Joe Capitalist (01-26-2021)
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."
Joe Capitalist (01-26-2021)
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.
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."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
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 -
(You might want to read the rest of his opinion where he talks about how "address" is used in other parts of the law.)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.
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."
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."
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.
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."
Phantasmal (01-26-2021)
Bookmarks