2020 Election Fraud Thread (Part 1)

[mbus]

@Call_me_Ishmael

I expected more from you than "this is the way they always do it. "

There is nothing preventing them from changing the way they operate for this remarkable situation.

One does not need to be a constitutional scholar to know that.

I kinda like the idea of the State having evidence before it can put me away. Or you, brother Ishmael.

[peek-a-boo]

Not following?? The precedent is clear. The WH and Senate hail from the same party. It makes sense that they would proceed with the nomination, as they have done in the past. In 2016, the Senate and WH were of opposing parties. It makes sense they wouldn’t proceed with the nomination, as they have done every time that same scenario has presented itself in the past. DEMs keep trying to conflate the two scenarios but they aren’t remotely similar.

I’m not making anything up.

[mobiusptc]

@vaard

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Call_me_Ishmael

so all the evidence could have been laid out if Alito and Thomas had prevailed. Whereas…

Am I right?

The plaintiff (Texas) requested in their petition that the case be decided summarily (without a hearing), because they believed there were no disputed questions of fact.

So, no. There was no “evidence” to lay out.

It’s like they don’t understand what the case was even about…

dont want to understand…

[TommyLucchese]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The plaintiff (Texas) requested in their petition that the case be decided summarily (without a hearing), because they believed there were no disputed questions of fact.

So, no. There was no “evidence” to lay out.

Lol so this whole thing was just the Texas AG angling for a pardon.

That’s beautiful. That is peak America in 2020.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@TommyLucchese

Lol so this whole thing was just the Texas AG angling for a pardon.

Yep.

It’s been theater from the beginning - including all the states and members of Congress who have signed on as amici.

[johnwk2]

@tnt

@johnwk2

If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.

I’ll skip the obvious fallacies and focus on this one - if some one cheated in PA, it has nothing to do with TX. TX is responsible ONLY for their electoral votes. The votes of the citizens on PA have absolutely nothing to do with the votes of citizens in any other state.

Each state is responsible only for the appointment of their electoral votes.

Yes. Each State is responsible only for the appointment of their electoral votes, as limited by our federal constitution’s commands, e.g., see: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

The Defendant States are alleged to have violated this provision by appointing electors in a manner not authorized by the State Legislature.

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.

[FloridaYankee]

@JayJay

@LucyLou

@hwyflier

On Wisconsin:

I’ll just add that Jim Troupis is a hyper partisan who makes the rounds of AM radio talkers.

So maybe they took the case as a way of distancing themselves from Trump?

They just wanted to get in on the fun.

[Borgia_dude]

@peek-a-boo

Not following?? The precedent is clear. The WH and Senate hail from the same party. It makes sense that they would proceed with the nomination, as they have done in the past. In 2016, the Senate and WH were of opposing parties. It makes sense they wouldn’t proceed with the nomination, as they have done every time that same scenario has presented itself in the past. DEMs keep trying to conflate the two scenarios but they aren’t remotely similar.

I’m not making anything up.

The point is, the precedent was only recognized recently. I can define a precedent as well.

Of the four previous times a Supreme Court seat has become vacant within four months of a presidential election, a nominee has never been confirmed before the election. Each time, the Senate never confirmed the nominee of a president whose party lost re-election and eventually confirmed the nominee of a president who had won re-election.

That’s a precedent that Mcconnell broke. Which precedent is valid? Oh, I know. The one that works for you, which is the one McConnell defined.

[WuWei]

All the “evidence” could have been laid out multiple times. Still can be.

It hasn’t been.

[WuWei]

@GrandWazoo

@Safiel

But both would have joined the other 7 Justices in immediately dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

It would have been fun to hear Ted Cruz address the court. It might have created some nifty sound bites that his opponent in the next election could use.

He’s done it 9 times, he’s probably got it figured out.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Call_me_Ishmael

There is nothing preventing them from changing the way they operate for this remarkable situation.

There is no reason to treat these frivolous lawsuits any different than any other frivolous lawsuits.

I don’t think I agree with a state suing being frivolous.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

It is not the parties that makes a suit frivolous, but the arguments.

[WuWei]

@TommyLucchese

Lol so this whole thing was just the Texas AG angling for a pardon.

That’s beautiful. That is peak America in 2020.

The contents of that post are stupid.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@TommyLucchese

Lol so this whole thing was just the Texas AG angling for a pardon.

Yep.

It’s been theater from the beginning - including all the states and members of Congress who have signed on as amici.

A pardon for what from whom?

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

It is not the parties that makes a suit frivolous, but the arguments.

I don’t think I can agree with that either, in this case.

[TommyLucchese]

Lol summary judgment. The stuff they do to fool you guys.

[WuWei]

@TommyLucchese

Lol summary judgment. The stuff they do to fool you guys.

Lol. What does that mean?

[tnt]

And texas has no standing in making that claim. They have no authority over another state.

[wiley8425]

LOL

5 chars

[Tom_Ch]

@Call_me_Ishmael

so all the evidence could have been laid out if Alito and Thomas had prevailed. Whereas…

Am I right?

The judges not going to go next any step until there is standing. Why waste time?