Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Wehrmacht Crimes against Women WW2" video.
-
23
-
2
-
I would say a couple of things here.
First, I think your analogy is a bit off. It would be more like a football league that decides to change the rules and allow the use of underarm forward passes in the game. No coach or team raises a complaint when this motion is passed. During the playoffs, both teams use this technique due to adverse field conditions making some regular throws difficult. No complaints are lodged by either team. During the finals both teams use the underarm forward pass, but the winning team uses it more often. There are no formal complaints lodged with the league before, during or immediately after the final game. It is not until one or more weeks later that the losing team lodges a complaint that the new method of passing the football is against the rules of the game, mainly because they feel they would have won the championship without the other team using the forward underarm pass.
Second, would the people who submitted this document to the Pennsylvania State Court have lodged a similar complaint had the Republicans won the election by a narrow margin? What would the reactions have been if the Democrats had lodged the same complaint with similar timing about Section 77 following a defeat at the polls? Would Republicans have backed the Democrats in their bid to disallow these mail-in votes because Section 77 should not be considered constitutional? It would, of course, mean invalidating all the mail-in Republican ballots as well, which might threaten the Republican win. If the claim was legitimate, I would like to say yes. However, if this theoretical scenario played out, my suspicion is that most Republicans would defend Section 77 to the hilt as legal and just, and complain that the Democrats were trying to steal the election.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beefy1212 However, since they were looking for fraud, both from internal and external sources, they should have found it if it existed. Most of the things you mentioned have been examined and dismissed, in many cases by state Republicans in charge of overseeing the elections. In each case where the fraud was deemed possible the recounts verified the original results (often multiple times), sometimes giving Biden more votes. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have tossed out 59 of 60 cases filed by the Trump's team, and many of these judges were Republican (who would be doubly sure to check for fraud). In several of the states where results are questioned, Republican auditors have approved the results. Having worked with statistics, I know that you can have outliers or oddball results that don't match what you expect. It is also interesting that most, if not all, of the counties where recounts were requested have a high proportion of African-Americans in them.
I myself wondered what was going on with the election results that evening as well, until I realized that counties in the US don't have similar populations. When you saw results from rural counties (that tended to vote Republican) with 2,000 votes compared to ones from urban areas (that tended to vote Democrat) containing 20,000 votes, it started to make sense. Also, it took longer to count the urban votes, hence the flip at the end of the evening.
But I will have to disagree with you on Trump and many of the Republicans. "By their acts shall ye know them". They are trying to toss out the election results because they are unfavorable to them. They want to retain power and promote their agenda, regardless of the cost to democracy in the US. Even retired Republican politicians and statesmen don't support them. In fact it is interesting that several retiring Republican Senators and Representatives have spoken out against what is going on, but didn't say a word while they held office. I once commented to my colleagues at the lunch table back when the Tea Party first formed that they were the type of people who would trample all over the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to "save them". I said this because I could see these people were self-righteous and self interested. My colleagues didn't believe me then (in fact they thought I was being alarmist), I know they think otherwise now.
By the way, I am not an American.
1
-
1
-
@beefy1212 And it is exactly this sort of response that lead to Japan going from being a democracy to a militaristic police state in just 15 years. If you don't know the history, it all started with patriotic societies forming in the 1920s. Patriotic junior army officers belonging to these organizations took a dislike to some government policies, and assassinated (or tried to assassinate) several high ranking politicians, including the prime minister. The reaction? "Oh, they are patriots who are fighting corruption. How can we possibly imprison or execute them?" Instead of taking strong action against these insurrectionists, the courts basically let them off. The government allowed more military men into the cabinet to appease the radicals. This happened a second time, wash, rinse, repeat. By then you had hardliners in government who gradually pushed out the moderates, and presto, Manchuria, Shanghai, Marco Polo Bridge and Pearl Harbor.
Christ was right, that one needs to remove the plank from one's eye before removing the splinter from another's. The protests yesterday, and during the tallying of votes during election, were an attempt by people calling themselves "patriots" to subvert the democratic protest because the results don't agree with what they want. This cannot be allowed. If the people, legislators and legal institutions of the US turn a blind eye to this attempted coup and do not hold those responsible accountable, then the US will be heading down a similar, parallel road to the one walked by Japan in the 1920s and 1930s. And that road leads to right-wing dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beefy1212 And here is the result of this filing (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Patricia_McCullough)
Kelly v. Pennsylvania (2020)
On November 21, 2020, a group of state Republican officials, candidates, and voters filed suit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, alleging that the state law allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail violated the state constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court either to order election officials "to certify the results of the election based solely on the legal votes" or to direct "that the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose Pennsylvania's [presidential] electors."[3]
On November 25, 2020, Judge Patricia McCullough ordered election officials to temporarily halt "any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 general election ... for the offices of President and Vice President," pending an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 27, 2020.[4]
State officials appealed McCullough's order to the state supreme court. On November 28, 2020, the state supreme court ruled unanimously to vacate McCullough's order and dismiss the case with prejudice. In its unsigned opinion, the court wrote the following:[5]
“ The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election and the final ballots in the 2020 general election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.[6] ”
Sean Parnell, a Republican congressional candidate who was a party to the lawsuit, said he and the other plaintiffs would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 1, 2020, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block the state supreme court's order pending appeal. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew this application, and on December 2, 2020, they petitioned the state supreme court to stay its decision pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it would take up the case. The state supreme court declined to stay its decision on December 3, 2020.[7][8][9][10][11]
In light of the state supreme court's December 3, 2020, order, the plaintiffs again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state supreme court's ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the justice assigned to consider emergency applications from the Third Circuit (which contains Pennsylvania), directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' filing by 9 a.m. on December 8, 2020. Alito referred the matter to the full court, which, on December 8, 2020, declined to take up the case. The court made its decision without noted dissent.[12]
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
My comment: I read both the filing and the judges comments. In short, the plaintiffs had a full year and two prior elections to file this document after Section 77 was passed. Instead, they waited until the 2020 Presidential election and AFTER preliminary counts indicated Trump had lost. So they were attempting to use this as an attempt to overthrow an election they now considered they had lost due to mail-in votes. In short, it is a spurious court filing made under dubious circumstances, which the presiding judge, the state supreme court and the US supreme court threw out. Had this been filed in 2019, it would have been a different matter.
In addition, close reading of the original voting law (or one of its amendments) indicated that people could vote in absentia due to illness. Although this would be stretching the original intent of Pennsylvania's voting law, a highly contagious pandemic could be construed as an illness, as the law as I read it, rather quickly I will add, didn't specify to whom the illness affected. The wording left it somewhat up to interpretation. Although, if I was a judge considering such a wide definition and usage of the original phrasing, I might have concerns about setting a precedent that could be misused at a later date.
1