3685
posted ago by Clabber ago by Clabber +3685 / -0

I think this is one of the few places left where I can still say that.

Comments (128)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-2
readyforaction -2 points ago +3 / -5

My brother-in-law says the fraud was negligible and the "statistical impossibilities" claims are based on incorrect data. Do you have references to some of the impossibilities that hasn't been deboonked? I'd like to show it to him.

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
4
readyforaction 4 points ago +5 / -1

He lives in PA and he knows about the legislature argument. The Republican Legislature in PA passed the laws allowing mail-in ballots in 2019. They later claimed it was unconstitutional (at the state level) but the constitution doesn't actually prohibit it. It's frustrating. I've tried to read the US Supreme Court briefs related to the case and it's too complicated for me to understand.

3
OldBallSackEyes 3 points ago +3 / -0

Title 77 is unconstitutional under the PA state constitution. This was the main argument of Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell's case. Also, even if it were constitutional, the liberal PA Supreme Court, made rulings which violated Title 77. See this archived article from Alexander Macris who is of course now removed from Substack.