[johnforbes]

Just a quick look at a few small parts of Texas and you find:

Despite large numbers of voting irregularities and potential illegalities, such as more than 11,000 non-citizens as being registered to vote in several Texas counties, the mantra seems to be the same. Rather than outrage at the unacceptable level of voting problems, the common response seems to be "it wasn't enough to make a difference."

The notion that voting irregularities matter little unless somebody deems them to "be enough to make a difference" is a narrative born out of the massive irregularities reported during the 2020 presidential election.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, nobody believes your made up stupid shit any longer. Not even sillydummy.

When you have something to back up your partisan bullshit, get back to us.

I couldn't find anything even by copy-and-pasting your own words into a search engine.

"Zero results found" as always.

[johnforbes]

Geez, that was widely reported.

"The Texas secretary of state’s office released damming findings in the first phase in the state’s forensic audit of the 2020 presidential election, revealing thousands of votes potentially cast by noncitizens and the deceased..."

Then the article goes on to say precisely what I said.

[Clownkicker]

I for one am shocked that so many Republicans would vote fraudulent, cross border, and duplicate ballots, johnny. It's like they are all like Trump, previously voting in New York AND Florida.

Is there nothing Republicans won't do to win?

And why can't Texas Republicans run fair elections in the states they control?

Maybe they should give Democrats a chance to do what they can't, eh?

[sillydaddy]

I was telling one of my friends the other day, "I hope Sleepy Joe brings back $5 a gallon gasoline .
and when he hits that goal, then he can devalue the USD to half that of the Mexican peso.. Now that will put a stop to the immigration invasion...

[Clownkicker]

You must have really stupid friends if they think that idiotic nonsense is funny...

[johnforbes]

In Georgia, we recently learned, the ballot harvesting people got 10 bucks per fake ballot.

They went from mail ballot dropbox to another in the dead of night, just as skeptics suspected when they learned that a senile basement dweller had hit the jackpot and become the most charistmatic vote-getter in American history.

[Clownkicker]

If that is true, it still doesn't effect the election results in Georgia. It only opens a few people to prosecution for violating Georgia law. But the ballots themselves are still legal and count as legal ballots.

“Ballot harvesting, those are still lawful ballots, they’ve just been handled fraudulently. Many states actually allow ballot harvesting,” said Raffensperger. “We outlawed it because we think that the only person that should touch the ballot is the voter and the election worker and there shouldn't be any people and intermediaries in between.”

So johnforbes is still pretending there is some sort of election fraud that would change the outcome of the election, but he has yet to present any.

Like with the Texas investigation he's making a big deal about, there may have been some 'dead' voters. But look at the numbers. In all of Texas there were only 67 possible cases found. But as is usually the case, the "possible" dead voters are mostly just legal voters who share the same name with the deceased voter and the vote is valid. And when there actually is some 'dead' vote fraud, it is found to be by Republicans as often as it is from Democrats. So it's still a wash.

But even if every last possible 'dead voter' in Texas was found to be an actual case of fraud, the 67 votes wouldn't even be a blip on the election radar in Texas. But this won't stop johnfibs from regurgitating the lie of "dead voters in Texas" repeatedly in the future.

[johnforbes]

In 2020, there was no way to tell if mail ballots were legally cast.

The outer envelope was the only chance of that, and the outer envelopes were separated from the inner and destroyed, so nobody could go back later and find out if his/her ballot was counted the way the voter actually had voted.

Mail ballots were fundamentally flawed (as the NY Times pointed out in the summer of 2020).

[Clownkicker]

"In 2020, there was no way to tell if mail ballots were legally cast.
The outer envelope was the only chance of that, and the outer envelopes were separated from the inner and destroyed,...-johnfibs

Don't display your ignorance like this, johnny.

All the ballot envelopes were checked before they were removed and they were shown to be legal.


"...so nobody could go back later and find out if his/her ballot was counted the way the voter actually had voted."-johnfibs

When the mail ballots were recounted they were counted as they were marked, just the same as the regular ballots that can't be checked to see if they were counted as voted because there is no name on them either. What is so hard for you to understand about that, dummy? They had only been removed from their envelope in the ballot counting room. It is no different from 'knowing' that regular ballots are counted as the voter intended.

Unfortunately, we must trust the Republicans who counted them. Why don't you trust them, johnny? Is it because you know you can't trust a Republican to count an honest ballot?

