(12-11-2020 09:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  PA joined in the lawsuit against themselves....

The same crew of state senators that held the fake hearing / press conference for Rudy and went to the White House.

1 The following Pennsylvania State Senators, being a majority of all Republican members of the Senate, join this brief in full: 1 Jake Corman, Kim Ward, Douglas V. Mastriano, Robert Mensch, Wayne Langerholc, Jr., David G. Argall, Scott E. Hutchinson, Scott F. Martin, Kristin Phillips-Hill, Michele Brooks, Camera Bartolotta, Judy Ward, Ryan P. Aument, Pat Stefano, Michael R. Regan, Dave Arnold, Mario Scavello, John DiSanto, Joe Pittman, Daniel Laughlin, Patrick M. Browne, Gene Yaw, John R. Gordner, Devlin Robinson.

(12-11-2020 09:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  PA joined in the lawsuit against themselves....

The same crew of state senators that held the fake hearing / press conference for Rudy and went to the White House.

1 The following Pennsylvania State Senators, being a majority of all Republican members of the Senate, join this brief in full: 1 Jake Corman, Kim Ward, Douglas V. Mastriano, Robert Mensch, Wayne Langerholc, Jr., David G. Argall, Scott E. Hutchinson, Scott F. Martin, Kristin Phillips-Hill, Michele Brooks, Camera Bartolotta, Judy Ward, Ryan P. Aument, Pat Stefano, Michael R. Regan, Dave Arnold, Mario Scavello, John DiSanto, Joe Pittman, Daniel Laughlin, Patrick M. Browne, Gene Yaw, John R. Gordner, Devlin Robinson.

Why do you call it fake?

(12-11-2020 10:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  PA joined in the lawsuit against themselves....

The same crew of state senators that held the fake hearing / press conference for Rudy and went to the White House.

1 The following Pennsylvania State Senators, being a majority of all Republican members of the Senate, join this brief in full: 1 Jake Corman, Kim Ward, Douglas V. Mastriano, Robert Mensch, Wayne Langerholc, Jr., David G. Argall, Scott E. Hutchinson, Scott F. Martin, Kristin Phillips-Hill, Michele Brooks, Camera Bartolotta, Judy Ward, Ryan P. Aument, Pat Stefano, Michael R. Regan, Dave Arnold, Mario Scavello, John DiSanto, Joe Pittman, Daniel Laughlin, Patrick M. Browne, Gene Yaw, John R. Gordner, Devlin Robinson.

Why do you call it fake?

It was not an official procedure of the legislature. The legislature was not even in session IIRC, and none of the "witnesses" were swore in.

Montana issues statement. Here's a snippet.

(12-11-2020 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Montana issues statement. Here's a snippet.

Montana, like PA, is split. It also sided with the Texas case.

Frankly, the point made in that statement logically supports the Texas claim. And, yes, any state that made changes to how their election is conducted outside of their legislature is in violation.

This would mean more and more states' elections are invalidated.

This isn't about who wins 270 electoral votes. It's about fighting to stop election fraud.

As state election results are tossed, the next step would be to move to the House of Representatives where each state casts 1 vote for President.

I've heard that the Red states outnumber the Blue states and therefore Trump would win. I don't know that that would be the case. There very well could be some Red states which would still cast a vote for Biden.

What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

The dumb thing about resistance to things like this is that this only argues for some set of national standards, still managed by the states and likely some variability allowed, but pne standard... i.e. if voter ID is a requirement, it is required everywhere and under extremely similar rules and exceptions, which is what most leftist on here have argued they would accept.... and is consistent with the 'central decision making' that is in almost everything they do.

So why the resistance/derision? How the hell else are you going to create national standards for elections but through the courts, since the feds have no jurisdiction over it?

(12-11-2020 10:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:22 AM)gdunn Wrote:  PA joined in the lawsuit against themselves....

The same crew of state senators that held the fake hearing / press conference for Rudy and went to the White House.

