(12-09-2020 03:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Republicans who were in those rooms saw that the ballots were checked. It was a lie by somebody who was not allowed to witnessed the counting, and videos can be doctored. They have found that some of these videos had been altered a bit or edited in some places. I am calling the fraud on the Trump's team for trying to steal the election away from Biden. You guys can't faced the facts that Biden is more popular with favorable ratings of 54% of this country. Trump have about 60% disapproval ratings. Biden is at the point of his favorable polling.

Rules are rules dude. If they followed the rules then they will be upheld and you have nothing to worry about...

That said, Biden's favorability is meaningless as are any polls, once again despite a poor showing in 2016, STILL missed the boat pretty badly in 2020.

Most of the Republicans unhappy with Trump's decisions here would still welcome him in office over Biden by a wide margin.

The Republicans in these states changed the rules in a special session because of this pandemics. The Republicans in these states like PA, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada went mail in ballots for something in exchange. The Republicans got what they wanted, and the Democrats got theirs. Trump wants to break that deal which was legal done by the state's legislation in a time of crisis. The Supreme Court will not break that since it was a state's right, and done legally.

The changes in question WERE NOT done by state legislation. That's the entire point of the case.

(12-09-2020 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Meh.

There isn't really anything for any Democrats in Georgia to do/worry about. It would most likely be up to the State AG to answer to anything that SCOTUS asks for, and he's a Republican.

Regardless, look for SCOTUS to just issue another denied statement like they did for PA.

This case will represent a new definition of 'Frivolous' in legal text books in the future.

Trust me, this stunt is far from brilliant. Ask any SCOTUS expert. It's nothing more than a potential pardon weather balloon for the Texas AG.

The state AG is not still running for office so who cares? I'm 100% convinced that if this case moves forward, there will be dems calling for him to recuse himself or claiming that he's not defending the case well enough, because he's a Republican. So you can 'meh' all you want, but you know that I'm right about this... (and reps would do the same in the other direction)

As to the pardon, there are other states involved. This guy may be leading it but it is not JUST Texas. I'm sure Republicans asked 'who would be a good state to run this' and the guy volunteered, but so what?

And what does being a SCOTUS expert have to do with Presidential pardons or how aggressively a state defends a case? It doesn't, so... wtf

(12-09-2020 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The states handle their own elections. These states have already litigated 2020 and have certified their results, essentially stating they were within the rules as the state sees them. SCOTUS is not going to do anything to change that.

Probably not, but the fact that they're even going to read the briefs should tell you that there is at least SOME legal standing here. Whether or not they've certified it means nothing if the SCOTUS were to determine that it was unconstitutional... and while I don't care about this election... I think the court could find some way to hold the actions unconstitutional but still not overturn the outcome... saying the 'remedy sought' was not reasonable... but whatever. I still don't want states being able to change rules that intentionally or not, impact the outcome... regardless of the circumstances.

(12-09-2020 03:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Republicans in these states changed the rules in a special session because of this pandemics. The Republicans in these states like PA, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada went mail in ballots for something in exchange. The Republicans got what they wanted, and the Democrats got theirs. Trump wants to break that deal which was legal done by the state's legislation in a time of crisis. The Supreme Court will not break that since it was a state's right, and done legally.

David, you're so out of your depth here that I can't even really respond. I'm not arguing that the suit will win, I'm merely arguing that nothing you have said means one damn thing to the outcome.

(12-09-2020 03:48 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  So what's next after this fails?

#costa

beforehand???? hmmmmmm...#thingysUcannotImagine

w/0 constitutional values, scotus is irrelevant....

ewe haven't processed >>>....good fk'n luck...ewe better know how to hi(y)de....

(12-09-2020 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:48 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  So what's next after this fails?

#costa

beforehand???? hmmmmmm...#thingysUcannotImagine

w/0 constitutional values, scotus is irrelevant....

ewe haven't processed >>>....good fk'n luck...ewe better know how to hi(y)de....

I can't even tell what the hell you're gibbering about.#keyboardwarrior.

(12-09-2020 04:53 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:48 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  So what's next after this fails?

#costa

beforehand???? hmmmmmm...#thingysUcannotImagine

w/0 constitutional values, scotus is irrelevant....

ewe haven't processed >>>....good fk'n luck...ewe better know how to hi(y)de....

I can't even tell what the hell you're gibbering about.#keyboardwarrior.

I love me sum newbies...I've heard too many to repeat...

sifting is an art...

@eZ

(12-09-2020 04:01 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Republicans who were in those rooms saw that the ballots were checked. It was a lie by somebody who was not allowed to witnessed the counting, and videos can be doctored. They have found that some of these videos had been altered a bit or edited in some places. I am calling the fraud on the Trump's team for trying to steal the election away from Biden. You guys can't faced the facts that Biden is more popular with favorable ratings of 54% of this country. Trump have about 60% disapproval ratings. Biden is at the point of his favorable polling.