You may be right about that.

[johnforbes]

The way the mail ballots worked was two distinct envelopes.

The outer was checked, or should have been, for validity.

Then it was discarded into the shredder bin.

The inner envelope, with the actual ballot, was then either counted, or ignored, or triple counted -- whatever.

So it violated the basic idea of voting -- that, if you voted for somebody, could you go back and ascertain whether your vote actually counted for that person.

The ironic thing is that a paper ballot cast in 1956 could be checked that way, but today it can't be.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, when you vote a regular ballot, it is identified when you get it, but when you put it in the box, the poll worker tears off the identifying information. It is equivalent to throwing away the identifying envelope on a mail in ballot. This is done PRECISELY so that no one can find out who you voted for. And if no one can find out who you voted for, then YOU can't go back and verify that your vote counted for the guy you voted for. That's the "basic idea of voting" with ballots; that your vote is secret. and no one can come after you if they disagree with your vote because they don't know who you voted for.

"So it violated the basic idea of voting -- that, if you voted for somebody, could you go back and ascertain whether your vote actually counted for that person."-johnfoibles

Only it DOESN'T violate the basic idea, which is that who you voted for is nobody's business. No one EVER gets to go back and check on his ballot after putting it into the ballot box, dummy. It never happened. You made it up.

Why is it that Republicans all seem to need to retake their high school civics class? They must have been asleep, dreaming of a dictator like Trump.

[johnforbes]

That isn't the point.

The point is that it then becomes impossible to stop cheating, and it could be done to the benefit of either party.

If Joe Smith casts a vote, he should be able to check later to ascertain that his vote actually was cast as he intended.

That is the sort of voting system we need, but Democrats like Schumer simply want to federal elections and end ALL voter ID so illegal aliens can freely vote.

[Clownkicker]

Clearly johnforbes wants authoritarians like Trump to be able to go back and find out who voted for him and who didn't so that he can crush those who disagree with him.

The sad part is, johnforbes actually thinks he will be safe from the retribution by politicians who disagree with him.

johnny, we absolutely should NOT have a ballot system that allows one's political enemies to track a person down and retaliate, as you are saying we should.

The only reason ANYONE would want such a system is that they intend to use it. Nobody wants to go back and look at their ballot after the election is certified, dimwit. You're making it up.

And even if you say YOU would like to be able to check your ballot after the fact (the ballot will still say the same thing that it said when you put it into the ballot box, dummy) you still would never actually check it anyway. You're just blowing partisan hot air.

You just want to complain about our system without thinking about the implications of your foolish ideas that no rational person would want put into practice. Unlike you, I don't want ANYONE looking at my ballot for any reason but to count my vote.

[johnforbes]

No, what I said was non-political.

Anybody who votes should be able to go back, a year later, and learn that his/her vote was counted as intended.

I don't like losing (no honest person does), but I can accept losing if it happened fairly.

In regard to the 2020 election, the mechanics of it made it simply impossible in many places to ascertain whether votes were counted as they were cast.

Dead people voted, people who had long ago moved to other states voted too, and so it went.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, the heart of our democratic system is the secrecy of the ballot.

You start keeping vote information of specific voters, information in the hands of political leaders, is a guarantee of eventual retribution against political enemies.

That you want such information in the hands of partisan Presidents and Governors shows a profound lack of understanding about the strengths and weaknesses of our political system. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to go back a year later and 'check on' your own vote. The system only works when people accept the certified results on an election.

You propose that there should never be an end to people's whining about an election loss. But America can't go for six months or a year without a president. That's just stupid.

If you want to pay for more audits, have at it, johnny. The millions spent on AZ didn't change a thing and it failed to uncover any fraud. The same is true of Georgia; no widespread fraud.

And you really need to get over the "dead voted" bullshit. Every time it is investigated by Republican officials, they find five or six total cases and they are frequently perpetrated by Republicans.



"The mysterious case of Rosemarie Hartle's vote in the last presidential election, three years after her death, was trumpeted in November 2020 by the Nevada Republican Party and various prominent conservatives. From then-President Donald Trump on down, Republicans used stories about phony votes cast under the names of dead people as key evidence for their claim that Joe Biden's victory was marred by major fraud.

