Have we ever been given a reason
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 20:40 last edited by
Why Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required?
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 20:45 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 21:00 last edited by
In other words, they were allowed in the room, but couldn't see shit.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:51 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:59 last edited by
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
-
Why Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:03 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Have we ever been given a reason:
Why Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required?
It is a distraction
All the real fraud was in California, flip it and Trump wins
So keep the attention on PA until it is too late
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:21 last edited by
That’s exactly what we want you to think while we manufacture ballots in NYC to flip this state blue.
-
Hey @LuFins-Dad, do you still believe that "Philadelphia wasn't allowing poll watchers as they are legally required"?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:37 last edited by@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?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:41 last edited by@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"?
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:20 last edited by
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....
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:22 last edited by
One thing that will never happen - to get a democrat to stick to the truth.
-
@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"?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:25 last edited by@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?
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:29 last edited by
The Left has become a religion. The democrat party is its church. They have selected a new Pope. You WILL bow to their gods.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 13:54 last edited by
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....
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 14:02 last edited by@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 ....
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 14:05 last edited by@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...
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 15:48 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 15:59 last edited by
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?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 16:00 last edited by@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...
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 16:06 last edited by Doctor Phibes 11 Nov 2020, 16:07
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.
