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

AssHatZombie said:
I was asking you. is the jist that laws were not absurdly specific? so now it's open to idiot sophistry meddling?
Click to expand...

Questions end in a form of punctuation called a question mark. You used two in this post so clearly you are aware of them and how they work. You are now claiming you asked a question in a post where you used no question marks?

I think the only one using sophistry here is you as you try to pretend your intentions were different than what was written. Clearly you were making a statement about the ruling and the law without having read the ruling or the law. There is no other valid reading of your statement.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Questions end in a form of punctuation called a question mark. You used two in this post so clearly you are aware of them and how they work. You are now claiming you asked a question in a post where you used no question marks?

I think the only one using sophistry here is you as you try to pretend your intentions were different than what was written. Clearly you were making a statement about the ruling and the law without having read the ruling or the law. There is no other valid reading of your statement.
Click to expand...

my assesment stands then.

the idiot ruling is that an absurde level of detail was not included in the law.


im open to you correcting that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
my assesment stands then.

the idiot ruling is that an absurde level of detail was not included in the law.


im open to you correcting that.
Click to expand...

The problem you have with your argument is that you seem to think that because there was no absurd level of detail in the law describing what constitutes an address then if there isn't an absurd level of detail provided when submitting the address the vote must be thrown out.


The problem you start to run into is that you are demanding things not in the law must be assumed to be in the law. That isn't how the law works. Then you also ignore other laws and court rulings that require that ballots must be counted if the persons voting relied in good faith on the directions of courts and election officials which they did. Then you also ignore the fact that the same rules have been in place for 11 elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Then you ignore the fact that the rules were in place for the entire state of Wisconsin but Trump only wanted the votes thrown out in 2 counties because of the address issue because he lost those counties. Then you ignore the fact that Trump wanted all the ballots thrown out, not just the ones that would have been in violation of his absurd argument.

Your assessment is what is absurd. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit Wisconsin and I say I live at 222, most reasonable people would accept that as an address without my naming the street, city and state. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street most reasonable people would accept that as an address. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street in Janesville most reasonable people would accept that as an address. To argue that the only way an address is an address is if you include every detail is ridiculous and has never been a requirement in Wisconsin before 2020.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The problem you have with your argument is that you seem to think that because there was no absurd level of detail in the law describing what constitutes an address then if there isn't an absurd level of detail provided when submitting the address the vote must be thrown out.


The problem you start to run into is that you are demanding things not in the law must be assumed to be in the law. That isn't how the law works. Then you also ignore other laws and court rulings that require that ballots must be counted if the persons voting relied in good faith on the directions of courts and election officials which they did. Then you also ignore the fact that the same rules have been in place for 11 elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Then you ignore the fact that the rules were in place for the entire state of Wisconsin but Trump only wanted the votes thrown out in 2 counties because of the address issue because he lost those counties. Then you ignore the fact that Trump wanted all the ballots thrown out, not just the ones that would have been in violation of his absurd argument.

Your assessment is what is absurd. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit Wisconsin and I say I live at 222, most reasonable people would accept that as an address without my naming the street, city and state. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street most reasonable people would accept that as an address. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street in Janesville most reasonable people would accept that as an address. To argue that the only way an address is an address is if you include every detail is ridiculous and has never been a requirement in Wisconsin before 2020.
Click to expand...

lol. I won.

you do believe in postal relativism.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The problem you have with your argument is that you seem to think that because there was no absurd level of detail in the law describing what constitutes an address then if there isn't an absurd level of detail provided when submitting the address the vote must be thrown out.


The problem you start to run into is that you are demanding things not in the law must be assumed to be in the law. That isn't how the law works. Then you also ignore other laws and court rulings that require that ballots must be counted if the persons voting relied in good faith on the directions of courts and election officials which they did. Then you also ignore the fact that the same rules have been in place for 11 elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Then you ignore the fact that the rules were in place for the entire state of Wisconsin but Trump only wanted the votes thrown out in 2 counties because of the address issue because he lost those counties. Then you ignore the fact that Trump wanted all the ballots thrown out, not just the ones that would have been in violation of his absurd argument.

Your assessment is what is absurd. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit Wisconsin and I say I live at 222, most reasonable people would accept that as an address without my naming the street, city and state. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street most reasonable people would accept that as an address. If we are standing in front of 300 Oak Street in Beloit, Wisconsin and I say I live at 222 Elm Street in Janesville most reasonable people would accept that as an address. To argue that the only way an address is an address is if you include every detail is ridiculous and has never been a requirement in Wisconsin before 2020.
Click to expand...

can an election worker add addresses?
 
AssHatZombie said:
so is it fine in your view, according to the law, if election workers add the address?

why can't you answer?

2 questions here.
Click to expand...

You still haven't read the court ruling?

1.) The court says it has been fine and has been the practice in every county in Wisconsin for at least 11 elections. Since it has always been fine in every previous election there is no basis to claim it is no longer valid after Trump lost. Trump could have filed a complaint about the practice in 2016 but didn't. Then the law also says that if voters follow the rules they were told to follow their vote should count. When you read the court ruling, the majority of address additions were done by adding state and zip code to an address. (See my previous post about addresses and how people understand an address without state and zip code.) The reality is that Rand Paul lied when he states there was "no address". The address was there but it may not have included some part of the address which was readily assumed based on location. Voters in Wisconsin are assumed to live in Wisconsin when they list a city/town in Wisconsin as their place of residence.

2.) Why should I have to answer your ridiculous question when I have repeatedly told you where to find the answer as ruled on by the Wisconsin Supreme Court who is the authority of record when it comes to Wisconsin laws. Ultimately your opinion and my opinion don't matter as it is the law and the courts that matter. The law has been looked at and the courts have ruled. Your position that they ruled wrongly while at the same time you still have not read their ruling continues to be an extended version of your argumentum ad ignoratiam. It seems that is your only game at this point. Clearly you don't wish to have an honest and intelligent discussion on the facts.
 
Mordent said:
Good god, educate yourself on the economic effects of raising taxes and regulations.
Click to expand...

I have a masters degree in economics. So, what specific policies proposed by the Biden Administration will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Be specific, and state the reason why. Or just surrender, since you don't appear to know anything.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you talking real world effects or theoretical effects?

The real world effects show raising taxes have no discernible economic effect on GDP growth.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the effects of raising taxes and regulations. It doesn't promote economic activity, it hampers it. If you think otherwise, it explains the "poor" part of your name.
 
Mordent said:
If you think raising taxes and regulations increases economic activity, you should ask for a refund.
We all have masters degrees online. I'm an astronaut, too.
Click to expand...

So, you can't name a single policy of the Biden administration that will have a detrimental impact on the economy. Clearly you don't have a masters degree, but I'll buy astronaut. You are out there. Sorry kid, you are totally out of your league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top