Have we ever been given a reason
-
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
Yeah, if they were keeping them 20 feet away... I do. Why did Philly shut down and appeal the court order requiring they be allowed closer?
-
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
Yeah, if they were keeping them 20 feet away... I do. Why did Philly shut down and appeal the court order requiring they be allowed closer?
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
Yeah, if they were keeping them 20 feet away... I do. Why did Philly shut down and appeal the court order requiring they be allowed closer?
The rule was "six feet" for every one, the standard COVID-19 social distance. It was "six feet" before they went to court and it was "six feet" after the court was done with them.
Now, @LuFins-Dad , do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
-
It wasn’t 6 feet, they were being kept 20 feet away, which is why a judge stepped in and they shut down to try to appeal....
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
Yeah, if they were keeping them 20 feet away... I do. Why did Philly shut down and appeal the court order requiring they be allowed closer?
The rule was "six feet" for every one, the standard COVID-19 social distance. It was "six feet" before they went to court and it was "six feet" after the court was done with them.
Now, @LuFins-Dad , do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Axtremus said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
Yeah, if they were keeping them 20 feet away... I do. Why did Philly shut down and appeal the court order requiring they be allowed closer?
The rule was "six feet" for every one, the standard COVID-19 social distance. It was "six feet" before they went to court and it was "six feet" after the court was done with them.
Now, @LuFins-Dad , do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
What do COVID rules have to do with ballot oversight? Accomodations can't be made? Did the good people of Philadelphia not know what PPE or plexiglas is? Do you expect somebody to verify a signature with binoculars? (BTW, that was tried). Did you know that the six feet rules was not observed at all times? That at times, observers were kept as far as thirty feet away.
So, we gave to maintain social distancing, but we can have hundreds of people in one room, with other oeople constantly shuffling back and forth? Were thise ballot counting nachines and scanners thoroughly decontaminated before use and intermittently thereafter? Were all ballots autoclaved before counting or were all election personnel not worried about fomite transmission, since I saw many of them not wearing gloves?
-
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
-
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
Yah, but one is a constitutional right and ....
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
Yah, but one is a constitutional right and ....
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
Yah, but one is a constitutional right and ....
Both are...
-
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
Yah, but one is a constitutional right and ....
Both are...
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
I find it interesting that Joe and the Democrats want to end the online sale of ammunition since it is effectively impossible to verify identity accurately but fully support mail in voting with no effective means of verifying identity....
Yah, but one is a constitutional right and ....
Both are...
That was precisely my point.
-
Maybe I miss Something, but I think the US constitution gives the right to vote but does it give the right to buy ammunition?
-
Maybe I miss Something, but I think the US constitution gives the right to vote but does it give the right to buy ammunition?
@taiwan_girl said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Maybe I miss Something, but I think the US constitution gives the right to vote but does it give the right to buy ammunition?
That’s kind of implicit in the right to bear arms...
-
There's no right to buy it online.
Honestly, the US Constitution isn't an excuse to abandon all common sense.
Well, OK, maybe it is, but you take my point.
-
There's no right to buy it online.
Honestly, the US Constitution isn't an excuse to abandon all common sense.
Well, OK, maybe it is, but you take my point.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
There's no right to buy it online.
You can make the same point about mail-in votes. That's not in the constitution either.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
There's no right to buy it online.
You can make the same point about mail-in votes. That's not in the constitution either.
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
There's no right to buy it online.
You can make the same point about mail-in votes. That's not in the constitution either.
I never said mail-in votes were a constitutional right. They do make a lot of sense in the time of Covid.
I've know I've said this before, but I've observed a massive correlation between people quoting the US Constitution at the beginning of a sentence and people proposing some really stupid shit.
Buying guns and ammo online would be an example of this.
-
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
There's no right to buy it online.
You can make the same point about mail-in votes. That's not in the constitution either.
I never said mail-in votes were a constitutional right. They do make a lot of sense in the time of Covid.
I've know I've said this before, but I've observed a massive correlation between people quoting the US Constitution at the beginning of a sentence and people proposing some really stupid shit.
Buying guns and ammo online would be an example of this.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@George-K said in Have we ever been given a reason:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Have we ever been given a reason:
There's no right to buy it online.
You can make the same point about mail-in votes. That's not in the constitution either.
I never said mail-in votes were a constitutional right. They do make a lot of sense in the time of Covid.
I've know I've said this before, but I've observed a massive correlation between people quoting the US Constitution at the beginning of a sentence and people proposing some really stupid shit.
Buying guns and ammo online would be an example of this.
I've bought several guns online. You just have to have them shipped to a !ocal FFL.
As Jerry Miculek (a fine Louisiana fella) would say, "Get you some!" .
https://www.budsgunshop.com/mobile/search.php/type/Firearms_Handguns