Rules are rules dude. If they followed the rules then they will be upheld and you have nothing to worry about...

That said, Biden's favorability is meaningless as are any polls, once again despite a poor showing in 2016, STILL missed the boat pretty badly in 2020.

Most of the Republicans unhappy with Trump's decisions here would still welcome him in office over Biden by a wide margin.

The Republicans in these states changed the rules in a special session because of this pandemics. The Republicans in these states like PA, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada went mail in ballots for something in exchange. The Republicans got what they wanted, and the Democrats got theirs. Trump wants to break that deal which was legal done by the state's legislation in a time of crisis. The Supreme Court will not break that since it was a state's right, and done legally.

The changes in question WERE NOT done by state legislation. That's the entire point of the case.

Thank you.

(12-09-2020 02:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:41 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  why explain what has already been defined in too many other threads...

pissin' on tits is excramentally insolvent....

I haven't seen a valid statistical analysis posted in the other threads, they have all been fundamentally flawed.

therefore, ewe offer zero proof = 0...

yet, ewe offer nothing to invalidate...

the numbers/timeline/forensics relative to historical #s/%s vs. 2020 IN THE POTUS ELECTION IS BY ITSELF A STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTIES....WTF ELSE IS RELEVANT, DIPSHITE...

EWE'RE A TROLL + STATISTICALLY BRAINDEAD

if ya choose to take down the fairness clause, I can fix that down the road at my choosing....

#suckThatTeat

You have no relevant argument to present. I don't have to offer proof to dispute the drivel you are typing.

Someone posted that the statistical analysis was valid and swayed their thinking, I asked to see it.

If you think you have a valid statistical analysis that supports fraud post it or STFU.

I gave ewe (as others have in detail in tooooooo many threads) a synopsis above...playing coy via ignorance is never valid rreasoning to dispute...that's all ewe and skewering dipshites have in the tank...we knew such long ago....all the faggoos accomplished was to cheat better than anticipated....that was a misstep...

I know ewer game....see sig line 4...

This is what your post sounds like :



Sober up or take some english as a second language classes.

From what I can gather from your rambling jibberish you are still bitching and have presented no valid argument. Just like your man crush Trump.

(12-09-2020 04:59 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:53 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 03:48 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  So what's next after this fails?

#costa

beforehand???? hmmmmmm...#thingysUcannotImagine

w/0 constitutional values, scotus is irrelevant....

ewe haven't processed >>>....good fk'n luck...ewe better know how to hi(y)de....

I can't even tell what the hell you're gibbering about.#keyboardwarrior.

I love me sum newbies...I've heard too many to repeat...

sifting is an art...

@eZ

I love it when they can’t understand what you are saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(12-09-2020 05:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 02:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:41 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't seen a valid statistical analysis posted in the other threads, they have all been fundamentally flawed.

therefore, ewe offer zero proof = 0...

yet, ewe offer nothing to invalidate...

the numbers/timeline/forensics relative to historical #s/%s vs. 2020 IN THE POTUS ELECTION IS BY ITSELF A STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTIES....WTF ELSE IS RELEVANT, DIPSHITE...

EWE'RE A TROLL + STATISTICALLY BRAINDEAD

if ya choose to take down the fairness clause, I can fix that down the road at my choosing....

#suckThatTeat

You have no relevant argument to present. I don't have to offer proof to dispute the drivel you are typing.

Someone posted that the statistical analysis was valid and swayed their thinking, I asked to see it.

If you think you have a valid statistical analysis that supports fraud post it or STFU.

I gave ewe (as others have in detail in tooooooo many threads) a synopsis above...playing coy via ignorance is never valid rreasoning to dispute...that's all ewe and skewering dipshites have in the tank...we knew such long ago....all the faggoos accomplished was to cheat better than anticipated....that was a misstep...

I know ewer game....see sig line 4...

This is what your post sounds like :



Sober up or take some english as a second language classes.

From what I can gather from your rambling jibberish you are still bitching and have presented no valid argument. Just like your man crush Trump.

stink is the supplier of the bad batch shrooms the trump supporters are on. That's why they see a victory that never was.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. Most likely it goes no where. But let's say that the Supreme Court invalidates the votes in these states and turns it over to there legislatures. Does a liberal state (NY, California?) then turn around and sue a number of more conservative states for the same reason?

I recall that the absentee ballot in North Carolina was changed due to a judicial decision, I know that there are different voting procedures in different Counties here in Florida, so I have a difficult time believing that this argument would only apply to GA, MI, PA, and WI. It seems that we could have a legal civil war on our hands.

(12-09-2020 05:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. Most likely it goes no where. But let's say that the Supreme Court invalidates the votes in these states and turns it over to there legislatures. Does a liberal state (NY, California?) then turn around and sue a number of more conservative states for the same reason?

