Latest Breaking News

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)

58. No problem!

Reply to appalachiablue (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:10 PM

Apr 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: New York Judge Rules For Voters In Last Minute Primary Case [View all] Bubzer Apr 2016 OP

I'm no lawyer but RandySF Apr 2016 #1

Not immediately, no. But it means the vote wont be final until affidavit ballots are counted. Bubzer Apr 2016 #3

When they are processed, they will be checked against the elections office records. pnwmom Apr 2016 #25

Did you ignore before reading? northernsouthern Apr 2016 #32

Do you not know what a provisional ballot is? Casting one doesn't mean it will be counted. pnwmom Apr 2016 #36

Yes I do. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #39

If you are involved, you must understand that the judge merely told them to use the provisional pnwmom Apr 2016 #41

The problem is you are making legal rulings in you post... northernsouthern Apr 2016 #47

No, I'm not. I'm saying the judge's ruling was that the voters should use the system pnwmom Apr 2016 #51

OK, then back it up with the link and the line you are reading. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #60

That's the normal way provisional ballots are handled. Where is your evidence that they won't pnwmom Apr 2016 #62

You are not reading my wording. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #69

The power of ignore greiner3 Apr 2016 #63

Really? So why were they saying to cast affidavit ballots before the suit was filed? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #42

The affivadit system works for those verifiably in the system. Not for those who've been changed. Bubzer Apr 2016 #44

We have different ideas of huge anigbrowl Apr 2016 #52

I wont bore you with numbers that they're representing now... but I will say it's not insignificant. Bubzer Apr 2016 #57

Huge as in Trump's hands greiner3 Apr 2016 #64

No, this changes nothing about the process. The BoE's will still go back, check their records, pnwmom Apr 2016 #79

how convenient. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #5

lol saturnsring Apr 2016 #7

OMG saturnsring posted somthing... lol Bubzer Apr 2016 #46

This was a FAIL. The judge merely told them to use the Affidavit ballots that were always available pnwmom Apr 2016 #19

No judge would take it upon themselves to change current law still_one Apr 2016 #37

A slight disagreement with you... anigbrowl Apr 2016 #45

Cynical but true I am afraid still_one Apr 2016 #49

And you got your law degree greiner3 Apr 2016 #66

They filed this knowing full-well that they probably would NOT get an open primary 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #40

No, it does NOT ensure that the provisional votes will be counted. pnwmom Apr 2016 #59

That's not what i said. What I said is that 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #74

Then you acknowledge that the ruling changed nothing with regard to provisional ballots. pnwmom Apr 2016 #78

No. 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #87

They have to defend their general process. Not their separate decisions on each provisional ballot. pnwmom Apr 2016 #88

Of course they need to defend their process. I never said otherwise. n/t 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #90

I don't see what they've really gained, except in terms of it being a good publicity stunt. pnwmom Apr 2016 #96

You don't see any gain, I do see one. 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #101

It's a fail for pnwmom because it allows people to vote AllyCat Apr 2016 #100

Right? Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #104

It allows those who are democrats Andy823 Apr 2016 #22

Nither do I, but... 40RatRod Apr 2016 #107

Yea, team! Jack Rabbit Apr 2016 #2

POST IN GD-P TOO, PLEASE? It's Ugly there now.. appalachiablue Apr 2016 #4

Go for it! You have my permission to repost in full over in GD:P! Bubzer Apr 2016 #8

The OP over there is one of the ugliest I have ever seen. pangaia Apr 2016 #15

This time at least... other times I'm not smart enough to avoid charging into GD:P Bubzer Apr 2016 #24

Poster self-deleted GD-P misleading article OP at 1:57. Same OP appears in LBN, stubborn appalachiablue Apr 2016 #55

So I did, thanks! appalachiablue Apr 2016 #56

No problem! Bubzer Apr 2016 #58

will they count the provisional ballots before they call the state virtualobserver Apr 2016 #6

Had to make a correction; Affidavit ballots are being used... NOT provisional. Bubzer Apr 2016 #11

It's been over a decade since I was a poll worker in New York State ... Igel Apr 2016 #98

The NO YOU CAN'T people are going to be pissed off!!! dorkzilla Apr 2016 #9

Megamind. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #43

we know what that means TimeToEvolve Apr 2016 #48

Let the people vote me b zola Apr 2016 #10

K&RK&RK&RK&R pangaia Apr 2016 #12

I don't know how people will prove that their registration flipped. merrily Apr 2016 #13

