2020 Presidential Race

#92,776
#92,776
Orangeburst said:
Biden inauguration...looks good., looks good. Hold ur mud

747acb7a3f5ed4581a080469fe47c974
Click to expand...

Haha SpaceX. We do some work for them. Dont build the rockets though thankfully.

Edit: Dont recall if this crash was SpaceX or not.
 
#92,777
#92,777
MontyPython said:
Reality, knuckledraggers...

"Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel on Tuesday said Paxton's filing "is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."

"The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn't attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country," Nessel said in a statement.

"The Michigan issues raised in this complaint have already been thoroughly litigated and roundly rejected in both state and federal courts – by judges appointed from both political parties. Mr. Paxton's actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General."
Click to expand...
So what's the problem?
 
#92,778
#92,778
Senator John Cornyn (Republican - Texas), when asked about the merits of the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said this:

"I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced." - Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

... and former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush (obviously, a Republican), responded to Sen. John Cornyn with this statement on Twitter:

"There is no legal theory, and the conservative majority Supreme Court will reject it out of hand." - Jeb Bush

Finally, Georgia's Attorney General, Chris Carr, also a Republican, has dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous, with a representative of his telling The Atlanta Journal Constitution that the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was ...

"Constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong."

Chris Carr also said that during a combative 15 minute phone call, President Donald Trump "warned" him not to rally other Republicans against the lawsuit, and the ongoing effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard, luthervol, MontyPython and 1 other person
#92,780
#92,780
BowlBrother85 said:
Senator John Cornyn (Republican - Texas), when asked about the merits of the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said this:

"I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced." - Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

... and former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush (obviously, a Republican), responded to Sen. John Cornyn with this statement on Twitter:

"There is no legal theory, and the conservative majority Supreme Court will reject it out of hand." - Jeb Bush

Finally, Georgia's Attorney General, Chris Carr, also a Republican, has dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous, with a representative of his telling The Atlanta Journal Constitution that the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was ...

"Constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong."

Chris Carr also said that during a combative 15 minute phone call, President Donald Trump "warned" him not to rally other Republicans against the lawsuit, and the ongoing effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Click to expand...
They don't care. This has always been a violent bunch. Give it a minute and they'll start calling for folks heads on the Capitol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga and tvolsfan
#92,784
#92,784
zeppelin128 said:
I mean, they have already talked about murdering folks they disagree with politically.
Click to expand...
... and it doesn't even have to be someone from the other side of the aisle either. Trump and his supporters aren't just harassing Governor Gretchen Whitmer, like you might expect. They have also turned against Republican Governors Brian Kemp (Georgia) and Doug Ducey (Arizona), for basically, just fulfilling the obligations of their jobs as they were sworn to do when they took office. I see the conservatives on here playing the "what-about-ism" card, but I don't remember a time when Democrats devoured their own like this... and over such frivolous litigation, which doesn't stand a chance before the Supreme Court. Is Donald Trump really worth it? I don't see how the juice is worth the squeeze.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman, zeppelin128 and tvolsfan
#92,786
#92,786
#92,787
#92,787
VolinWayne said:
Alaska joins the party.. The list of states keeps growing!



@Geoffff - Geoffff - SCOTUS (Alaska) Alaska pledges to join case...
Click to expand...
Do you think that enhances the merits of the lawsuit? Like that will make a difference to the Supreme Court justices or something?

Republican Senator Ben Sasse (Nebraska) has chimed in:

"I'm no lawyer, but I suspect the Supreme Court swats this away. From the brief, it looks like a fella (Ken Paxton) begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit -- as all of the assertions have already been rejected by federal courts and Texas' own solicitor general isn't signing on."

- Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), while speaking to The Washington Examiner yesterday.

Unlike most Republicans in Congress, Sen. Ben Sasse isn't a Trump minion and he doesn't seem to care what Trump thinks. @NorthDallas40 was talking like it was crazy to think that Ken Paxton was angling for a pardon. However, it appears that at least one Republican Senator shares that sentiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40, Rifleman, titansvolsfaninga and 2 others
#92,789
#92,789
Texas suit will most likely be killed but I'm wondering now if they're going to test the Electoral college system all the way thru January 6 where they can raise objections and force a vote on each of the 4 states in question here. Don't understand all I know about it but would just be another way to muck up the process and create more drama.
 