I recall that the absentee ballot in North Carolina was changed due to a judicial decision, I know that there are different voting procedures in different Counties here in Florida, so I have a difficult time believing that this argument would only apply to GA, MI, PA, and WI. It seems that we could have a legal civil war on our hands.

Then NY sues VA for their gun laws, and CA sues TX for climate change.

(12-09-2020 05:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 05:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. Most likely it goes no where. But let's say that the Supreme Court invalidates the votes in these states and turns it over to there legislatures. Does a liberal state (NY, California?) then turn around and sue a number of more conservative states for the same reason?

I recall that the absentee ballot in North Carolina was changed due to a judicial decision, I know that there are different voting procedures in different Counties here in Florida, so I have a difficult time believing that this argument would only apply to GA, MI, PA, and WI. It seems that we could have a legal civil war on our hands.

Then NY sues VA for their gun laws, and CA sues TX for climate change.

What "climate change" law is TX breaking?

WHat gun law is VA breaking?

(12-09-2020 06:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 05:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 05:36 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. Most likely it goes no where. But let's say that the Supreme Court invalidates the votes in these states and turns it over to there legislatures. Does a liberal state (NY, California?) then turn around and sue a number of more conservative states for the same reason?

I recall that the absentee ballot in North Carolina was changed due to a judicial decision, I know that there are different voting procedures in different Counties here in Florida, so I have a difficult time believing that this argument would only apply to GA, MI, PA, and WI. It seems that we could have a legal civil war on our hands.

Then NY sues VA for their gun laws, and CA sues TX for climate change.

What "climate change" law is TX breaking?

WHat gun law is VA breaking?

NYC has gone after dealers and states in the past over straw purchases, failing to enforce the law. They take the stance that other states lax firearms laws endanger their population.

(12-09-2020 10:59 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 10:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 10:10 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 09:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 07:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The stupidity is staggering.

Yes, one has to be incredibly stupid to completely disregard the numerous statistical improbabilities that Biden managed score in his path to "victory".

Yes, one has to be incredibly stupid to be okay with the numerous instances of what is at best is the appearance of impropriety and at worst blatant election fraud.

Yes, one has to be incredibly stupid to be okay with on the fly changes to election laws through the courts and executive orders instead of state legislatures per the Constitution just because one's guy "won".

But hey, at least the stupid aren't screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia" for a change.

The statistical analysis the republicans are putting forward to show the improbability of Biden’s victory are fundamentally flawed. You can’t assume that every batch of votes reported comes from a randomized sample of all votes in the state.

I'm not talking about the vote counts.

Post your statistical analysis.

Not my analysis of course, but tomorrow when I'm back on a computer I'll post what you can readily find with a simple search.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(12-09-2020 05:30 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 05:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 02:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:41 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  therefore, ewe offer zero proof = 0...

yet, ewe offer nothing to invalidate...

the numbers/timeline/forensics relative to historical #s/%s vs. 2020 IN THE POTUS ELECTION IS BY ITSELF A STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTIES....WTF ELSE IS RELEVANT, DIPSHITE...

EWE'RE A TROLL + STATISTICALLY BRAINDEAD

if ya choose to take down the fairness clause, I can fix that down the road at my choosing....

#suckThatTeat

You have no relevant argument to present. I don't have to offer proof to dispute the drivel you are typing.

Someone posted that the statistical analysis was valid and swayed their thinking, I asked to see it.

If you think you have a valid statistical analysis that supports fraud post it or STFU.

I gave ewe (as others have in detail in tooooooo many threads) a synopsis above...playing coy via ignorance is never valid rreasoning to dispute...that's all ewe and skewering dipshites have in the tank...we knew such long ago....all the faggoos accomplished was to cheat better than anticipated....that was a misstep...

I know ewer game....see sig line 4...

This is what your post sounds like :



Sober up or take some english as a second language classes.

From what I can gather from your rambling jibberish you are still bitching and have presented no valid argument. Just like your man crush Trump.

stink is the supplier of the bad batch shrooms the trump supporters are on. That's why they see a victory that never was.

Yet we can forever see the idiots on the Left that always were.

(12-09-2020 05:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Equal protection. Its happening.

The filth are scared they won't get free shite.

Unless i'm mistaken, this case has no dependency on election fraud, vote switching or ballot box stuffing. Its based solely on the US Constitution.

(12-09-2020 06:52 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Unless i'm mistaken, this case has no dependency on election fraud, vote switching or ballot box stuffing. Its based solely on the US Constitution.

Already posted

Article III (3), Section II (2)
The Constitution of the United States

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


Bold by me.

This is real and its happening.

(12-09-2020 07:02 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:52 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Unless i'm mistaken, this case has no dependency on election fraud, vote switching or ballot box stuffing. Its based solely on the US Constitution.

Already posted

Article III (3), Section II (2)
The Constitution of the United States

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


Bold by me.

This is real and its happening.

I believe this legal action between the States also involves:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" (Article I, section 4)."