Most Gazans didn't support Hamas attacking

tsuke said:
As H dawg said At this point what does it even matter. Never let a good crisis go to waste. This is the best chance to get rid of Gaza and remove the Palestinians from there while imposing harsher conditions on the other Palestinians. It would be disrespectful to the 100 or so dead Israelis not to use this opportunity to the fullest.
Click to expand...

With "harsher conditions on the other Palestinians" meaning what?

Have you seen the videos of these people streaming out of Gaza, as much as carts laden with a family's possessions, pulled by mules, can be called streaming. Startling to see that in the 21st Century.
 
domer76 said:
Nope, PA didn’t decide that at all. You’re a liar or too stupid to understand the ruling.

Arizona Republicans hired their own “forensic” team at taxpayer expense and found NOTHING. Other than validating the original count.

Most secure election ever.
Click to expand...

No one was talking to you, dumber.

B E pretends to be rational. You are just a mindless drone spewing party lies with absolutely no capacity for thought.
 
domer76 said:
One more time, illiterate fuck. Page 14 of the PA Supreme Court decision.

That page verifies you’re a willfully ignorant lying fucktard.
Click to expand...

Post it or crawl back to your sewer, dumber.

No signature check, no address verification.

The most shamefully corrupt election in American history - fact.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
No one was talking to you, dumber.

B E pretends to be rational. You are just a mindless drone spewing party lies with absolutely no capacity for thought.
Click to expand...

There’s no “party line” when it comes to truth.

You’re lying about PA. You haven’t even read their SC ruling.

You’re lying about AZ.

You’re a lying, willfully ignorant dumbfuck.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Post it or crawl back to your sewer, dumber.

No signature check, no address verification.

The most shamefully corrupt election in American history - fact.
Click to expand...

You made reference to their SC ruling, yet you haven’t even read it.

Of course, there’s a signature check. But your simpleton’s brain can’t comprehend what the ruling REALLY is.

Of course, there’s an address check. But your simpleton’s brain can’t comprehend what the ruling REALLY is.

Get back us, shit-for-brains, when you’ve actually read the ruling.
 
domer76 said:
There’s no “party line” when it comes to truth.
Click to expand...

There is no truth when it comes to the party line - or to you.

You’re lying about PA. You haven’t even read their SC ruling.
Click to expand...

In what way? I cited my claim from a credible source.

You refuse to.

You’re lying about AZ.
Click to expand...

In what way?

You’re a lying, willfully ignorant dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Because "truth" is that which serves your Reich, and all else is "lies?"

Uber Alles democrat, Herr Comrade.
 
domer76 said:
There’s no “party line” when it comes to truth.
Click to expand...

There is no truth when it comes to the party line - or to you.

You’re lying about PA. You haven’t even read their SC ruling.
Click to expand...

In what way? I cited my claim from a credible source.

You refuse to.

You’re lying about AZ.
Click to expand...

In what way?

You’re a lying, willfully ignorant dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Because "truth" is that which serves your Reich, and all else is "lies?"

Uber Alles democrat, Herr Comrade.
 
domer76 said:
You made reference to their SC ruling, yet you haven’t even read it.

Of course, there’s a signature check. But your simpleton’s brain can’t comprehend what the ruling REALLY is.

Of course, there’s an address check. But your simpleton’s brain can’t comprehend what the ruling REALLY is.

Get back us, shit-for-brains, when you’ve actually read the ruling.
Click to expand...

I posted a valid cite that proved that there is no signature or address check to the "no fault" mail in ballots in Pennsylvania.

ONE of use cited our claim. YOU on the other hand, simply melted down hoping that your shrill shrieking would substitute for facts.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
There is no truth when it comes to the party line - or to you.



In what way? I cited my claim from a credible source.

You refuse to.



In what way?



Because "truth" is that which serves your Reich, and all else is "lies?"

Uber Alles democrat, Herr Comrade.
Click to expand...

In post #210, you referenced their SC ruling, yet you didn’t read it, did you, stupid fuck?

