"In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had the name on it and no address"

Poor Richard Saunders said:
It seems we are in a place where you are abusing words for political purposes. The problem wasn't that there was no address on the envelope because clearly there was. The problem is that the address was filled out by someone other than the witness. The law doesn't stipulate who provides the address. Since the law doesn't make any such stipulation how can you argue that the problem is who provided the address.

The only requirement under the law is that before an envelope is opened it must have the address on it. Rand Paul's idiotic argument would take the form of because a ballot envelope doesn't have a signature when it is sent to the voter then all those ballots must be thrown out. The requirement is only that the signature has to exist and be checked before opening the envelope. When the person signed the envelope is irrelevant to any discussion of whether the ballot is valid. When the address is provided on the envelope is also irrelevant to the whether the ballot is valid. The only requirement is that that address has to exist before the ballot is opened. If the address is added 2 minutes before the ballot is opened is the exact same thing under the law as if the address was added 2 weeks before it is opened. Since the law does not designate who is supposed to provide the address, there is no legal way to dispute who provided it.
Click to expand...

but now you're talking about something different than what constitutes an address.
 
AssHatZombie said:
but now you're talking about something different than what constitutes an address.
Click to expand...

The only legal requirement is that the address exists prior to opening the envelope. It did exist prior to opening all those envelopes and the ballots from those envelopes were then counted. The claim that none of them had addresses is false. When the address was added and by whom is not specified in the law so it doesn't matter who added it. The only requirement is that it exists.

We are right back to you abusing words for political purposes. An address is an address is an address. It existed on the envelopes prior to them being opened. In some cases the address was added by poll workers using the listed address in the poll book. The courts ruled that was legal because the law doesn't stipulate who must provide the address but only that the address be provided.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The only legal requirement is that the address exists prior to opening the envelope. It did exist prior to opening all those envelopes and the ballots from those envelopes were then counted. The claim that none of them had addresses is false. When the address was added and by whom is not specified in the law so it doesn't matter who added it. The only requirement is that it exists.

We are right back to you abusing words for political purposes. An address is an address is an address. It existed on the envelopes prior to them being opened. In some cases the address was added by poll workers using the listed address in the poll book. The courts ruled that was legal because the law doesn't stipulate who must provide the address but only that the address be provided.
Click to expand...

I dispute your assertion that all addresses were intact at time of receipt.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I dispute your assertion that all addresses were intact at time of receipt.
Click to expand...

I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.
Click to expand...

do they need to be intact addresses?

can an adress be added by an election worker later?
 
AssHatZombie said:
do they need to be intact addresses?

can an adress be added by an election worker later?
Click to expand...

The courts ruled on this. See my link earlier to the court ruling. Pretty simple stuff that anyone with a HS education should be able to understand.

The same procedures were in place for previous elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Sore losers are not a reason to overturn an election.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The courts ruled on this. See my link earlier to the court ruling. Pretty simple stuff that anyone with a HS education should be able to understand.

The same procedures were in place for previous elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Sore losers are not a reason to overturn an election.
Click to expand...

evasion fallacy. you suck at thinking and arguing.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.
Click to expand...

the law probably doesn't specify a time. because time of receipt is the rational assumed time. the court probably ruled in error.
 
AssHatZombie said:
evasion fallacy. you suck at thinking and arguing.
Click to expand...

Evasion? ROFLMAO.. You are the one refusing to read the court ruling but I am the one evading?

I think you need to learn a little bit about actual fallacies before you start accusing people of using fallacies. The answers to your questions were presented to you along with an original source that supports those answers. Simply repeating your questions without looking at the evidence doesn't make my telling you to look at the evidence presented a fallacy.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Evasion? ROFLMAO.. You are the one refusing to read the court ruling but I am the one evading?

I think you need to learn a little bit about actual fallacies before you start accusing people of using fallacies. The answers to your questions were presented to you along with an original source that supports those answers. Simply repeating your questions without looking at the evidence doesn't make my telling you to look at the evidence presented a fallacy.
Click to expand...

what was the ruling? can you just summarize it here quickly. I'm tired.

did it say anyone can add an address anytime and that's cool, and adresses can be vague?
 
I think the ruling is that an absurd level of detail was not included in the legislation, so retards now have enough room to ply their sophistry.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the law probably doesn't specify a time. because time of receipt is the rational assumed time. the court probably ruled in error.
Click to expand...

Since we are talking fallacies. Your answer here would be an example of the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The law is easy to find.
The court ruling is easy to find.


The law quite clearly doesn't designate time of receipt as the time when the address must be on the envelope. In fact the law specifically states that ballot certifications that aren't filled out correctly can be sent back to the voter to be corrected. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/9

I suggest you read the notes for that section which reference prior court rulings.

Then we get to the court ruling -
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

While a witness address must be provided on the certification for the corresponding ballot to be counted, the statute is silent as to what portion of an address the witness must provide.
The process of handling missing witness information is not new; election officials followed guidance that WEC created, approved, and disseminated to counties in October 2016. It has been relied on in11 statewide elections since, including in the 2016 presidential election when President Trump was victorious in Wisconsin. The Campaign nonetheless now seeks to strike ballots counted in accordance with that guidance in Milwaukee and Dane Counties, but not those counted in other counties that followed the same guidance.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I think the ruling is that an absurd level of detail was not included in the legislation, so retards now have enough room to ply their sophistry.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad ignoratiam. You haven't read the law and you haven't read the ruling but you argue that the contents of both don't meet a standard?
 
AssHatZombie said:
definitely not a fallacy, fake fallacy man.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "I don't get sarcasm, fallacy?" (Used because of your specious and unsupported claim of a fallacy.)



Meanwhile back at the discussion topic we have this from the court's concurring opinion -

However, if the witness provided only part of the address——for example, a street address and municipality, but no state name or zip code——it is at least arguable that this would satisfy §6.87(6d)'s address requirement. And, to the extent clerks completed addresses that were already sufficient under the statute, I am not aware of any authority that would allow such votes to be struck.9¶51The parties did not present comprehensive arguments regarding which components of an address are necessary under the statute. It would not be wise to fully address that question now. But I do not believe the Campaign has established that all ballots where clerks added witness address information were necessarily insufficient and invalid; the addresses provided directly by the witnesses may very well have satisfied the statutory directive. The circuit court's findings of fact reflect that many of these ballots contained additions of the state name and/or zip code.
Click to expand...
(You might want to read the rest of his opinion where he talks about how "address" is used in other parts of the law.)

Are you arguing that Wisconsin resident's ballots should be thrown out because they failed to state the obvious that they lived in Wisconsin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top