2020 Presidential Race

#92,801
#92,801
luthervol said:
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)"
Click to expand...
-Yes. They subverted their constitution by EO.
-Because Texas and other states have an interest outside of Trump. What Trumps team may or may not have done is irrelevant to Texas and those that joined them.

You do recognize that there are other issues at play here don’t you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#92,805
#92,805
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...

Say what? Why would you suggest SCOTUS "agreed" it's worth hearing? They haven't acted / not acted on this matter.

But, again, reality is important: You claim there's been "lawlessness" and "tampering", yet your allegations are (of course) based on literally nothing.

Trump has lost every lawsuit (save 1 minor one) in every state that Texas is attacking. If there were "unconstitutional" actions that occurred *within* WI, MI, PA or GA, those individual states would have already found in favor of Trump's lawsuits. Did they? Nope. In fact, the courts have lambasted Giuliani and company. Absolutely skewered them for bringing forth suits without ANY evidence whatsoever.

Suggestion: Before hyperventilating about your precious Trump, you should consider the actual ramifications of what you're advocating: By your logic, if we here in North Carolina, for example, don't like the color orange - we could file a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS and demand that the color orange negatively affects us here in North Carolina and, therefore, SCOTUS must rule that blue is the new color for the University of Tennessee. Does North Carolina need to actually provide that minor detail... oh what's it called... oh yeah, "proof" that the color orange harms North Carolina? By your logic, nope.

Seriously, this is literally how inane this Texas "lawsuit" is, and why SCOTUS will absolutely take a hard pass on hearing the issue.
 
#92,806
#92,806
MontyPython said:
Say what? Why would you suggest SCOTUS "agreed" it's worth hearing? They haven't acted / not acted on this matter.

But, again, reality is important: You claim there's been "lawlessness" and "tampering", yet your allegations are (of course) based on literally nothing.

Trump has lost every lawsuit (save 1 minor one) in every state that Texas is attacking. If there were "unconstitutional" actions that occurred *within* WI, MI, PA or GA, those individual states would have already found in favor of Trump's lawsuits. Did they? Nope. In fact, the courts have lambasted Giuliani and company. Absolutely skewered them for bringing forth suits without ANY evidence whatsoever.

Suggestion: Before hyperventilating about your precious Trump, you should consider the actual ramifications of what you're advocating: By your logic, if we here in North Carolina, for example, don't like the color orange - we could file a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS and demand that the color orange negatively affects us here in North Carolina and, therefore, SCOTUS must rule that blue is the new color for the University of Tennessee. Does North Carolina need to actually provide that minor detail... oh what's it called... oh yeah, "proof" that the color orange harms North Carolina? By your logic, nope.

Seriously, this is literally how inane this Texas "lawsuit" is, and why SCOTUS will absolutely take a hard pass on hearing the issue.
Click to expand...
Hey, go easy. These patriots are trying to save democracy by throwing out the votes after the election is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sin City Vol and DJimgo
#92,809
#92,809
MontyPython said:
You really, genuinely don't understand that amicus briefs mean exactly d*ck.

Prepare for the letdown when SCOTUS simply refuses to hear this "lawsuit". I use quotes because it's a stretch to even call it that.
Click to expand...


All I'm saying is this thing is picking up some steam. I honestly can't say that I expect this to get overturned. What I do know is there are millions of Americans who know this election was a fraud and we know the swamp is larger then we ever imagined.
 
#92,811
#92,811
VolinWayne said:
All I'm saying is this thing is picking up some steam. I honestly can't say that I expect this to get overturned. What I do know is there are millions of Americans who know this election was a fraud and we know the swamp is larger then we ever imagined.
Click to expand...

XyW5sZI.gif
 
#92,812
#92,812
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...

There is 1 other purpose. While Republicans had the public opinion edge on voter I.D., they were losing badly on dirtier suppression techniques.
(Closing polling places early, machine "malfunctions" or removal in black/left neighborhoods and constant misinformation targeting voters from those areas)
The more stink raised now, the easier to justify later.

