Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

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

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    evasion fallacy. you suck at thinking and arguing.
    Evasion? ROFLMAO.. You are the one refusing to read the court ruling but I am the one evading?

    I think you need to learn a little bit about actual fallacies before you start accusing people of using fallacies. The answers to your questions were presented to you along with an original source that supports those answers. Simply repeating your questions without looking at the evidence doesn't make my telling you to look at the evidence presented a fallacy.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Joe Capitalist (01-26-2021)

  3. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Evasion? ROFLMAO.. You are the one refusing to read the court ruling but I am the one evading?

    I think you need to learn a little bit about actual fallacies before you start accusing people of using fallacies. The answers to your questions were presented to you along with an original source that supports those answers. Simply repeating your questions without looking at the evidence doesn't make my telling you to look at the evidence presented a fallacy.
    what was the ruling? can you just summarize it here quickly. I'm tired.

    did it say anyone can add an address anytime and that's cool, and adresses can be vague?

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think the ruling is that an absurd level of detail was not included in the legislation, so retards now have enough room to ply their sophistry.

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    the law probably doesn't specify a time. because time of receipt is the rational assumed time. the court probably ruled in error.
    Since we are talking fallacies. Your answer here would be an example of the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

    The law is easy to find.
    The court ruling is easy to find.


    The law quite clearly doesn't designate time of receipt as the time when the address must be on the envelope. In fact the law specifically states that ballot certifications that aren't filled out correctly can be sent back to the voter to be corrected. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/6/iv/87/9

    I suggest you read the notes for that section which reference prior court rulings.

    Then we get to the court ruling -
    https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/...f&seqNo=315395

    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.
    The process of handling missing witness information is not new; election officials followed guidance that WEC created, approved, and disseminated to counties in October 2016. It has been relied on in11 statewide elections since, including in the 2016 presidential election when President Trump was victorious in Wisconsin. The Campaign nonetheless now seeks to strike ballots counted in accordance with that guidance in Milwaukee and Dane Counties, but not those counted in other counties that followed the same guidance.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    what was the ruling? can you just summarize it here quickly. I'm tired.

    did it say anyone can add an address anytime and that's cool, and adresses can be vague?
    Ah, the I'm too lazy to do any research fallacy?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    I think the ruling is that an absurd level of detail was not included in the legislation, so retards now have enough room to ply their sophistry.
    Argumentum ad ignoratiam. You haven't read the law and you haven't read the ruling but you argue that the contents of both don't meet a standard?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 28 Times in 21 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    President Joseph R. Biden.

    Next?
    Next? A shitty economy and war.

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Ah, the I'm too lazy to do any research fallacy?
    definitely not a fallacy, fake fallacy man.

  10. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Argumentum ad ignoratiam. You haven't read the law and you haven't read the ruling but you argue that the contents of both don't meet a standard?
    I was asking you. is the jist that laws were not absurdly specific? so now it's open to idiot sophistry meddling?

  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    definitely not a fallacy, fake fallacy man.
    Ah, the "I don't get sarcasm, fallacy?" (Used because of your specious and unsupported claim of a fallacy.)



    Meanwhile back at the discussion topic we have this from the court's concurring opinion -

    However, if the witness provided only part of the address——for example, a street address and municipality, but no state name or zip code——it is at least arguable that this would satisfy §6.87(6d)'s address requirement. And, to the extent clerks completed addresses that were already sufficient under the statute, I am not aware of any authority that would allow such votes to be struck.9¶51The parties did not present comprehensive arguments regarding which components of an address are necessary under the statute. It would not be wise to fully address that question now. But I do not believe the Campaign has established that all ballots where clerks added witness address information were necessarily insufficient and invalid; the addresses provided directly by the witnesses may very well have satisfied the statutory directive. The circuit court's findings of fact reflect that many of these ballots contained additions of the state name and/or zip code.
    (You might want to read the rest of his opinion where he talks about how "address" is used in other parts of the law.)

    Are you arguing that Wisconsin resident's ballots should be thrown out because they failed to state the obvious that they lived in Wisconsin?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  12. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordent View Post
    Next? A shitty economy and war.
    We have the shitty economy. It will almost certainly improve. What specific Biden policies are going to damage the economy, and why?

  13. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    I was asking you. is the jist that laws were not absurdly specific? so now it's open to idiot sophistry meddling?
    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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  14. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    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.
    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.

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.

  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    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.
    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.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (01-26-2021)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-30-2020, 08:45 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-12-2020, 01:56 PM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-08-2019, 06:49 PM
  4. "Trump fund raises off prime-time address"
    By archives in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2019, 08:17 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 06:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •