By Curt_Anderson October 26, 2021 11:34 am Category: Politics (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

"I think it's apparent that the Dems finagled mail-in ballots by separating the ballots from their security envelopes so that fraud could not be detected."--HtS

Below is my ballot's secrecy sleeve aka security envelope for our upcoming election. The point of the secrecy sleeve is to make worriers feel more comfortable and secure that it's a secret ballot. ​Some people may worry that a neighbor or the postal carrier will hold their envelopes and ballot up to the light and peak at their votes.

Notice that the secrecy/security envelope is "optional". Any argument that Democrats nefariously separated ballots from their security envelopes is ridiculous on its face. What would be nefarious is if people attempted to match a ballot up with the signature envelope to detect how a person voted under the guise of looking for voter fraud.

These secrecy sleeves are secondary envelopes inside the outer signature envelope. In highly contested elections poll watchers sometimes challenge a signature if it doesn't match exactly the signature on file. The outer envelope has an individualized barcode for every voter. That's what we do in Oregon, and I suspect it's the same or similar in other states.

At any rate, the unchallenged mail-in ballots are determined to be legitimate by all concerned--including representatives of political parties BEFORE they are opened. Then these approved ballots are then removed and separated from their envelopes and counted. The vote counters and the vote counting machines do not know how any individual voted.

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on October 26, 2021 11:42 am Not a dang thing you wrote is true of a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania. Yikes, Curt! Do you know that there is a world beyond Oregon? by islander on October 26, 2021 1:56 pm Here ya go, Hate !! Click on the link and read what Pennsylvania's laws really have to say about this !! vox.com by HatetheSwamp on October 26, 2021 2:10 pm isle, I have voted mail-in Pennsylvania. by Curt_Anderson on October 26, 2021 2:44 pm HtS, You do realize that your claim about Democrats and security envelopes is nonsensical, right? Especially in light of what islander posted. In Pennsylvania, as in Oregon, the actual ballots are rightfully separated from their identifying envelopes with the voters' names and signatures. There may be the interim step of a secrecy/security envelope to be opened, but separated or not, it's not knowable whose ballot it is. Even if the secrecy/security envelopes could somehow be connected to a particular voter it could not be used to detect fraud as you claim. I have no idea of what kind of fraud you think could be detected if the ballots were not separated from their security envelopes. I suspect that you don't either. by HatetheSwamp on October 26, 2021 3:10 pm Curt, We went through this no so long ago. From the Vox article: "On the back of this envelope, the voter must write their address, print and sign their name, and date their signature, before sealing it and dropping it in the mail." Read the Forbes article from the time ballots were being counted in Philadelphia: "A state court in Pennsylvania granted the Trump campaign’s request to have its election observers stand closer to the vote counting process, delivering a win to the Trump campaign as they’ve challenged rules regarding the vote counting process in multiple battleground states and reportedly temporarily halting the counting process in Philadelphia." In a sneaky way, the Dems defied the order. What the Philadelphia Dems did was to open mail-in ballots, separating the ballots from the signed security envelopes...without GOP observers being able to verify the signtures. They cheated! PERIOD. forbes.com by Curt_Anderson on October 26, 2021 3:46 pm "On the back of this envelope, the voter must write their address, print and sign their name, and date their signature, before sealing it and dropping it in the mail." --HtS "The back of this envelope" which Vox refers to is the outer envelope. See the video on the link below starting at about 45 seconds in. Since you voted by mail, you should know that voters sign their names on the outer envelopes. Signatures are verified before the envelopes are opened. Ballots are SUPPOSED to separated from the signed outer envelopes. The security envelopes are unsigned and don't identify the voters. fox43.com by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 4:16 am Exactly, Curt. What the Philly Dems did was separate the ballots from those outer envelopes and they got away with it by preventing GOP observers from being able to confirm that the information on the outer envelope was accurate. That's what the judge's order was about. Remember a judge ruled against the Dems for conducting the vote the way they did? I know this because the biggest local Philly talk show icon is a GOP and he was reporting what was going on during his whole show during the entire vote count, right before Rush came on. Did you notice on the video the elections guy talking about constantly checking that everything was accurate!!!!!? The Philly Dems made certain that being sure that everything was correct could not be done. There's no disputing that. Why do you suppose the Dems did that? They were effin cheating! I know that I've been calling you "credulous Curt" off and on for a while, and I think you are at times. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to a degree here. The kind of dishonesty that is the normal thing in some areas of the country, Philadelphia being one, is outside of your experience. But, it's real. by Donna on October 27, 2021 4:34 am No it isn't. What you posted is just the latest of a seemingly bottomless pit of falsehoods. See link below. politifact.com by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 4:53 am Donna!!!!! Splain the judge's order! Were the GOPs who sought the order lying? Was the judge hallucinating? The Philly Dem machine required GOPs to stand behind a barricade, too far away to determine that the mail-in ballots were legal. That's fact. I was following it day by day from live reports from people on the scene. "Several critics have argued that PolitiFact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and the Democratic Party and hostile to conservatives and Republicans." Citing PolitiFact is like suggesting that Rachel and Sean are objective journalists. Yikes, Donna. You're up early. by islander on October 27, 2021 8:17 am Hate wrote:"That's what the judge's order was about. Remember a judge ruled against the Dems for conducting the vote the way they did?" Do you honestly not know what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled concerning the flawed ruling by that judge? There was no cheating and the rules for the observers were followed. check it out. static.politifact.com by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 8:42 am isle, Here's how you can come to UNDERSTAND how it is that our two sides will never see this in the same way. As I pointed out to Donna, PolitiFact is completely biased and you won't acknowledge that your UNDERSTANDING is based on numerous flawed sources. Several critics have argued that PolitiFact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and the Democratic Party and hostile to conservatives and Republicans. The thing about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is that it is a high politicized body, a tool for the Dem governor and his administration. That's fact. You simply need to UNDERSTAND that. Bahahahahahahaha! You will never base you UNDERSTANDING on unbiased, reliable sources. As I understand it, that's because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Hehehehehehehehehe. by islander on October 27, 2021 9:35 am "The thing about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is that it is a high politicized body, a tool for the Dem governor and his administration. That's fact. You simply need to UNDERSTAND that. Bahahahahahahaha! ---Hate Of course, Hate. I just never realized it before. It's all a big conspiracy and they are all in on it! The news, the courts, the judges, the fact checkers, etc. All of them !!! They are all plotting against us! by Curt_Anderson on October 27, 2021 9:49 am HtS's stubborn denial of facts and dismissal of factual sources reminds me of this SNL skit about "SportsMax". View Video by Donna on October 27, 2021 9:59 am It looks to me like the only way observers would be able to verify signatures and addresses is if they stood directly behind the ballot counters and looked over their shoulders. I highly doubt if observers were ever allowed to get that close. Bill loves to criticize the "woke" left, but there are parallels between the woke left and people like him on the right. Right now, the woke left is trying to change the English language by inventing new pronouns that everyone is supposed to start using so that T and Q+ people's sensitivities aren't offended. Bill likes to throw me in with the woke left, but the truth is that I disagree with them woke and have debated them, and I've found that most of them are just as extreme snd unbending as their counterparts on the woke right. Social media is what is fueling all of this extremism, and I want no part of it. I don't consider myself part of the woke left, nor do I even consider myself a progressive anymore, as that word seems to have lost its meaning. Rather, I will continue to examine each issue independendly and reach my own conclusions without checking with the loudest voices from the woke left who like to tell everyone how they're supposed to feel about every topic, which btw is what I see happening on the woke right too. by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 10:01 am From where is I'm positioned, isle would be the person who'd believe the vote tally after Mayor Daley was overwhelmingly reelected and Curt the guy who never questioned the justice of Stalin's tribunals. In the end, I can see your reliance on the Swampcult Blue MAGA lie... ...and, to the point of these threads, many millions