The Hartle mystery is now solved. And it turns out that the fraud was committed by a Republican. Hartle was married to Las Vegas businessman Donald Kirk Hartle, a registered Republican. In November 2020, Hartle told Las Vegas television station 8 News Now (KLAS-TV) that he felt "disbelief" when he found out that a mail-in ballot was submitted in his late wife's name. It was "pretty sickening," he said at the time, adding that he didn't know how it could've happened.

But Hartle had actually cast the phony ballot himself. On Tuesday, Hartle pleaded guilty to the crime of voting more than once in the same election. The judge, 8 News Now reported, said Hartle had pulled what seemed like a "cheap political stunt that kind of backfired and shows that our voting system actually works because you were ultimately caught."

So there is a smattering of confirmed cases in which ballots were indeed illegally cast in the names of dead people, and we might perhaps learn of some more cases over time. Early this year, Nevada's secretary of state referred 10 "questionable" cases to law enforcement for investigation. But Trump's vague assertions that thousands of ballots were cast in the names of dead people in various key states were entirely baseless; his massive numbers were plain fictional. Some specific ballots the Trump campaign claimed were fraudulent, meanwhile, were quickly proven to be legitimate ballots cast by living people with the same or similar names as dead people.

And Republican voters were responsible for some of the small number of known crimes.
A Republican local official was the perpetrator of one Ohio case, admitting to forging a signature to cast a ballot under the name of his recently deceased father; he told NBC News it was an "honest error" and also that he had simply been "trying to execute a dying man's wishes."
In Colorado, a man who was charged in 2021 with murdering his wife, who had disappeared in May 2020, was also charged with illegally casting her ballot, for Trump, in the November election. He allegedly told FBI agents that he submitted the ballot because he thought "all these other guys are cheating" and his wife would have voted for Trump anyway. "

That you keep bringing up the Trumpian "dead voter" red herring only makes you look like a gullible partisan fool. There are very, very few such cases and they are as likely to be perpetrated by Republicans as by Democrats.

[johnforbes]

Secrecy, sure, so there would be no retributions. That was one factor.

But also citizenship is at the core, but in NYC about 1 million non-citizens can vote in muni elections, which is yet another Democrat attempt to devalue American citizenship.

[Clownkicker]

"But also citizenship is at the core,..."-johnfoibles

No, there is no requirement that people must be citizens of a particular country in order to vote in a democracy. That's simply your personal preference.

Many would argue that all residents should have a say in the government they live under. That is a reasonable opinion. This is supported by the Constitutional requirement to count "all persons" living in the U.S. every ten years in order to determine representation, the implication being that all residents have need of representation and a say in the government.

You're free to disagree with this opinion, but it doesn't make you right. It's just your opinion.

Ballot secrecy is far more important in preserving the critical nature of the vote in our democracy than some completely arbitrary and historically changeable requirements about who should be allowed to vote. Who is allowed to vote changes relatively frequently in this country. Just recently in one state, ex-cons were given back their voting rights after release from prison. This is perfectly okay if that's what people of the state want.

I don't want politicians to have access to records about who voted for them and who didn't vote for them. That would be nuts.

[elklindo69]

Just a quick look at a few small parts of Texas and you find:

Despite large numbers of voting irregularities and potential illegalities, such as more than 11,000 non-citizens as being registered to vote in several Texas counties, the mantra seems to be the same. Rather than outrage at the unacceptable level of voting problems, the common response seems to be "it wasn't enough to make a difference."

The notion that voting irregularities matter little unless somebody deems them to "be enough to make a difference" is a narrative born out of the massive irregularities reported during the 2020 presidential election.

Yeah....so what?

From what I quickly read it was POSSIBLE non-citizens not non-citizens as you stated. At least show a little honesty when you can quickly get fact checked in 10 seconds.

Regardless..............

The constitution does not ban people who are non-citizens from voting and the federal law has citizenship requirements ONLY for federal elections. The federal law does not have citizenship requirements for local elections.

So what is your point?

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes likes to leave out critical words like "possible" when he argues his purely partisan distractions.

More likely, he just didn't understand what he read in the first place, or he is simply regurgitating without question the propaganda of his handlers.

No, johnny's not really a partisan asshole. He's just illiterate, impressionable, and ignorant.

[johnforbes]

Oh, come on.

About 1.7 million new illegal aliens had contact with the border patrol in 2021, and a huge percentage of that amount was sent by bus to red states at taxpayer expense.

