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

[Text Drivers are Killers]

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?

HAHAHAHA. The board notes you evaded the issue and stooped to personal attacks. Even you know this is pure election fraud.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/...f&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.

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?

[Nordberg]

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.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Courts are not allowed to break the laws either, you stupid puta.

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.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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 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.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

but now you're talking about something different than what constitutes an address.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

but now you're talking about something different than what constitutes an address.

The only legal requirement is that the address exists prior to opening the envelope. It did exist prior to opening all those envelopes and the ballots from those envelopes were then counted. The claim that none of them had addresses is false. When the address was added and by whom is not specified in the law so it doesn't matter who added it. The only requirement is that it exists.

We are right back to you abusing words for political purposes. An address is an address is an address. It existed on the envelopes prior to them being opened. In some cases the address was added by poll workers using the listed address in the poll book. The courts ruled that was legal because the law doesn't stipulate who must provide the address but only that the address be provided.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The only legal requirement is that the address exists prior to opening the envelope. It did exist prior to opening all those envelopes and the ballots from those envelopes were then counted. The claim that none of them had addresses is false. When the address was added and by whom is not specified in the law so it doesn't matter who added it. The only requirement is that it exists.

We are right back to you abusing words for political purposes. An address is an address is an address. It existed on the envelopes prior to them being opened. In some cases the address was added by poll workers using the listed address in the poll book. The courts ruled that was legal because the law doesn't stipulate who must provide the address but only that the address be provided.

I dispute your assertion that all addresses were intact at time of receipt.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

like, what do you mean by address, man? who's to say? postal relativity.

[Grokmaster]

Rand Paul talking about the massive election fraud.

So? That's "OK" to the Fraudocrats.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I dispute your assertion that all addresses were intact at time of receipt.

I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.

do they need to be intact addresses?

can an adress be added by an election worker later?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

do they need to be intact addresses?

can an adress be added by an election worker later?

The courts ruled on this. See my link earlier to the court ruling. Pretty simple stuff that anyone with a HS education should be able to understand.

The same procedures were in place for previous elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Sore losers are not a reason to overturn an election.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The courts ruled on this. See my link earlier to the court ruling. Pretty simple stuff that anyone with a HS education should be able to understand.

The same procedures were in place for previous elections and no one complained until Trump lost. Sore losers are not a reason to overturn an election.

evasion fallacy. you suck at thinking and arguing.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I never said they were intact at time of receipt. The law doesn't require them to be intact at the time of receipt. Simply because you assert something that is not required doesn't make a ballot invalid. I allege that no one had signed their ballot envelope prior to receiving the envelope but that doesn't make any ballot invalid.

Simply because you are an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. Because Rand Paul is an idiot doesn't invalidate any ballots in Wisconsin. You can't demand that an action not required by law be required before a ballot can be counted. You especially can't demand that after the thing you are claiming is illegal has been done in multiple elections with no complaints.

the law probably doesn't specify a time. because time of receipt is the rational assumed time. the court probably ruled in error.