(01-06-2021 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 04:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 04:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think that Cruz is doing exactly what happened in 2000, 2004, and most recently in 2016 without a pip of protest from you all. Funny how your complain voice is in high pitch for this now.

I think it not so bad that the shitshow that was the Pennsyvania election be drawn into the spotlight --- not just for the colorable 'last minute changes' but also for the 'at the time of counting irregularities' that came about, much because of the 'last minute changes'.

Having had one vote 'stolen' from me while in a 'let everyone vote without restrictions' state, I think it fair that the Democratic commitment and full-fledged effort to maximize the window for fraud and irregular ignoring of election procedure be highlighted. Im kind of playing the world's smallest violin over the gnashing or your all's teeth to be honest.

When you combine the shitshows of election behavior and someone who *will* fight back guaranteed, this is what I expected. Albeit I expected nothing but raw violence from the left had he been elected --- so I will absolutely pick a Cruz grandstanding over raw violence any day.

I have zero problem with objecting, I have zero problem with highlighting the Democratic effort to maximize vote fraud, and I have zero problem with denoting a rather startling amount of 'after the fact' issues of ‘well fill in the dates’ **** that went down at the local level.

I would surmise if I supported an effort to maximize voter fraud, or if I supported the notion of ‘after the fact’ counting issues, I might be a tad upset at the Cruz grandstanding.

I do think that Cruz is out of bounds by proposing a 10 day audit, so the only issue I have with the Cruz efforts is procedural. Pensylvania *absolutely* stunk to high heaven election wise; one would have to be a true committed partisan not to note the wrong way that the state (via governor decree) changed explicit voting law within the state literally a very short time before the election, followed by the amazing truly progressive ruling that changed literal ‘3 days after the election’ explicit words in the law to ‘some arbitrary number of days after the election’ (again, the awesomeness of progressive judiciaries to simply pull crap out of the air notwithstanding language).

Coupled with other more localized irregular conduct, I say yeah, lets have that conversation.

So slap on the hand to Cruz for trying to jam a procedure where one doesnt exist, indifference to him for the temerity of 'objecting' (again, see 2000, 2004, 2016), and kudos for him for relaying a serious message on *how* the election was carried out.

Serious question... if the election was so iffy why was there such a seemingly overwhelming smackdown in the courts when it came to questioning the results? Was this bad lawyering or this a cat that is nearly impossible to put back into the bag once the election has been declared?

'overwhelming smackdown' --- got it.

What I see when I read is a series of (starting in October) --- not ripe at this time, followed by a series of well its too late for *you* to have filed.

And in others, a crap ton of 'wrong person to sue', and a whole fkton of decisions that pretty much punted the issues.

Funny that. Sometimes there is a different perspective when one reads the pleadings and decisions. Amazing that.

I didn't read them and I have no legal background with which to interpret them. That's why I was asking the lawyers. That's also why I said "seemingly" because I wasn't sure what an attorney would think as opposed to a layperson that is getting his information from the media.