1 The following Pennsylvania State Senators, being a majority of all Republican members of the Senate, join this brief in full: 1 Jake Corman, Kim Ward, Douglas V. Mastriano, Robert Mensch, Wayne Langerholc, Jr., David G. Argall, Scott E. Hutchinson, Scott F. Martin, Kristin Phillips-Hill, Michele Brooks, Camera Bartolotta, Judy Ward, Ryan P. Aument, Pat Stefano, Michael R. Regan, Dave Arnold, Mario Scavello, John DiSanto, Joe Pittman, Daniel Laughlin, Patrick M. Browne, Gene Yaw, John R. Gordner, Devlin Robinson.

Why do you call it fake?

It was not an official procedure of the legislature. The legislature was not even in session IIRC, and none of the "witnesses" were swore in.

LOL! Why should it need to be an official legislative act? The changes to the ballot processing weren't and those are ok? Right? LOL!

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

And this is exactly correct.

Every single voter in the U.S. is a player in a game -- an election game.

By and large the vast majority of us are playing by the rules -- no flags, penalties or fouls.

But a few of us decide to break the rules -- they hit the receiver right as he's about to catch a touchdown or foul the guard as he's about to knock down a three-pointer.

On top of that, some of those in charge of enforcing the rules aren't -- the ref refuses to call pass interference or a shooting foul.

The cheating by the players and refs may just impact the outcome of the game.


Why play by the rules when some decide to cheat in order to win.


When cheating is allowed it tells every one of us that it doesn't matter at all that you played by the rules. We're not going to let you win regardless of the cost.


If I choose to continue to play the game their way, then I have no pride in our nation nor do I honor the Declaration or the Constitution or the sacrifices of those who pledged their lives to fight for and defend them.

(12-11-2020 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

The dumb thing about resistance to things like this is that this only argues for some set of national standards, still managed by the states and likely some variability allowed, but pne standard... i.e. if voter ID is a requirement, it is required everywhere and under extremely similar rules and exceptions, which is what most leftist on here have argued they would accept.... and is consistent with the 'central decision making' that is in almost everything they do.

So why the resistance/derision? How the hell else are you going to create national standards for elections but through the courts, since the feds have no jurisdiction over it?

Most have argued they would want it.. But several have said it's unfair.. Due to cost and being able to get an ID which I find as a flimsy excuse.

(12-11-2020 10:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Montana issues statement. Here's a snippet.

Montana, like PA, is split. It also sided with the Texas case.

Frankly, the point made in that statement logically supports the Texas claim. And, yes, any state that made changes to how their election is conducted outside of their legislature is in violation.

This would mean more and more states' elections are invalidated.

This isn't about who wins 270 electoral votes. It's about fighting to stop election fraud.

As state election results are tossed, the next step would be to move to the House of Representatives where each state casts 1 vote for President.

I've heard that the Red states outnumber the Blue states and therefore Trump would win. I don't know that that would be the case. There very well could be some Red states which would still cast a vote for Biden.

Just one slight problem there. You can't make a legal case for fraud here as we've seen with all the trump affiliated lawsuits that have been laughed out of court.

Texas might not agree with how the other states' courts and SOS's ruled on things, but that does not in anyway prove there was fraud or that Texas was damaged in any way. That's why SCOTUS is likely to swat this away quickly.

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

It doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. Worst case scenario is certain state elections are thrown out and those state legislatures—which were ELECTED—will make the decision on the states electors (just like they do for every other budget decision, taxing decision, and legislative decision related to the people of that state). That’s how representative government works.

That said--just because the SC says the election is illegal, doesnt mean you have to overturn its results. if Im a state legislature in that situation, the first thing I would do is order a signature audit of the mail in ballots. If that audit comes back with enough questionable signatures to change the election---then I leave the legislature to make the decision on the states electors. If the signature audit comes back with minimal issues---then I would simply have the legislature rubber stamp the existing state election outcome and be done with it.

