How many times have the reason been put forward about not taking the v*****e is my body my decsion? If according to the teachings by the church that we as a group were given the freedom of choice. At the moment if you believe that it is murder and against His wishes then it is your choice. With the laws that are being put forward we are using mans law to remove our choice given to us by Him.

You are right the goldwater law should be observed, unless you refer to a accepted source that has been updated. The article actually refers to the geneva declaration which was updated in 2017.

It still doesn't mean if you find it interesting that you believe it. That's what meant by content. You still have to know the difference between it being true or noise.

That was the noise I was referring to.

Life view does have its uses.

No but you do have to know the difference of what is being said if it is just noise or is it leading to a real conclusion.

Those same items are still available.

That depends on whose math is used. Meaning that a belief or view is based on what you have experienced. According to what she wrote she has a different view because of the experiences she has had. Now if it is honest or if it adds up is like everything else it will depend on what your experience is. She said in acordance to her many years of service she has seen the difference between several adminstrations. So her opinion is based those witnessed difference.

There is a difference between belief and interesting, people can say your belief is wrong. An article can be considered intresting just because of content it doesn't automatically mean that you believe the content.

Because of the different views presented, just because you have a lot of experience dosen't mean you can't go to a small time forum. Reading different views can actually help your own opinion because you get to know what others think. Honest or not she has made her view known.

Because there is a market for it , it is supply and demand. The same for the search engines people want infomation. As long as the company list the requirements and they are acceptable to those who want to use the service they can pretty much do what they want. That is one reason why regulations are needed because it causes the companies to provide equal services which need to be universal.

I realize that , but the problem that came up is that the justices didn't see enough infomation on the cases presented. So since the info wasn't there the cases were not ruled on. So all that info appears to be available why was it not presented with the cases when they were presented?

They are supposed to v**e for the candidate that the majority of v**ers in their districts v**ed for."

The majority of the v**es made from those who are v****g. If 20 v**e , 15 are for person A then those who were chosen to be sent to the college will give their v**es to person A. So since the numbers were for Biden the v**es go to him. The changing of the rules does allow for the potential of fraud. As per Justice Thomas these are from Pennsylvania case,

"Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They
sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the in-
tegrity and fairness of e******ns. To prevent confusion, we
have thus repeatedly—although not as consistently as we
should—blocked rule changes made by courts close to an
e******n. "

"We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in b****ts
does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal
e******n. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate
b****ts received later than the deadline set by the legisla-
ture. Order in Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar,
No. 20A84. And none of the parties contend that those bal-
lots made an outcome-determinative difference in any rele-
vant federal e******n.
But we may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a sep-
arate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may
have already altered an e******n result. A different petition
argues that after e******n day the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court nullified the legislative requirement that v**ers write
the date on mail-in b****ts. See Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020,
No. 20–845. According to public reports, one candidate for
a state senate seat claimed victory under what she con-
tended was the legislative rule that dates must be included
on the b****ts. A federal court noted that this candidate
would win by 93 v**es under that rule. Ziccarelli v. Alle-
gheny Cty. Bd. of E******ns, 2021 WL 101683, *1 (WD Pa.,
Jan. 12, 2021). A second candidate claimed victory under
the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. He was seated."
Not sure about why the link didn't direct you to but that was the one listed on the source page. The pdf does exist.

Https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinons/20pdf/20.542/2_c83.pdf

"They are supposed to v**e for the candidate that the majority of v**ers in their districts v**ed for."

The majority of the v**es made from those who are v****g. If 20 v**e , 15 are for person A then those who were chosen to be sent to the college will give their v**es to person A. So since the numbers were for Biden the v**es go to him. The changing of the rules does allow for the potential of fraud. As per Justice Thomas these are from Pennsylvania case,

"Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They
sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the in-
tegrity and fairness of e******ns. To prevent confusion, we
have thus repeatedly—although not as consistently as we
should—blocked rule changes made by courts close to an
e******n. "

"We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in b****ts
does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal
e******n. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate
b****ts received later than the deadline set by the legisla-
ture. Order in Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar,
No. 20A84. And none of the parties contend that those bal-
lots made an outcome-determinative difference in any rele-
vant federal e******n.
But we may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a sep-
arate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may
have already altered an e******n result. A different petition
argues that after e******n day the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court nullified the legislative requirement that v**ers write
the date on mail-in b****ts. See Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020,
No. 20–845. According to public reports, one candidate for
a state senate seat claimed victory under what she con-
tended was the legislative rule that dates must be included
on the b****ts. A federal court noted that this candidate
would win by 93 v**es under that rule. Ziccarelli v. Alle-
gheny Cty. Bd. of E******ns, 2021 WL 101683, *1 (WD Pa.,
Jan. 12, 2021). A second candidate claimed victory under
the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. He was seated."

Aren't the e*******l v**es based on the general v**e? By not certifing the v**e you are saying that the general v**e was wrong. Which hasn't been proven because the country is still going through that part. So T***p w*n't have any problem if called to testify?