for posting about the Trump Campaign's malicious lies, then I think it is reasonable for me to infer that you sympathize with the group you are defending and oppose the group you are attacking.

you need to learn to distinguish between me attacking bad arguments, and me defending bad people.

I generally attack bad arguments, no matter the subject. You could say Hitler was a bad person because he ate meat, and I would point out that your argument is flawed, he was vegetarian. and would likely opine about the lack of morality in regards to most, non human, food choices. that's what I do, and what I did.

you took this argument that you have heard many many times, and posted it here on VN. where as you have noticed a lot of red hatters reside. except for the Q thread, because I don't read it, I have not seen the argument you brought up. so when you came in here accusing the members here of making this argument I called you out, because I have still yet to see that specific law be mentioned. the tone of your OP wasn't a general opinion about some red hat argument you have seen on some other media, but seemed very directed at VN.

hence my attack on your argument, now you could easily prove me wrong with some links to some posters here on VN making that argument you mentioned and I will admit I was wrong.

 

[hUTch2002]

OK. I believe this concern is covered in my post which addresses the authenticity of so-called evidence. Guys here throw a lot of mud at the wall, and it is not really my responsibility to reply to all of it and to correct every questionable post. Still I'm trying to hold up my end, but it seems like a lot of folks just believe whatever they want to believe and dismiss anything they don't happen to like. I don't want to be like that. I want to establish true from false and have reasonable discussions, if that is even possible on this forum.

Addendum: Yes, I occasionally call out posts for being plain old fashioned stupid. I was accused of copying and pasting an original post which I wrote and supporting it with the Statutes written by the Pennsylvania State Legislature, which I of course did not write. How do you suggest I respond to that kind of behavior, with infinite patience and generosity? Reality is that some of the stupidest, most ignorant and hateful people in the world have a right to post on this forum -- and they do.

You are so FOS.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Who am I to ask? I am someone who wants to know what kind of people I am posting with, and I find it difficult to believe that some of the guys here are high school graduates. I get trashed for posting the PA statute. Then Volinwayne shows up with something titled Here Is The Evidence, which turns out to be a spread sheet. The video actually shows someone entering entire blocks of data. You've used a spread sheet, right? It is a program which allows the user to create titles, columns, and rows. They can be set with math formulas to do all sorts of things. If you have not questioned the authenticity of the so-called evidence, then you should do so, now. That is the first thing one does with so-called evidence, ask if it is authentic. What evidence is there for authenticity, besides none? There is a title that anyone using a spread sheet can create. So that is not evidence of authenticity. Then there is a video showing someone entering blocks of data. Am I supposed to think that person is an election official, entering official data? Why should I or anyone believe that? There are reasons for not believing that, but no reason for believing it. What I see is that someone created a video of a spread sheet with data which makes no sense. Are we supposed to think that a Democratic election official made the video and turned it over to someone to use against his own party? That makes no sense. Would it be more likely that a Republican fabricated the video and turned it over to someone to use against Democrats? That at least makes sense. But I see no reason to believe that the spread sheet is authentic or that the data entered on it is authentic. If it were authentic, then it could have been presented in court by the Trump Campaign lawyers. But they stated in court that they had no evidence of fraud and were not alleging fraud. So I want to know what kind of people believe in the authenticity of this so-called evidence which comes with zero evidence of its authenticity. What kind of person believes something like that?

The statute you posted wasn’t the issue young man. Go back and try your research again

 

[Weezer]

you need to learn to distinguish between me attacking bad arguments, and me defending bad people.

I generally attack bad arguments, no matter the subject. You could say Hitler was a bad person because he ate meat, and I would point out that your argument is flawed, he was vegetarian. and would likely opine about the lack of morality in regards to most, non human, food choices. that's what I do, and what I did.

you took this argument that you have heard many many times, and posted it here on VN. where as you have noticed a lot of red hatters reside. except for the Q thread, because I don't read it, I have not seen the argument you brought up. so when you came in here accusing the members here of making this argument I called you out, because I have still yet to see that specific law be mentioned. the tone of your OP wasn't a general opinion about some red hat argument you have seen on some other media, but seemed very directed at VN.

hence my attack on your argument, now you could easily prove me wrong with some links to some posters here on VN making that argument you mentioned and I will admit I was wrong.

Pretty sure Louder loves him some Hitler. Fascist Trump lover.

 

[Vol Main]

The statute you posted wasn’t the issue young man. Go back and try your research again

I see how things are with you, Cholly. You object to my post because I did not check with you to get approval for the topic. lol

 

[LouderVol]

I have seen this claim made numerous times, in regard to the vote count in Pennsylvania. How many people posting such claims in this forum actually read Pennsylvania law before their post?

You dont need permission but since you singled out this board it seems like you should have some actual posts to go after.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

10k Pa votes were received after election day.

 

[Vol Main]

You dont need permission but since you singled out this board it seems like you should have some actual posts to go after.

Look, I write what I write. You can read it for the purpose of understanding it and adding to it or for the purpose of reacting with some objection. I do read other posts, but do not want to premise too much of what I do on what someone else did. There are plenty of peep here who love food fight type posts. You do not need me for that.