#92,790
#92,790
MontyPython said:
This is a seriously ignorant post.

Answer this simple question: If there were something unconstitutional that occurred in each of these individual States, why wasn't a lawsuit filed and won already in each of these States by the Trump team? (Answer: this is a rhetorical question obvious to any 5th grader)

It's laughable that you eat up this spoon-fed crap spewing from Trump's giant lie machine. Are you really this gullible and naive?

You are 100% dreaming if you think the Supreme Court is going to overturn Jack sh*t.

The sole purpose of this legal action at this point is to rile up the ignorant, inbred idiots *cough* who are stupid enough to send the Trump campaign even more money.
Click to expand...
I understand that you’re ok with the law being broken in these states because it fits your political agenda. And I understand that the constitution is clear on this so you have to try to deflect with the partisan spin. It’s also clear that you are incapable of adult conversation as it always comes down to name calling with people like you.
And once again you have no understanding of the process if you think anyone believes the SCOTUS will say “trump won”. However, as I said long before this ever became an issue, some states have a good case of being disenfranchised by others. Clearly SCOTUS agreed it’s worth hearing.

It’s not surprising that the people who are in favor of lawlessness in the streets are ok with election tampering at the state level.

Edit:
And clearly you’re scared or you would not be pitching this fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Bassmaster_Vol
#92,792
#92,792
Orangeslice13 said:
I understand that you’re ok with the law being broken in these states because it fits your political agenda. And I understand that the constitution is clear on this so you have to try to deflect with the partisan spin. It’s also clear that you are incapable of adult conversation as it always comes down to name calling with people like you.
And once again you have no understanding of the process if you think anyone believes the SCOTUS will say “trump won”. However, as I said long before this ever became an issue, some states have a good case of being disenfranchised by others. Clearly SCOTUS agreed it’s worth hearing.

It’s not surprising that the people who are in favor of lawlessness in the streets are ok with election tampering at the state level.

Edit:
And clearly you’re scared or you would not be pitching this fit.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap.
You didn't address his question at all.
It's time for your next vision.
 
#92,796
#92,796
hog88 said:
In politics?
Click to expand...

Haha, point. I probably should reword.
'There was plenty of integrity to be found'.

I.e, on the right, for every Nixon-esque, we had 3 Barry Goldwater types.
By the Reagan era, for every Michael Deaver, there were only 2
Whitney Seymour(s).

Unless the attitudes of government leaders change, there is little that prosecutors can do except put a thumb in the dike.
Ethics in our nation’s capital should not depend upon the work of special prosecutors. Ethics in government is a function of leadership, not of law enforcement.
Click to expand...
~Seymour 1987.
Safe to say, neither side heeded the advice.
 
#92,798
#92,798
Velo Vol said:
It hasn't. When it doesn't, will you admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...
You have not thought about the unintended consequences of this. And why would Texas bring the case.
First of all if Texas wins it’s very unlikely to change who won the election. It would just be a step in the process that could ultimately lead to the legislature of the states casting their votes to replace election results. But that’s way down the line and I find it unlikely that it would flip the election to Trump.
However if Scotus now doesn’t hear the case after asking for briefings or rules in favor of the 4 states then that has huge implications for everyone. Imagine if SCOTUS rules that states do not have to follow their constitution or establish law through the legislature.

min Texas for example that would likely mean an end to background checks for firearms purchases and felons getting guns back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GordonC and hog88
#92,800
#92,800
Orangeslice13 said:
What question
All that he posted was name calling and fit pitching
Click to expand...
From his post:
"Answer this simple question: If there were something unconstitutional that occurred in each of these individual States, why wasn't a lawsuit filed and won already in each of these States by the Trump team? (Answer: this is a rhetorical question obvious to any 5th grader)"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top