For example, 4 flights of young illegal aliens went to the Avoca airport near Scranton, where senile Joe spent his early years.

The idea that people are "possibly" illegal is true technically, but also dishonest because we all know there are 12 to 22 million illegals, and the recent Yale study thought it was closer to the top end of that.

[Clownkicker]

Oh, come on.

Once again, just because you have no evidence but you want to BELIEVE the bullshit you make up, it does not make your unsupported opinion true, johnny.

I've explained several time that what you "wish" or "want" to believe is irrelevant without any evidence to support your personal partisan fantasies.

[johnforbes]

Sadly, it is a fact that 1.7 million illegal aliens had contact with the border patrol in 2021.

It is also a fact that a huge percentage of that 1.7 million was sent by bus, at night, at taxpayer expense, to the destinations they chose with no covid shots required.

That is the cold hard truth -- our southern border is wide open in a time of terrorism and pandemic.

[Clownkicker]

Sadly, johnforbes has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that any of those 1.7 million who crossed the border (most of whom were sent immediately back) cast a single vote in a U.S. election, which is what this thread is about.

He also hasn't produced any evidence that any of the undocumented that are here cast a single vote in a national election.

But johnforbes does like to throw around big numbers as a distraction because he knows none of his ilk bother to think about what the numbers mean-- or DON'T mean, for that matter.

Foreigners are just a convenient boogyman for conservatives to piss themselves over.

What we really need right now is more immigrants. As in other times of our history, immigrants filled the millions of jobs no Americans want. There are currently about 5 million unemployed and about 10 million unfilled jobs in America. Conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot not letting more immigrants boost our economy.

That's because conservatives don't want a robust economy. They want the economy to fail so they can b itch and moan and vote Biden out of office.

Why do you hate America so much that you continue to try to distract us with childish scare tactics that have nothing to do with voting in Texas, johnny? Show us some evidence that non-citizens are voting in any significant number.

[johnforbes]

It is simply untrue that most of those 1.7 million illegal aliens got sent back.

There is no provision to do that, and they didn't.

Just so far, 49 thousand of those illegal aliens failed to make their initial court date. And Mayorkas had to know that would happen.

The goal of Democrats has been to flood Texas and Arizona et al. with illegal aliens, and then end all voter ID which the bill Biden is now urging be passed would in fact do

[Clownkicker]

No doubt johnforbes will be greatly relieved to learn that of the 151 'questionable' cases of possible vote fraud in Pima County, AZ, there was no fraud found. Not one merited any criminal charges.

johnforbes can now shut up about Trump winning AZ, after the Republican audit uncovered no fraud and ongoing state investigation into all claims of "possible" fraud have uncovered nothing.

"No voter had more than one ballot counted, [Pima County Attorney] Conover said."-AP

So much for Trump's claims of thousands of multiple fraudulent ballots being counted.

"An Associated Press investigation found fewer than 200 cases of potential fraud in Arizona had been identified until last week, when elections officials in the state's most populous county, Maricopa, said they had discovered 38 potential voting fraud cases during an exhaustive review of 2.1 million ballots."-AP

Will johnforbes, in his great relief at the legitimacy of the AZ vote, now admit that Biden won AZ fair and square? Or more to the point, that Trump LOST Arizona fair and square. Without AZ, Trump would not have enough votes to win the Electoral College vote.

johnforbes and I feel so much better that this has been settled once and for all and hope for a successful and non-violent completion of the Biden term.

[johnforbes]

Well, if that is the case in one county in AZ, it is always good to find not enough fraud to swing a county.

My view was always influenced by Baker v Carr, the 1962 case. Ideally, I'd like to see one qualified voter casting one vote for the candidate of his/her choice, with that vote properly recorded and with some paper trail to confirm it was properly counted.

I don't want elections bought by 400 million dollars from tech billionaires.

Or key swing states stopping their vote-counting at 10 pm EST so that the needed votes for Dems can be "found" at 3 am.

I don't want the drop box corruption reported in GA, or the ineligible voters who apparently voted in Wisconsin.

I don't want the elected, partisan PA Sup Ct giving 3 extra days to their fellow Democrats to count votes when PA's Act 77 very clearly says anything after 8pm Election Day is "void."

Let's go over that word, "void."

And the US Constitution gives power over such matters NOT to the PA Sup but solely to the PA legislature.