agree with me and can't wait for November in 022 and 024...and that reality you can't deny. by Donna on October 27, 2021 10:11 am I remember that SNL sketch. It's a perfect analogy to what I'm seeing on the woke right as well as the woke left. People who live inside of the woke bubbles have no idea how ridiculous they're being. by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 10:28 am Bill loves to criticize the "woke" left, but there are parallels between the woke left and people like him on the right. Of course! What this means is that subjectivity is truth... ...which is what I've been saying all along. Somehow, though, I suspect that we, nevertheless, still don't agree. I've always acknowledged my subjectivity... contentedly. And, praised po for running circles around me for living within po's own world, though po denies it. by Donna on October 27, 2021 10:38 am Why are you bringing up my wife? She hardly ever posts here and hadn't for quite a while. I stick to logic and facts, and when I'm being subjective, I'm up front about it being an opinion. I have no "beliefs" per se. If I don't know, I'll say I'm agnostic. The woke right and left don't do that. Their opinions, which seem to be based on 5% fact and 95% feelings, are the only permitted way to see anything. They tend to have a religious devotion to their imaginings. by HatetheSwamp on October 27, 2021 10:58 am I mention po because, in all many years, I've never met anyone as able to live from their own subjectivity as po. Over the years, po has amazed me repeatedly. The problem with your contention that you rely on facts is that, in truth, you rely on what you believe to be facts, as do I. Often, the only difference between us is that what we accept as fact is not fact, but what we want to be fact. As an example, the reliance by several on, ironically, PolitiFact which is as authoritive to some as Genesis 1 is to a fundy... ...the problem is that it's been busted numerous times for its bias. You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest on these threads. I ain't. I'm being entirely sincere. But, I understand that I bring myself to the facts. And, I also know that you're no less human than am I. by islander on October 28, 2021 7:30 am Hate wrote: "The problem with your contention that you rely on facts is that, in truth, you rely on what you believe to be facts, as do I." That's a rather pointless statement, unless one is trying to make all arguments or debates pointless. Apply it to such arguments as to whether the world is flat or round, or whether decapitating a person will result in death or not, and you'll understand exactly why such arguments (or any arguments) would be pointless. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 8:45 am That's a rather pointless statement, unless one is trying to make all arguments or debates pointless. No. It splains why Trump supporters will never accept the fact the election wasn't stolen. Or why some people will always root for the Yankees. The point is that many differences of opinion will never be resolved. Think of history. by Curt_Anderson on October 28, 2021 9:07 am HtS, You and fellow Trump supporters are untethered to reality. Even the most ardent Yankee fans accept the fact that the Yankees did not win enough games and score enough runs to advance to the World Series. Yankee fans aren't posting nonsense, storming Cooperstown and showing up at rallies demanding that the scorekeepers and umpires reconsider. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 9:17 am Curt, I am grounded in reality as far as my understanding that the Dems engaged in shenanigans in 020. by Ponderer on October 28, 2021 9:50 am Hate, you are grounded in baseless speculation and raging, absurd, propagandistic nonsense. You only think it's reality. Your "reality" is not based on any actual reality at all. Your evidence is not evidence. Your facts are not facts. If any of that weren't the case, you could have simply provided legitimate corroboration of your assertions to discount what I am saying. LONG ago. Yet you never have. by Curt_Anderson on October 28, 2021 9:55 am "I am grounded in reality as far as my understanding that the Dems engaged in shenanigans in 020." --HtS I detect some progress in your last statement. What you previously claimed to "know" you now admit is only "as far as [your] understanding". by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 9:58 am Whoa, po! It's been a while...here, anyway. It would be impossible for me to provide legitimate corroboration...to YOU... I have never tried... ... precisely because subjectivity is truth. However, if Old Dude were still around, he'd argue that I have provided legitimate corroboration... ... because subjectivity is truth. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 10:07 am I detect some progress in your last statement. What you previously claimed to "know" you now admit is only "as far as [your] understanding". Curt, You are definitely a "glass is half full" kinda guy. You are giving me waaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. by Ponderer on October 28, 2021 10:20 am He's right, Curt. You have given him way too much credit. He's made no progress at all. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 10:32 am Indubitably, po! by Donna on October 28, 2021 2:19 pm The woke left and woke right have the same conspiratorial mind set. It generally goes "Everything the [mainstream, corporate, swamp] media says is a lie, and the real truth is [convoluted conspiracy theory that has no evidence]. I'm having a conversation with a woke lefty on Facebook (btw, they're supposedly the only true progressives,) and his contention is -- and I've heard other woke lefties say this -- that the Democrats never had any intentions of passing anything on the infrastructure plan, that it's all just a big act, and that they along with the corporate media are part of a grand conspiracy to deceive us about that and everything else. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2021 3:16 pm So, Donna. You're FB friends with Indy!? by Donna on October 28, 2021 3:19 pm I know - sounds just like Indy. Indy isn't on Facebook, but FB is crawling with Indy types. by islander on October 29, 2021 5:07 am You are right Ponderer, Hate can’t put forth an honest cogent argument to justify the beliefs and opinions he expresses here, and I think he has enough intelligence to be aware of this, so he doesn’t even really try which is why his arguments are so full of contradictions and nonsense. I doubt he really believes what he posts, but then, in a many respects he reminds me of Donald Trump. Does Trump really believe what he spouts? There are some who think that he does, that he lives in his own subjective mental world where, like Hate, truth actually is whatever ever he thinks it is. In other words, truth is subjective to both of them, and facts are whatever we think they are. To them, facts are just opinions we’ve convinced ourselves to believe. And that’s how they have to live their lives, in a state of perpetual “cognitive dissonance”. Trying to hold a meaningful debate with someone like that is like trying to play tennis without a net, and the rules of the match are whatever each individual player decides, and convinces himself, is a rule. therecount.com simplypsychology.org by HatetheSwamp on October 29, 2021 5:22 am Trying to hold a meaningful debate with someone like that is like trying to play tennis without a net, and the rules of the match are whatever each individual player decides, and convinces himself, is a rule. Whoa, isle, you're describing yourself! I've been asking you to acknowledge a judge's order, an order which is evidence that my understanding of what took place in Philadelphia is precisely what took place in Philadelphia. I've known for years that you are big into UNDERSTANDING and that your understanding is aways based only on the parts of reality you want to acknowledge. I've tried this time. I've really, really tried to have a reasoned, fact-based discussion. But, you're actually, I believe, incapable... emotionally. You don't seem to be capable of acknowledging any truth that confronts your prejudices. by islander on October 29, 2021 6:51 am Hate, None of what you say is True of course (it doesn’t conform to reality). But for you, “if“ you actually believe everything you say, it is simply one of your subjective truths (small t), which of course you’re free to believe. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page