The Lawsuits

[Infidel Dog]

57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah some Republicans still have a few shreds of integrity.

That's what they're saying about those particular back-stabbing fakes and traitors over in Prog-world, is it? Why doesn't that surprise me?

In fact, if you're on their side then yes, Tax me is 100% correct. They're not Republicans they're the opposite of that. Whatever you guys are calling yourselves this week, that's what they are.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[BeaverFever]

21 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

That's what they're saying about those particular back-stabbing fakes and traitors over in Prog-world, is it? Why doesn't that surprise me?

In fact, if you're on their side then yes, Tax me is 100% correct. They're not Republicans they're the opposite of that. Whatever you guys are calling yourselves this week, that's what they are.

Your whole world is crumbling around you. The imaginary web of conspirators you’ve created for yourself gets bigger and bigger by the minute in order to explain the reality that’s crashing down on you and your failed loser of a false god. It’s so sweet. ?????

Edited November 27, 2020 by BeaverFever

[Boges]

15 hours ago, taxme said:

 Those big time well known lawyers that Trump has working for him are not about to make themselves look like fools and idiots if they have nothing on Biden and the dementia party.

I guess you didn't see the hair dye press conference last Thursday. 

 

[Boges]

If the Trump team did have compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud, they'd have presented it before all the important states had certified their votes. 

Now they're relying on the very undemocratic practice of having legislators break the law and send their own set of electors. Which none have pledged to do. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

1. If the Trump team did have compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud, they'd have presented it before all the important states had certified their votes. 

2. Now they're relying on the very undemocratic practice of having legislators break the law and send their own set of electors. Which none have pledged to do. 

1. The cult is reposting the same (dismissed) incidents over and over instead, in case the judges are on facebook or maybe because mass outrage is thought to result in legislative change at the judicial level.
2. How about holding public hearings about the corruption of the voting system ?

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

If the Trump team did have compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud, they'd have presented it before all the important states had certified their votes.

 

Why does the voter fraud have to be "widespread" to be taken seriously ?   Is voter fraud on a less than "widespread" scale acceptable for a healthy "democracy" ?

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Why does the voter fraud have to be "widespread" to be taken seriously ?   Is voter fraud on a less than "widespread" scale acceptable for a healthy "democracy" ?

It needs to be widespread to throw out Hundreds of Thousands of votes as the Trump team is asking. 

"Irregularities" are common. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Boges said:

It needs to be widespread to throw out Hundreds of Thousands of votes as the Trump team is asking. 

"Irregularities" are common. 

 

"Irregularities" are unexpected poll closings, undercounts, overcounts, and spoiled ballots.

Voter fraud is the intentional registration and casting of votes when it is illegal to do so, and should not be tolerated at any level or scale.  Has nothing to do with Trump's objections.

 

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Voter fraud is the intentional registration and casting of votes when it is illegal to do so, and should not be tolerated at any level or scale.  Has nothing to do with Trump's objections.

OK so where's the evidence of that? Has it been raised in court? 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

OK so where's the evidence of that? Has it been raised in court? 

 

You mean like this ?

 

Quote

BUFFALO, N.Y.-U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul Jr. announced today that Shirley Anne Conners, a/k/a Shirley Anne Faragalli, 62, Cheektowaga, NY, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with making a false claim to United States citizenship in order to vote.  The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian J. Counihan, who is handling the case, stated that according to the complaint, the defendant is a native and citizen of Canada and has been illegally present in the United States since the early 1970s. Conners has voted in over 20 Federal, State, and local elections since 1995, the last being the New York State Democratic Presidential Primary on April 19, 2016. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/cheektowaga-woman-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

 

[Boges]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

You mean like this ?

I guess Trump is entitled to all of New York's EC vote now eh? 

I'm talking about Trump's Lawyers trying to overturn the election. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Boges said:

I guess Trump is entitled to all of New York's EC vote now eh? 

I'm talking about Trump's Lawyers trying to overturn the election. 

 

Trump's lawyers cannot overturn any election.   To claim that only "widespread" voter fraud is reason for concern undermines the election process, regardless of the winner.

George W. Bush went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 to force the issue in Florida, which he won anyway after a recount by less than 600 votes.

Should his lawyers have just stayed home instead ?

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trump's lawyers cannot overturn any election.   To claim that only "widespread" voter fraud is reason for concern undermines the election process, regardless of the winner.

George W. Bush went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 to force the issue in Florida, which he won anyway after a recount by less than 600 votes.

Should his lawyers have just stayed home instead ?

Sure, investigate and prosecute any and all examples of Voter Fraud. 

But you have to have compelling evidence for it.

Trump is has lost or withdrawn 30 cases in many cases fraud wasn't even alleged.  

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Sure, investigate and prosecute any and all examples of Voter Fraud. 

But you have to have compelling evidence for it.

 

Illegals registering and casting votes in U.S. elections is compelling evidence.   Dead people casting votes is compelling evidence.   Uncounted legal ballots is compelling evidence.   Witness impediments is compelling evidence.  Mail fraud is compelling evidence.