One man, one vote.

[Clownkicker]

"I don't want the elected, partisan PA Sup Ct giving 3 extra days to their fellow Democrats to count votes when PA's Act 77 very clearly says anything after 8pm Election Day is "void.""-johnforbes

That is NOT what the PA law says, johnny. Vote COUNTING has never been stopped at 8pm election day. You made it up.
What was extended was the time that ballots could be received to be counted as long as they were voted by 8pm election day.

All the counted ballots WERE voted before 8pm election day as the law requires and the PA Supreme Court disagreed with your personal opinion of the law. Yes, it is the legislature that has the power to make laws governing elections, but as in every state, it is the state Supreme Courts that have power to INTERPRET those laws, not the legislatures. That's what the court did, but for some reason you are here incomprehensibly arguing the Supreme Court doesn't have power to interpret PA law.

The PA Supreme Court addressed the issue and disagreed with your irrelevant personal interpretation of PA law. Their opinion matters, yours doesn't.

Again, why you (as an alleged officer of the court in PA) persist in demonstrating your contempt for the PA Supreme Court is incomprehensible. You could end up in jail or be disbarred for such an expressed attitude, dummy.


"Ideally, I'd like to see one qualified voter casting one vote for the candidate of his/her choice, with that vote properly recorded and with some paper trail to confirm it was properly counted."-johnfibs

That is exactly what you are trying to avoid. You want to void hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for the candidates of their choice, not just in a national election, but in local and state elections also.

The things you CLAIM to support are in direct opposition to your actual wishes to disenfranchise millions of American voters, as you have argued for here.


"I don't want elections bought by 400 million dollars from tech billionaires."-johnfoibles

Nobody wants that, johnny. It's a good thing it never happened, isn't it.


"I don't want the drop box corruption reported in GA, ..."-johnfibs

There was no "drop box corruption" found in GA, johnny. You made it up. What was "reported" is just more FOXnews-style made up stupid shit. They have a someone make an unsupported allegation about something, anything partisan to Republicans, and then FOX "reports" that someone said there was corruption when there wasn't any. You always fall for that stupid shit from your handlers. Just how stupid are you.

"...or the ineligible voters who apparently voted in Wisconsin."-johnfibs

I couldn't find any documented ineligible voters in Wisconsin, johnny. Please provide a link to the findings of the investigation. (Not the unsupported made up allegations.)

[johnforbes]

Oh no, you are completely wrong.

PA's Act 77 says precisely what I said.

Counting continued for 3 days based on the PA Sup Ct, which had no constitutional authority whatever to extend that time.

Justice Alito noted that the word "void" in the PA law was "unambiguous."

PA stopped counting at 10pm election night with Trump ahead by 800,000 votes, but by 4am Joe had more "votes."

PA kept counting...

[Clownkicker]

"PA's Act 77 says precisely what I said."-johnflubs

"I don't want the elected, partisan PA Sup Ct giving 3 extra days to their fellow Democrats to count votes when PA's Act 77 very clearly says anything after 8pm Election Day is "void.""-"precisely" what johnfibs said


I keep telling you, johnny, making up stupid shit doesn't make it true.

PA's Act 77 does NOT say anywhere that votes may not be counted after 8pm on election day. You made it up.

Only a Republican would claim that counting is finished at the moment the polls close. Only a Republican would claim that counting is finished BEFORE all lawful votes are counted. Republicans like johnforbes want to stop counting at any point where their candidate is conveniently ahead, and then they want to disenfranchise everyone whose vote has not yet been counted.

That's a fact. johnforbes is here arguing for that very thing.

"PA stopped counting at 10pm election night with Trump ahead by 800,000 votes, but by 4am Joe had more "votes.""

But even here johnforbes is relying on votes counted two hours after 8pm for his supposed Trump win. So I guess he admits that his alleged Trump victory count counted supposedly "voided" votes for two hours. He wants those votes counted but wants to disenfranchise all the Biden voters who were not yet counted.


Let's look at what Act 77 actually says, shall we?

"Section 1306. Voting by Absentee Electors.--(a) Except as provided in paragraphs [(1),] (2) and (3), at any time after receiving an official absentee ballot, but on or before [five o'clock P.M. on the Friday prior to] eight o'clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed "Official Absentee Ballot." This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector's county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election.

[(1) Any elector who submits an Emergency Application and receives an absentee ballot in accordance with section 1302.1(a.2) or (c) shall mark the ballot on or before eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election. This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector's county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election.]

So the Act says you must mark your ballot by 8pm on election day and put it in the mail. This is exactly what was done by voters. A lawful ballot is one that's marked and in the mail by 8pm.

Act 77 nowhere says that ballots marked and mailed before 8pm on election day are "void" and would not be counted as johnfibs claims. The Act says you must mark your ballot by 8.pm and put it in the mail, as I showed by quoting Act 77. The PA Supreme Court merely extended the delivery time for mail-in ballots. That's how they read the law and that's whose opinion matters. Not johnforbes' irrelevant opinion.

The term "voided" only comes up when a person decides to show up at the polls on election day and vote in person, then his mail-in ballot is "voided" and his in-person vote is counted..

Johnfibs either misunderstood what he read in Act 77, or else he is merely regurgitating propaganda from his handlers, as I suspected.

[johnforbes]

My decision, had it been in my hands, would have been for PA to obey its own law, regardless of who was helped or hurt by that.

At that point, Trump was up by about 600,000 votes and PA was widely assumed to be his.

But then vote counting halted there and in other key swing states in an almost coordinated manner nobody has yet explained, and the necessary votes to help Dems were "found" in the middle of the night or over the following weeks.

[Clownkicker]

PA DID obey its own laws, johnny. I just quoted them to you. You, on the other hand, have presented exactly NOTHING to back up your partisan delusions.

As you see from Act 77 law, any ballot marked and mailed before 8pm on election day was a lawful ballot. The PA Supreme Court interpreted PA law and extended delivery time for those lawful ballots, which power is within their purview, not yours.

Only a Republican would want hundreds of thousands of voters disenfranchised because Trump had sabotaged the mail delivery system, and also because of bad weather that slowed the mail.


So when you find some evidence that anything fraudulent occurred, be sure to get back to us, johnny. Just be aware that your continued, incessant whining without any evidence to support your silly conspiracy theory makes you look like a dimwitted partisan tool.

To this day you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever that anything was done wrong, so you should quietly accept the certified election results and move on. Your simple-minded incredulity is not a convincing argument for anything besides your eligibility to be certified psychotic and put away for your own protection, not to mention the protection of the rest of the country.

[johnforbes]

You completely misunderstood what happened in the PA example.

The elected, partisan Sup Ct gave 3 extra days to vote, and counting went on for weeks after that.

The US Constitution said any such changes were the province of the legislature, not the state sup ct.

PA did NOT obey its own election law.

All of the key swing states violated their own election rules. There is a reason vote counting stopped at 10pm EST on Election Night. Trump was far ahead in ALL of those key states, and he was on a clear path to victory. So there was a coordinated halt to counting and, at 3 am or 4am, the states began "finding" votes for senile Joe.

[Clownkicker]

You completely misunderstood what happened in the PA example.

Voting in PA was NOT extended by a single day. You made it up.

The only counted ballots in PA were marked and mailed on or before Nov. 3rd, election day. There was no voting after election day, so your repeated lie is just that, a lie.

"Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close."-Politico

In other words, voting was not extended by three days, was it. All voting in PA was done on or before election day. Why you keep repeating your partisan lie after it has been explained to you several times, backed by evidence (unlike your lie) explaining to you what happened in PA, is beyond any intelligent person's understanding.

The extension decision was within the purview of the PA Supreme Court to interpret state law, and its decision was then supported by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that election officials in Pennsylvania can count absentee ballots received as late as the Friday after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3."-NPR

Your entire post is made up stupid shit, johnny. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your lies......on ANY thread, for that matter, not just this one.

[johnforbes]

You continue to misunderstand the facts of the PA situation.

Votes were indeed counted not just for 3 days after, but many weeks after.

The 8pm deadline was put in place by the legislature for precisely the reason to stop endless counting of mail ballots until your desired candidate "wins" but the elected and partisan PA Sup Ct let it transpire anyhow.

[Clownkicker]

You continue to misunderstand the facts of the PA situation.

There is not a single state that stops counting at 8pm on election day. Act 77 explains to morons like you that the 8pm deadline only covers marking and mailing of ballots, not counting of ballots.

Counting ALWAYS takes the night and much of the next day, at least, in every state. Even you admitted they were counting votes at 10 pm to give Trump a lead.