(12-11-2020 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

The dumb thing about resistance to things like this is that this only argues for some set of national standards, still managed by the states and likely some variability allowed, but pne standard... i.e. if voter ID is a requirement, it is required everywhere and under extremely similar rules and exceptions, which is what most leftist on here have argued they would accept.... and is consistent with the 'central decision making' that is in almost everything they do.

So why the resistance/derision? How the hell else are you going to create national standards for elections but through the courts, since the feds have no jurisdiction over it?

Pretty sure that the Constitution specifically tasks the states with running their own election...so I'm not sure there is a "national standard" to be had.

I've said this before, but my solution is to issue a SSN and register people as voters upon birth and maintain them all in a national database that the states could all access. Yeah...I know there's privacy issues...but I would still attempt it.

We rules minded constitutional republicans don’t have a clue. The democrats l have stolen this presidential election. They are setting up the two communist in Georgia as we argue about this past cluster. Once they get those two greased in they will pack the SCOTUS, create at least two new states, and then they will go for the kill shot. They will use the chaos of the past elections to declare elections are not possible to conduct fairly thus giving the congress the duty of appointing our president. I. Am. Not. Kidding.

(12-11-2020 11:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

It doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. Worst case scenario is certain state elections are thrown out and those state legislatures—which were ELECTED—will make the decision on the states electors (just like they do for every other budget decision, taxing decision, and legislative decision related to the people of that state). That’s how representative government works.

No, that disenfranchises everyone. Plus it also throws out all the down ballot elections as well. So you have the state legislature deciding whether they themselves should be in office.

That's why this suit is going NOWHERE!

(12-11-2020 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 10:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  What Texas is alledging is that if there was fraud in these states, not tossing the votes disenfranchises THEIR voters and votes.

But hey let's worry about the fake mail in ballots.

The dumb thing about resistance to things like this is that this only argues for some set of national standards, still managed by the states and likely some variability allowed, but pne standard... i.e. if voter ID is a requirement, it is required everywhere and under extremely similar rules and exceptions, which is what most leftist on here have argued they would accept.... and is consistent with the 'central decision making' that is in almost everything they do.

So why the resistance/derision? How the hell else are you going to create national standards for elections but through the courts, since the feds have no jurisdiction over it?

Pretty sure that the Constitution specifically tasks the states with running their own election...so I'm not sure there is a "national standard" to be had.

I've said this before, but my solution is to issue a SSN and register people as voters upon birth and maintain them all in a national database that the states could all access. Yeah...I know there's privacy issues...but I would still attempt it.

There isnt a national standard---other than the state legislatures are the ultimate decision makers for the selection of state electors. My guess is the SC will say they have no jurisdiction, but the SC will also make it clear that the ultimate "Supreme Court" in each state with regard to this issue is the individual state legislatures which have the right to overturn any ruling of their state supreme court in this manner (especially in cases where the state supreme court fails to actually hear the full case or fails).

It becomes a federal issue when the states in question ignore their own constitutions and do something that is illegal? I don’t understand how that is even in question

(12-11-2020 11:46 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  It becomes a federal issue when the states in question ignore their own constitutions and do something that is illegal? I don’t understand how that is even in question

Are these states' courts saying things were illegal? I don't think so. And it's not Texas place to say so either.

Additionally, if the voters were just following what the legislature/courts told them, and that later is determined to be wrong, no court is going to say their votes don't count as it was no fault of their own when they cast their vote!

The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

(12-11-2020 12:01 PM)450bench Wrote:  The question is, who can change or modify a state’s election rules? Who has that authority in said state?

The answer is simple in this case. Someone who did not have the authority to change state election law, changed the election law. That violates the constitution of the state.

Simple as that. If that is truly the case, and it likely is, that states election results could be null and void. Depends on a number of factors.

The SCOTUS is most likely going to say those legislatures had time to apply their own remedy, and by not doing so, have implied consent to the actions of their administrators. The legislatures have the ability to nullify their own elections right now. I suspect the SCOTUS will tell them to do that if they wish and tell Texas to pound prairie.