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

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
"In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had the name on it and no address"

Rand Paul talking about the massive election fraud.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/el...hanopoulos-republicans/2021/01/24/id/1006951/

jan 24 2021 Paul said the election case brought in Wisconsin proved his point that alleged fraud is worth investigating. A federal judge in Wisconsin dismissed a lawsuit filed by Trump challenging Joe Biden's victory there.

"In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on it and no address," Paul said. "Historically those were thrown out, this time they weren't. They made special accommodations. It's a pandemic. They changed the law after the fact. That's wrong; that's unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Rand Paul talking about the massive election fraud.
Click to expand...

Maybe Paul should read the actual court rulings on the case.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says this about the law.
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.

It seems that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is more familiar with the Wisconsin law than a 'doctor' from some backwater southern state.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Maybe Paul should read the actual court rulings on the case.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says this about the law.
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.

It seems that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is more familiar with the Wisconsin law than a 'doctor' from some backwater southern state.
Click to expand...

Courts are not allowed to break the laws either, you stupid puta.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
newsmax, dumbass. try again. good god, do you like people pointing and laughing at you for repeating such silly ass bullshit even trump does not believe anymore, much less the Pillow Guy?
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA. The board notes you evaded the issue and stooped to personal attacks. Even you know this is pure election fraud.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Maybe Paul should read the actual court rulings on the case.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says this about the law.
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.

It seems that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is more familiar with the Wisconsin law than a 'doctor' from some backwater southern state.
Click to expand...

an address includes all relevent date finnd an actual residence.

otherwise it's not complete and not an address.

are we really headed to a place where words are being abused and mangled for political purposes?
 
It does not fucking matter. If it does not have a name in a precinct polling book it does not count. If the poll book shows the person voted, it does not pile them up for a person. Can you guys understand how the system works? It is a very safe voting system.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Courts are not allowed to break the laws either, you stupid puta.
Click to expand...

Since the statute doesn't stipulate who provides the address, then how can it be broken when someone provides the address?

The problem is that you either follow the law or you don't. Demanding that the law not be followed is what you are doing. Courts ruled that the law was followed since the law only states that an address must be provided and doesn't say who is required to provide that address. One of the bastions of conservatism is that you have to follow the exact text of the law. Did you stop being a conservative? Is Rand Paul no longer a conservative? It seems you don't really believe in what you claim to believe in. Neither does Rand Paul.
 
AssHatZombie said:
an address includes all relevent date finnd an actual residence.

otherwise it's not complete and not an address.

are we really headed to a place where words are being abused and mangled for political purposes?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top