 

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Illegals registering and casting votes in U.S. elections is compelling evidence.   Dead people casting votes is compelling evidence.   Uncounted legal ballots is compelling evidence.   Witness impediments is compelling evidence.  Mail fraud is compelling evidence.

So either Trump has shitty lawyers or scads of judges who've presided over these cases in the past week aren't compelled. Many were Republican too. 

The tactic isn't even to win in the courts now. It's compelling legislators to send their own electors. 

Don't you realize this whole process is to allow Trump to continue to Fundraise. It has nothing to do with actually staying POTUS. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

So either Trump has shitty lawyers or scads of judges who've presided over these cases in the past week aren't compelled. Many were Republican too.

 

Still doesn't mean that Trump can't get his day in court(s).   Lawsuits are an American tradition.

 

Quote

The tactic isn't even to win in the courts now. It's compelling legislators to send their own electors.

 

There were faithless electors in 2016 too...so what ?

 

Quote

Don't you realize this whole process is to allow Trump to continue to Fundraise. It has nothing to do with actually staying POTUS. 

 

So ?    Seems like a brilliant strategy to me.

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Still doesn't mean that Trump can't get his day in court(s).   Lawsuits are an American tradition.

He's had many days in court. When does it end? Will the first case he wins be a case SCOTUS agrees to hear? These votes are already certified. 

Quote

There were faithless electors in 2016 too...so what ?

Really? Cite? I'm not saying you're wrong but isn't being a Faithless Elector a big No-No? 

 

Quote

So ?    Seems like a brilliant strategy to me.

As long as you have uneducated rubes believing everything you say. YEP! 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Boges said:

He's had many days in court. When does it end? Will the first case he wins be a case SCOTUS agrees to hear?

 

It didn't end until December 13th in 2000.   So what's the hurry this time ?    Because it is Trump ?

Quote

Really Cite? I'm not saying you're wrong but isn't being a Faithless Elector a big No-No?

 

I am not wrong....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/

 

Quote

As long as you have uneducated rubes believing everything you say. YEP! 

 

It is U.S. election law....Trump may run again in 2024.  He can serve two terms.

 

[Boges]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

It didn't end until December 13th in 2000.   So what's the hurry this time ?    Because it is Trump ?

Who says I'm in a hurry. Just stop saying there's compelling evidence when almost every case brought to a judge has been laughed out of court. 

 

Quote

 

I am not wrong....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/

 

No you're not. We're not talking about Faithless Electors. We're talking about a faithless state legislator sending a different slate of electors. 

 

Quote

It is U.S. election law....Trump may run again in 2024.  He can serve two terms.

Which will make the State of the Republican party fascinating for the next four years. 

[Boges]

Also, this is the key to the issue of Faithless Electors. 

Quote

Though there is no Constitutional provision or federal law barring electors from voting for whom they are pledged, more than half of the states, including D.C., “bind” their electors. The rest of electors may have the legal authority to vote for whomever they want, but, as CBS News previously reported, faithless electors have never decided a presidential election.

It's mostly illegal, but because it's never actually changed the result, most say meh. Trump's goal would be to actually change the result. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Boges said:

Who says I'm in a hurry. Just stop saying there's compelling evidence when almost every case brought to a judge has been laughed out of court.

 

"Almost" ?   Is like the lack of "widespread"....too funny !

 

Quote

No you're not. We're not talking about Faithless Electors. We're talking about a faithless state legislator sending a different slate of electors.

 

I'm talking about faithless electors that Trump could flip.  

 

Quote

Which will make the State of the Republican party fascinating for the next four years. 

 

Why ?   Joe Biden had to try three times before he finally won the presidency.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Also, this is the key to the issue of Faithless Electors. 

It's mostly illegal, but because it's never actually changed the result, most say meh. Trump's goal would be to actually change the result. 

 

Trump's goal is to keep the game going, and U.S. / Canadian media seems more than happy to oblige.

[Boges]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

"Almost" ?   Is like the lack of "widespread"....too funny !

I think he won a case about how close "poll watchers" could stand. But the biggest scope cases of throwing out the hundreds of thousands of votes they allege were effected by said distant poll watchers was . . . laughed out of court. 

 

Quote

Why ?   Joe Biden had to try three times before he finally won the presidency.

Because, why bother with a Primary process? It'll be funny to see a party unable to do anything without the permission of a one-term POTUS that lost the popular vote by 6 million+ votes. 

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trump's goal is to keep the game going, and U.S. / Canadian media seems more than happy to oblige.

That's clear. It's a Grift, like with everything Trump. 

It's just funny seeing people actually think Trump will still be POTUS January 20th. 

[bush_cheney2004]

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think he won a case

So his objection/lawsuit prevailed ?   How 'bout that ?!

 

Quote

Because, why bother with a Primary process? It'll be funny to see a party unable to do anything without the permission of a one-term POTUS that lost the popular vote by 6 million+ votes. 

 

So it was OK for Ted Kennedy to challenge incumbent Jimmy Carter, but not OK for Trump...just because he is "Trump" ?   Got it....

Edited November 26, 2020 by bush_cheney2004