It depends upon how NY maintains their records elljay Apr 2016 #21

Not sure they can prove it. zentrum Apr 2016 #38

If you're a registered Democrat, it's easy to prove. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #65

I have registered Democratic in two states (not at the same time, of course) and never got a merrily Apr 2016 #70

wouldn't they issue you a new card to show your new registration dlwickham Apr 2016 #81

Sorry. I don't understand your question. I can only refer you back to my post. merrily Apr 2016 #84

you'd get a new card every time you changed your registration dlwickham Apr 2016 #85

Did you read my Reply 70 at all? merrily Apr 2016 #89

I've been registered in four different states and always received a registration card dlwickham Apr 2016 #92

And I'm calling bs on your lame cool story bro. merrily Apr 2016 #95

This is the Democratic party, lest you forget. We champion not needing a special card to vote. Bubzer Apr 2016 #93

Dont have to be a card carying member in this case... just point out having been a dem at some point Bubzer Apr 2016 #72

I carry my card in my wallet. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #76

Good on ya... however it's been the party platform that everyone should be able to vote regardless. Bubzer Apr 2016 #80

I'm sorry, but your story just doesn't ring true to me. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #94

The ruling shifted the burden of proof from the voter ... Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #105

How are the voters who were denied the chance to cast their vote be notified? Paper Roses Apr 2016 #14

In this case, if you know you're properly registered, and go to vote and are denied... you demand... Bubzer Apr 2016 #27

Count all ballots. Dont call me Shirley Apr 2016 #16

Great News! zentrum Apr 2016 #17

Why any Democrat would be opposed to counting ALL ballots mac56 Apr 2016 #18

All those who are registered Democrats Andy823 Apr 2016 #26

and probably some "independents" as well dlwickham Apr 2016 #86

This organization along with.......................... turbinetree Apr 2016 #20

This was a LOSS that they're trying to spin into a win. The provisional ballot has always been their pnwmom Apr 2016 #23

the board of election should not be trusted to dog walk questionseverything Apr 2016 #102

Pretty simple for the IT department to go back and pull the backup copies of the voter database Turn CO Blue Apr 2016 #28

Oops apcalc Apr 2016 #29

That's not an oops... that wasn't the focus of the suit. Bubzer Apr 2016 #31

No order, no relief, this was not a win Gothmog Apr 2016 #30

Actually there was an order of relief, though it might not be entitled as such: Bubzer Apr 2016 #34

They ALREADY could use the provisional ballot, so this gave them nothing in reality, pnwmom Apr 2016 #53

Actually, it can. strategery blunder Apr 2016 #73

Thank you for clarifying this for the obtuse among us. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #108

This is a win for members of the Democratic party GulfCoast66 Apr 2016 #75

True. I do find it absurd that in order to vote in a primary, you have to be registered a year out. Bubzer Apr 2016 #77

I do agree with you on that GulfCoast66 Apr 2016 #99

Too bad they don't have judges like this down in the southern states, red dog 1 Apr 2016 #33

Add to that hacking and all the vulnerabilities of e-voting Lodestar Apr 2016 #35

WRONG. The judge DENIED their motion for temporary restraining order (T.R.O.). SunSeeker Apr 2016 #50

Thank you! "T.R.O. application DENIED." pnwmom Apr 2016 #54

Yes. This OP should be locked. It is a blog site's (incorrect) analysis, not news. nt SunSeeker Apr 2016 #71

The burden of proof is what is at issue. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #109

Thousands of New Yorkers Registered as Automatic Hillary Voters LS_Editor Apr 2016 #61

This is good news all around. beastie boy Apr 2016 #67

K&R avaistheone1 Apr 2016 #68

What's sad to see is the Clintonites relying on voter suppression. basselope Apr 2016 #82

Very sad. Esperanza Apr 2016 #83

It is no surprise OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #106

k/r with pleasure. 840high Apr 2016 #91

A loss for Democrats™ but a win for democrats! corkhead Apr 2016 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author mrr303am Apr 2016 #103

That may be true in the GE, but in the primaries those votes count toward delegate apportionment. JimDandy Apr 2016 #110

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #111