The Lawsuits

[Boges]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

Legal votes should be counted, not illegal votes.  Each party needs to comply with the same election law.  It’s not rocket science.  Your trump hypocrisy is showing again.  I can only imagine if he had political parties removed from ballots before the election.

it’s irrelevant whether people care.  That’s not the issue.  I’m glad you finally realize that.  Now try answering the question I asked you.

The Courts Trump Hypocrisy too? 

Repeated failed Court challenges speak more truth than your Rock Science blast.

Each State is allowed to have different election laws. In Canada we're not because it's run by third party groups. 

[Infidel Dog]

  

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

This is hilarious coming from the guy whose only response to all the Republican judges and state officials and party members who don’t accept Trumps fake fraud claims is to simply call them RINOS and worships professional slimmers like  Ezra Levant and Rush Limbaugh   Slurring and sliming is all you do. 

 

 

And here comes The Beave, slurrin' and a slimin' while claiming to object to it.

And here's me: 

Seriously though Beave a lot happened today. Apparently it doesn't matter because somebody found something he doesn't like about it and has something nasty to say.

And that always seems to be all you guys have got. That and failures in the lower courts. Nobody expected those to have much success there but you have to go there to move up. It's always been about getting where the Texas suit is going. Either legislatures or the supreme court. Preferably both.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[sharkman]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

News just keeps dropping today.

17 states filed an amicus brief backing the Texas lawsuit today:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17-states-file-brief-backing-texas-election-lawsuit-against-ga-mi-pa-wi

17 States now, eh?  With a 6 to 3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court, Trump haters are starting to get just a little bit nervous... the Kraken is lurking, folks.

 

[Guest]

Just now, sharkman said:

17 States now, eh?  With a 6 to 3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court, Trump haters are starting to get just a little bit nervous... the Kraken is lurking, folks.

 

I posted what Forbes had to say about the current chicken in my last post.

If anyone is nervous it's probably because they don't want to pull a muscle laughing.

[Shady]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

3. No they wanted them to censor incorrect information. 

Good thing they censored the Hunter Biden nonsense during the last stretch of the campaign!  People might’ve believed he was involved in some wrongdoing!  Oops.

So, how does the censorship of all this during the height of the campaign get rectified?  How convenient that it’s too late.  Perfect for the Biden campaign though.  What a coincidence!

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

Good thing they censored the Hunter Biden nonsense during the last stretch of the campaign!  People might’ve believed he was involved in some wrongdoing!  Oops.

So, how does the censorship of all this during the height of the campaign get rectified?  How convenient that it’s too late.  Perfect for the Biden campaign though.  What a coincidence!

I think, if anything, the Trump years have taught us that "investigation" doesn't mean actual crime.

Lot's of investigation into Hillary.  

The DOJ was investigating widespread fraud in the Election. 

[Shady]

Twitter as well as google and Facebook are guilty of collusion and election interference.

 

[sharkman]

31 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I posted what Forbes had to say about the current chicken in my last post.

If anyone is nervous it's probably because they don't want to pull a muscle laughing.

Forbes, that bastion of state constitutional law has decided to weigh in, eh?  I'll wait for a source with a little more knowledge on the matter...like SCOTUS, thanks anyway.

If laughter gives you the risk of pulling a muscle, perhaps you need to take better care of yourself, or at least eat more chicken...

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Forbes, that bastion of state constitutional law has decided to weigh in, eh?  I'll wait for a source with a little more knowledge on the matter...like SCOTUS, thanks anyway.

If laughter gives you the risk of pulling a muscle, perhaps you need to take better care of yourself, or at least eat more chicken...

Of course, it goes without saying that any source that disagrees with you on this issue is not worth considering.  I'm much the same way.

The only difference is those sources you refuse to consider worthy are sane, well respected news outlets, whereas those I refuse to consider worthy are wingnut conspiracy theory basement dwellers with a youtube account.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

  

 

 

And here comes The Beave, slurrin' and a slimin' while claiming to object to it.

And here's me: 

Seriously though Beave a lot happened today. Apparently it doesn't matter because somebody found something he doesn't like about it and has something nasty to say.

And that always seems to be all you guys have got. That and failures in the lower courts. Nobody expected those to have much success there but you have to go there to move up. It's always been about getting where the Texas suit is going. Either legislatures or the supreme court. Preferably both.

It’s going to be awesome gloating  when that lawsuit also gets thrown out and you guys have to move your goalposts yet again amd pretend you meant to lose

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s going to be awesome gloating  when that lawsuit also gets thrown out and you guys have to move your goalposts yet again amd pretend you meant to lose

But here's what I keep wondering.

If you guys are so sure you're right and everything was kosher about this election why wouldn't you be anxious to prove it?

And not just for the schadenfreude but I think individuals as righteous and compassionate as the left seems to like to think it is would want to convince people how correct they are and how mistaken those who challenge their righteous truth are by giving those mistaken wretches a fair hearing. But no, it all seems to be about shutting up those who believe they see the cheating.

You know what I think. I think you guys are as aware of this blatant crooked fix as the rest of us are. You're just worried it could get proven. So you just want it stopped before somebody does give the matter a fair hearing.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the real reason the "progressive" left doesn't want to offer up a rational argument is they're incapable of it.

YouTube Will Ban Claims Of 2020 Vote Fraud, But Still Allows Claims That Russia Stole The 2016 Election

Edited December 10, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

It's like you say there's no evidence, then when it's shown to you, you don't seem to notice and two posts later you're saying it doesn't exist again.

https://hereistheevidence.com/

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

It's like you say there's no evidence, then when it's shown to you, you don't seem to notice and two posts later you're saying it doesn't exist again.

https://hereistheevidence.com/

It's not that the evidence doesn't exist, but rather, none of it is any good.  It's all fabrications and wishful thinking.

If any of it had any merit, the courts, which are right leaning at the moment, would review it and act accordingly.

I can't speak for anyone else on here, but it is the courts' reluctance to get involved in any of the cases, beyond what amounts to little more than a mocking disregard, that forms the basis for my opinions on the subject.  Beyond the most newsworthy of efforts, I'm not going to research them myself. 

[sharkman]

4 hours ago, sharkman said:

17 States now, eh?  With a 6 to 3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court, Trump haters are starting to get just a little bit nervous... the Kraken is lurking, folks.

 

Speaking of which, it’s been reported that SCOTUS has decided to hear the Texas case, by a 6 to 3 margin.  Better get used to that margin, folks...

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Speaking of which, it’s been reported that SCOTUS has decided to hear the Texas case, by a 6 to 3 margin.  Better get used to that margin, folks...

Is that the Facebook post, or has there been any newer reporting on it?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/09/facebook-posts/no-supreme-court-hasnt-taken-texas-election-case-y/

 

[366h34d]

27 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Speaking of which, it’s been reported that SCOTUS has decided to hear the Texas case, by a 6 to 3 margin.  Better get used to that margin, folks...

there had some voter frauds, here or there. I don't believe it was unconstitutional level

[sharkman]

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Is that the Facebook post, or has there been any newer reporting on it?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/09/facebook-posts/no-supreme-court-hasnt-taken-texas-election-case-y/

 

Well yes, it’s been reported, maybe not official yet.  But get used to the ratio...

? 

[sharkman]

23 minutes ago, 366h34d said:

there had some voter frauds, here or there. I don't believe it was unconstitutional level

We will find out soon, I think.

[Cannucklehead]

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7512138/trump-texas-supreme-court/amp/

Election law experts have said the Texas lawsuit stands little chance of success and lacks legal merit.

Yawn.  

Only 40 more days thankfully.  

[sharkman]

13 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7512138/trump-texas-supreme-court/amp/

Election law experts have said the Texas lawsuit stands little chance of success and lacks legal merit.

Yawn.  

Only 40 more days thankfully.  

That headline is wrong, and as usual is misrepresenting the facts.  No one is asking for the election to be overturned.

 

To the post below:  Cannucklehead, Trump is not part of the lawsuit at the date of this post, its just a simple fact.  He may join the lawsuit, but as at the time of the post, he hadn't. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by sharkman
For Cannuckle head

[Cannucklehead]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

That headline is wrong, and as usual is misrepresenting the facts.  No one is asking for the election to be overturned.

Except for trump i guess?

 

 

There's plenty more but I don't have time to dig up all of that atm.

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, sharkman said:

Speaking of which, it’s been reported that SCOTUS has decided to hear the Texas case, by a 6 to 3 margin.  Better get used to that margin, folks...

Personally, I think that 6 to 3 is deceptive. It's true John Roberts is a Bush appointee but he showed with the Obamacare case that he can't be trusted. 

They say he'd be reluctant to take the case because he worries about what he thinks of as the respectability of the court or some such thing. So on the decision to take the case it's possible it's going to be 5 to 4 and that's still being hopeful. But me, I am still hopeful. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

14 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Except for trump i guess?

There's plenty more but I don't have time to dig up all of that atm.

As I heard it explained what's more likely with the Texas case is if it's successful a likely result would be the Supremes sending the matter to the individual legislatures for votes.

[Boges]

6 hours ago, sharkman said:

That headline is wrong, and as usual is misrepresenting the facts.  No one is asking for the election to be overturned.

They're asking to delay EC votes in these four states. What an awful precedent they'd be setting. I don't like how you guys voted, so I'm going to ask to get your citizen's votes thrown out. 

[Boges]

4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

As I heard it explained what's more likely with the Texas case is if it's successful a likely result would be the Supremes sending the matter to the individual legislatures for votes.

These Legislatures have already allowed for Certification on the votes. They could have tried to step in already. 

They could also have the fight of which Electors to send. Which none seem to be having.