This, unfortunately, was the idea even back when I bailed. Personally, I (and several others) thought we should just put more effort into winning over those voters, obviously, many had a different plan.
 
#92,815
#92,815
Orangeslice13 said:
-Yes. They subverted their constitution by EO.
-Because Texas and other states have an interest outside of Trump. What Trumps team may or may not have done is irrelevant to Texas and those that joined them.

You do recognize that there are other issues at play here don’t you?
Click to expand...
LOL....that's still not an answer. I thought you were the one who could see.
I'll break it down even more for you by bolding the key part.

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)"
 
#92,818
#92,818
MontyPython said:
Say what? Why would you suggest SCOTUS "agreed" it's worth hearing? They haven't acted / not acted on this matter.

But, again, reality is important: You claim there's been "lawlessness" and "tampering", yet your allegations are (of course) based on literally nothing.

Trump has lost every lawsuit (save 1 minor one) in every state that Texas is attacking. If there were "unconstitutional" actions that occurred *within* WI, MI, PA or GA, those individual states would have already found in favor of Trump's lawsuits. Did they? Nope. In fact, the courts have lambasted Giuliani and company. Absolutely skewered them for bringing forth suits without ANY evidence whatsoever.

Suggestion: Before hyperventilating about your precious Trump, you should consider the actual ramifications of what you're advocating: By your logic, if we here in North Carolina, for example, don't like the color orange - we could file a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS and demand that the color orange negatively affects us here in North Carolina and, therefore, SCOTUS must rule that blue is the new color for the University of Tennessee. Does North Carolina need to actually provide that minor detail... oh what's it called... oh yeah, "proof" that the color orange harms North Carolina? By your logic, nope.

Seriously, this is literally how inane this Texas "lawsuit" is, and why SCOTUS will absolutely take a hard pass on hearing the issue.
Click to expand...

At best, if this legal theory had any merit, these states would have to nullify the entire election. Subsequently, those who won seats under the nullified election would also be voided. This is where things would go off the rails... how many would be hapoy to risk a redo?

Also, any state which made even minor election changes because of the pandemic or otherwise might find their elections voided as well, not just those Trump lost e.g. North Carolina and Texas.

I'm sure Trump loyalists would be happy to have a total redo, because "what your saying is, we have a chance.^.

I'm thinking the newly elected and re-elected would be changing their tune quickly.

Finally, if Trump lost again... this BS just starts all over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard and BowlBrother85
#92,822
#92,822
What drives me crazy, dare I say triggered, is that I don't see any truth in this ******** thing. I'm still waiting on this nebulous "proof". I keep waiting , and waiting, and waiting, and there is nothing. I'm also told I should believe every single thing that Jack and Sweet Boi Kye tweets. But anyone that discredits them (which is simple) is a pinko commie. It cracks me up that folks are like "how can you discredit sweet boi Kyle!!!" then folks do it, and there is some bs about the Deep State. Or we "just don't get it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman, PointGuard, MontyPython and 1 other person
#92,824
#92,824
Stew Cook said:
At best, if this legal theory had any merit, these states would have to nullify the entire election. Subsequently, those who won seats under the nullified election would also be voided. This is where things would go off the rails... how many would be hapoy to risk a redo?

Also, any state which made even minor election changes because of the pandemic or otherwise might find their elections voided as well, not just those Trump lost e.g. North Carolina and Texas.

I'm sure Trump loyalists would be happy to have a total redo, because "what your saying is, we have a chance.^.

I'm thinking the newly elected and re-elected would be changing their tune quickly.

Finally, if Trump lost again... this BS just starts all over.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course.

Most if not nearly every state amended its voting procedures to allow for additional mail-in and absentee voting due to the pandemic. Those who back the Texas lawsuit, therefore, support LESS voting ability of the general public which is, naturally, antithetical to 'free and fair' elections, and a position SCOTUS would never support much less address.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard, titansvolsfaninga and Stew Cook
#92,825
#92,825
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top