I’ll even send it to you again, illiterate bitch. Read it and weep, liar.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I posted a valid cite that proved that there is no signature or address check to the "no fault" mail in ballots in Pennsylvania.

ONE of use cited our claim. YOU on the other hand, simply melted down hoping that your shrill shrieking would substitute for facts.
Click to expand...

If you weren't such a Third World dumbass, you'd know that, in America, it's the 21st century. We have computers, not kangaroo skins and an abacus your people. If a person fraudulently used a person's ballot and that person tried to vote, the computer would flag the attempt. At that point, the voter would file a report and the crime would be investigated.
 
Doc Dutch said:
If you weren't such a Third World dumbass, you'd know that, in America, it's the 21st century. We have computers, not kangaroo skins and an abacus your people. If a person fraudulently used a person's ballot and that person tried to vote, the computer would flag the attempt. At that point, the voter would file a report and the crime would be investigated.
Click to expand...

It’s more than that in this case. If the dumbfuck would have read his own citation, he would have known that PA requires Name, address, DOB, voting district and length of time in district. Then the declaration is signed saying they are eligible to vote in that election.

Then, the district determines whether they are eligible for mail in ballot by comparing that with DL or last 4 digits of SSN and the voter’s permanent registration card.

THEN, and ONLY THEN, do they get the ballot even sent to them.
 
domer76 said:
In post #210, you referenced their SC ruling, yet you didn’t read it, did you, stupid fuck?

I’ll even send it to you again, illiterate bitch. Read it and weep, liar.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794
Click to expand...

No dipshit, I referenced Politico, which very CLEARLY says

[h=2]Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons[/h]
No signature match, no address check.

The most shamefully corrupt election in American history.

Once again,

{The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.}

Get it, stupid fuck?

This is why they call you "dumber."
 
domer76 said:
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-113-2020mo - 104584871117842321.pdf?cb=1

P.14, idiot.
Click to expand...


Now we know why you were so cagey...



, the only examination which the county board may conduct under Section 3146.8(g)(3) and 3146.2c(c)16 is to compare “the ‘information’ on the envelope—voter’s name and address—with the names and addresses on the lists of approved absentee and mail-in voters.” Secretary’s Application for Extraordinary Relief, 10/04/20, at 19. The Secretary stresses that no other examination is permitted under the plain terms of the Code.

You didn't continue to page 15.

Of course EVERYONE already knew you were being dumber.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
No dipshit, I referenced Politico, which very CLEARLY says

[h=2]Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons[/h]
No signature match, no address check.

The most shamefully corrupt election in American history.

Once again,

{The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.}

Get it, stupid fuck?

This is why they call you "dumber."
Click to expand...

I gave you a chance to educate yourself. Numerous times. But your willfully ignorant lazy ass couldn’t get you that far.

To EVEN RECEIVE a mail in ballot in PA, you need to provide:

Name
Address
DOB
Voting district
Length of time in district.

Then declaration is signed saying they are eligible to vote in that election.

THEN, the district determines whether they are eligible for mail in ballot by comparing that with DL or last 4 digits of SSN and the voter’s permanent registration card.

Those are the hoops you have to jump through BEFORE the ballot is even mailed to you.

When the ballot is returned, the NAME and ADDRESS is checked.

The law says the ballot cannot be rejected SOLELY on signature ALONE.

UNANIMOUSLY DECISION.

After all that, you still think the votes aren’t secure. That’s because you’re hockey puck stupid.

So, asswipe, I gave you more oxygen than you deserved on this topic. You can now suffocate in your own ignorance
 
domer76 said:
It’s more than that in this case. If the dumbfuck would have read his own citation, he would have known that PA requires Name, address, DOB, voting district and length of time in district. Then the declaration is signed saying they are eligible to vote in that election.

Then, the district determines whether they are eligible for mail in ballot by comparing that with DL or last 4 digits of SSN and the voter’s permanent registration card.

THEN, and ONLY THEN, do they get the ballot even sent to them.
Click to expand...

It varies by state, but overall we're agreed he's a dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top