Davin News Server

On 10/29/2024 9:04 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> NV Supreme Court ruled that ballots arriving 3 days after the Election will be counted.
> 
> This is another way they will steal the election.

And if that doesn't work they can always light em on fire like up in WA.

> =====
> 
> Nevada Supreme Court: Count Mailed Ballots 3 Days After Election Day Even Without Postmark
> 
> The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Monday the state can count mailed ballots that arrive without a postmark up to three days after Election Day
> on Nov. 5.
> 
> The Republican National Committee and former President Donald Trump's campaign committee had sought to block the counting of ballots
> without postmarks in the swing state, and the party has fought in other states to prevent counting ballots that arrive after Election Day.
> 
> But the state's Supreme Court upheld the August decision by District Court Judge James Russell, who refused to block the counting of
> ballots without postmarks because of the importance of counting all eligible votes. Russell also found Republicans wouldn't be irreparably
> harmed by counting late-arriving ballots because few votes were at stake.
> 
> 
> "As explained in the legislative history, the purpose of the bill was 'to expand the ways in which people vote,' and make it easier for
> voters to exercise their freedom to vote," Chief Justice Elissa Cadish wrote for the court.
> 
> Tossup states such as Nevada have become a legal battleground over rules in the closely contested election. Republicans have focused many
> of their cases on the rules for voter registration and counting mailed ballots.
> 
> Nevada State law allows for mailed ballots to be counted when they are returned to county clerks by 5 p.m. on the fourth day after Election
> Day with a postmark by Election Day. If 'the date of the postmark cannot be determined," ballots received by 5 p.m. three days after
> Election Day 'shall been deemed to have been postmarked on or before the day of the election."
> 
> The RNC argued that voters could ensure their ballots were postmarked correctly by visiting the post office, but the state supreme court
> ruled that isn't possible for homebound voters or those with post offices far away. The court ruled that lawmakers intended to count
> ballots without postmarks or with smudged postmarks.
> 
> Justice Douglas Herndon and Justice Kristina Pickering each agreed separately with the result of the case for lack of harm to the
> Republican plaintiffs. But each voiced concern about counting mailed ballots after Election Day without postmarks.
> 
> Herndon wrote that the law was "clear and unambiguous that a mail ballot must contain a postmark."
> 
> Russell had found that few votes were at stake in the dispute.
> 
> "Particularly given the very small number of ballots apparently at issue - just 24 in the recent primary election - any possible injury to
> Plaintiffs is entirely speculative and hypothetical," Russell wrote.
> 
> The ruling comes as election and postal officials urge voters to mail ballots at least a week before Election Day because of potential
> delays in the mail.
> 
> Again... they cheated in 2020 too.
> 
> ===============================================================================
> 
> The Liberal Argument Outline
> 
> 1. Use spun facts:
> 
> These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and
> add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the
> original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin. Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one post
> to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
> experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the liberals.
> 
> 2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your Source:
> 
> If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is
> right wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
> themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road (there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion.
> Go back to the facts.
> 
> 3. The Limbaugh Defense:
> 
> This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea
> what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an
> attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush,
> LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.
> 
> 4. The Personal Attack:
> 
> Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even
> something as innocuous as "I am a chef". They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention from the original lost
> argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet to be refuted.
> 
> 5. Name Calling:
> 
> Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more
> insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.
> 
> 6. The Liberal Bat Signal:
> 
> When they find out they are unable to engage you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic,
> they will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number
> of rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
> disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
> personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at them. Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid
> point (Dutch did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial
> statement of facts that established your victory are for entertainment and educational purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand
> the topic remain on the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find someone else that will engage them on their
> terms.
> 
> Now, go away, Snowflake.
>