If you are really pretending counting should have stopped at 8pm, then your propaganda about Trump being ahead at 10pm is complete bullshit.

I quoted you Act 77 which shows the ballots were lawful if marked and mailed before 8pm on election day. That supports my position. You couldn't refute the law.

I gave you Supreme Court decisions supporting my position. You gave us bupkis, as always, to back up your lies.

You have given us NOTHING to support your partisan lies.

When you have something, get back to us, dummy. We're tired of your lies about this.

[johnforbes]

Clown, you continue to misunderstand the basic facts and the applicable law.

Both have been laboriously explained to you many times.

The PA Sup Ct gave 3 extra days not provided by Act 77. The US Constitution gives such power solely to the state legislature.

[Clownkicker]

"Clown, you continue to misunderstand the basic facts and the applicable law."-johnfibs

If that's true, then why haven't you been able to cite any applicable law and "basic facts" from an authoritative source to support your allegations, dummy?

The reason is that you CAN'T cite any applicable law to contradict my cited portions of the law, and you can't provide any facts that refute what I said.

You have never even bothered to "explain" anything at all about this case so far beyond your unsupported made up stupid shit, so how could it have been "laboriously" explained to me many times? All we can take from that is you think "labor" consists of sitting on your ass and doing nothing but yack about your conspiracy theories, as you have done here.


Nothin', it's all johnforbes ever has.

[johnforbes]

In trying to discuss a key swing state, you need people to first comprehend the basic facts.

Without those, there is little point in expending energy just to obey the laws of thermodyamics.

PA's elected, partisan, pro-Dem Sup Ct gave 3 extra days because of covid, but the US Constitution gave such power solely to the state legislature. Thus, the election did not conform to Act 77. These are simply the sad facts.

In Wisconsin, Georgia, and AZ, there were other problems, and it remains indisputably true that the key swing states didn't obey their own election rules.

That is why the Sup Ct didn't want to take up the TX suit. Texas did indeed have what should have been a judicially cognizable interest in whether other states broke their own election rules when Texas did not. Roberts apparently did not want to get into another Bush v Gore case and help Repubs, so he remained out of it and helped Dems.

[Clownkicker]

In trying to discuss a key swing state, you need people to first comprehend the basic facts.

I presented the applicable text of Act 77 and PA Supreme Court decisions that show johnforbes clearly doesn't comprehend PA election law, nor that the election DID conform with that law as interpreted by the relevant court with the legal authority to decide such things.

Without this basic understanding of the law, there is little point in expending energy just to obey the laws of thermodyamics as applies to johnforbes spewing of unsupported partisan hot air.

[johnforbes]

Nobody blames Clownslacker for inability to read and understand the law.

But, in trying to discuss a key swing state, you need people to first comprehend the basic facts.

Several times, I explained that Act 77 indicates violative action renders it "void." The word "void" is alarmingly clear, but the elected and partisan and pro-Dem PA Sup Ct ignored that and tacked on 3 more days.

The US Constitution gives that power solely to the state legislature, and that was dominated by Repubs, so the PA Sup Ct just sought to help Joe and did.

[Clownkicker]

In trying to discuss a key swing state, you need people to first comprehend the basic facts.

But johnforbes refuses to accept the basic facts as stated in his own cited authority, which is Pennsylvania's Act 77.

I quoted the relevant portions of Act 77 which state that lawful ballots must be marked and mailed by 8 pm election day. johnforbes did not and could not refute the easily verfiable basic facts provided him.

johnforbes made no effort to dispute these facts by providing us with other facts quoted from Act 77 to support his purely partisan assertions, yet he continues to insist that voting was extended by three days when this is not true. He has not provided text of the court's ruling that prove his purely partisan claim that voting was extended by three days after election day. I wonder why.

But we all know why. He won't because he can't. He know quoting the PA Supreme Court ruling will prove him wrong.

All counted ballots were marked and mailed by 8 pm election day as directed under the law. johnforbes could provide no evidence this was not what happened in PA. He merely makes the unfounded assertion that voting was extended by three days when he doesn't even understand the basic facts of the Supreme Court ruling that only extended DELIVERY TIME for lawful mail-in ballots by three days.

How can anyone talk to johnforbes about anything when he stubbornly refuses to accept the law as stated in his own cited authority; Act 77?

"The US Constitution gives that power solely to the state legislature, ..."-johnfibs

No, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT give the power to interpret law to the legislatures. You simply made it up.

The power to interpret law is given--IN EVERY STATE-- to the courts. The PA Supreme Court DOES have the power and is the final authority to interpret PA state law, which is what it did. Why johnfibs keeps insisting they don't have that power is certifiable insanity since he claims to have graduated from law school and claims to be an officer of the PA courts, yet he still doesn't comprehend this basic fact. And his lack of comprehension of this basic fact is what has him yammering mindlessly to this day about the PA election more than a year after it was lawfully certified and settled. johnforbes simply refuses to accept lawful rulings of the courts and treads dangerously close to contempt, which could land him in jail and get him disbarred.

Yes, in trying to discuss a key swing state, you need people to first comprehend the basic facts. johnforbes does not comprehend the basic facts as stated in Act 77 and interpreted by the PA court.

[johnforbes]

A just just ruled that that law was unconstitutional.

However, conservatives celebrating that will almost surely turn out to be spiking the football before reaching the end zone.

PA's elected, partisan, pro-Democrat Sup Ct will surely overturn that ruling and reimpose the mail ballots which allowed counting to halt at 10 pm EST Election Night, and then over the next 3 weeks Democrats found enough "votes" to overcome the 800,000 vote lead Trump had.

[Clownkicker]

Why would conservatives celebrate the law they claim gave Trump the victory was declared unconstitutional, dummy?

You clowns are adamant about it being suitably inflexible for your partisan needs and that it voids a million Democrat ballots.

But I agree, any law that voids over a million ballots marked and mailed before 8pm election day really would be unconstitutional. And that would settle the PA election in Biden's favor and shut up both Trump and johnforbes about their unsupported nonsense.

[johnforbes]

Clownslacker's staff must have misread the remarks from Mr. Forbes, which were -- as ever -- thoughtful, trenchant, and deeply profound.

[Clownkicker]

"A just just ruled that that law was unconstitutional."-johnflubs

Yes, one can see how someone reading that "thoughtful, trenchant, and deeply profound" gibberish johnny posted could become confused.


But it is johnforbes' staff who must have failed to tell dimwit johnny that "that law" that we were talking about is Act 77.

You are here claiming that Act 77 gives Trump the win in PA, but now you are claiming "that law" is ruled unConstitutional.

If that's true, then you are saying Trump lost because the law you say gives him the win is unConstitutional.

Try to keep up.......not with me, with yourself, fer cripes sake.

[johnforbes]

No, a state court ruled it unconstitutional.

I actually don't think Act 77 was unconstitutional, and it could have worked had they conformed to the law which provided an 8pm deadline Election Day and said anything after that was "void."

They used the word "void" to prevent the endless counting and "finding" of ballots for Democrats, but the elected, partisan, and pro-Dem PA Supt Ct did indeed give an extra 3 days to vote and they were counting and "finding" Dem ballots a month later.

The US Constitution provides ONLY the state legislature can make such changes to the date, time, and manner of election, and that is probably why the US Sup Ct ran away from the case with what sources said was a screaming matching with RINO Roberts saying he wouldn't take the f-ing case and have another Bush v Gore on his hands.

But that leaves America where it is now -- with a big chunk of Republs (and a surprising amount of Dems) believing the 2020 election involved cheating on the vote count.

Why were thousands of "mules" used to deliver ballots to vote harvesting boxes? Why did they fan the ballots out, photograph them, and then deposit them in the boxes? Well, so they could get paid.

[Clownkicker]

It's pretty damning that 11 Republican lawmakers who voted for Act 77 then took it to court claiming the law they voted for is unConstitutional. It's like they are admitting they are corrupt legislators.

This is the way Republicans roll. They will pass a law they believe to be unConstitutional in order to restrict voting by Democrats. But when it doesn't work in their favor, they then want to get rid of it and pass another more restrictive law until they finally get the election results they want.

Criminy.....the partisan gall of Republican scumbags. It's limitless.

[johnforbes]

There is no homogeneity on the part of PA legislators, but plenty of Democrats do have homo homogeneity as they leave the southern border wide open while pretending to care about Ukraine's border.

The State Dept spokesman, Ned somebody or other, is according to pro-Democrat Wikipedia the first openly gay spokesman there.

I'm the first openly hetero person on this thread.