What's new
By:
Filters

Fresh thread on Election Fraud and Legal action

2big bronco said:
fetch
Click to expand...


troll :flipoff2:
 
Harry Johnson said:
This whole thing actually has me a little worried. Whichever way the ruling goes, I feel like half of the country is going to lose their shit.
Click to expand...

you're probably correct. Sadly, it seems like rule of law is on the docket... not that certain justices care about that...
 
For those interested in that kind of thing, it's being painted as an doomed to fail suit on the other side of the fence:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-lawsuit-texas/texas-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-help-trump-upend-election-in-long-shot-lawsuit-idUSKBN28I27M
Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa...d-election-in-long-shot-lawsuit-idUSKBN28I27M
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa...d-election-in-long-shot-lawsuit-idUSKBN28I27M
 
Grnd93 said:
which means they are afraid
Click to expand...

What scares me is that there is no attempt to educate their readership as to why this suit was filed. Should it succeed in the supreme court, all these confident Biden supporters will be blindsided. They would feel like the rug got pulled out from under their feet with no justification.. That sort of mindset makes people dangerous.
 
Harry Johnson said:
What scares me is that there is no attempt to educate their readership as to why this suit was filed. Should it succeed in the supreme court, all these confident Biden supporters will be blindsided. They would feel like the rug got pulled out from under their feet with no justification.. That sort of mindset makes people dangerous.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure any level of explanation would do anything to convince Biden’s supporters that this is legit.
 
Harry Johnson said:
What scares me is that there is no attempt to educate their readership as to why this suit was filed. Should it succeed in the supreme court, all these confident Biden supporters will be blindsided. They would feel like the rug got pulled out from under their feet with no justification.. That sort of mindset makes people dangerous.
Click to expand...

That’s not an accident. We’ve been saying since nov 4 that they were forcing the president elect title just to cause unrest when it was proven he lost.

the media will never cover the fact that it was rigged, they will push that it was stolen.
 
Harry Johnson said:
What scares me is that there is no attempt to educate their readership as to why this suit was filed. Should it succeed in the supreme court, all these confident Biden supporters will be blindsided. They would feel like the rug got pulled out from under their feet with no justification.. That sort of mindset makes people dangerous.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will realize how full of shit the media is that made them full of shit and oblivious to reality.
 
Interesting turn of events. First Alito was pushing for the PA fight and to bring it to the SC. This case was clear cut unconstitutional. Now, after Texas files suit, the SC chooses not to hear the PA case. The vote was 9-0, so that means Alito was on board when he was the one bringing it.

It leads me to believe that they decided that it will be encompassed in the Texas case, so they don't have to rule multiple times. So this could be good or bad for Trump supporters.
 
Harry Johnson said:
I thought it was more- this other state didn't follow the law, and that's illegal? Maybe I've got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Harry Johnson said:
For those interested in that kind of thing, it's being painted as an doomed to fail suit on the other side of the fence:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa...d-election-in-long-shot-lawsuit-idUSKBN28I27M
Click to expand...

What he's talking about is standing to bring the suit. Which is what I was concerned about. Having more than one state feeling fucked over gives credence to the single state feeling fucked over. Lefty's response is mind your own business and there is some merit to it. It is unconstitutional, but the people actually wronged directly are the people in the states that were treated unconstitutionally and had their votes nullified by people voting illegally. It would be awesome if a group of citizens were to rise up and join this effort, but that is unlikely.

Since this is a federal election and affects the government affecting other states, Righty is a secondary type of complainant. As the people of TX votes were presumably clean as the wind driven snow, so they were not disenfranchised. So the violation of rights was not in TX. It then becomes a question of how significant is the secondary problem perceived by the state vs the voting rights of the people in the other states. Increasing the number of affected states improves your standing to bring the complaint.
 
junkytj said:
Since this is a federal election and affects the government affecting other states, Righty is a secondary type of complainant. As the people of TX votes were presumably clean as the wind driven snow, so they were not disenfranchised. So the violation of rights was not in TX. It then becomes a question of how significant is the secondary problem perceived by the state vs the voting rights of the people in the other states. Increasing the number of affected states improves your standing to bring the complaint.
Click to expand...

If Trump didn't win because 4 states didn't follow the constitution, that disenfranchised the voters in all the states that voted for Trump.
 
junkytj said:
Since this is a federal election and affects the government affecting other states, Righty is a secondary type of complainant. As the people of TX votes were presumably clean as the wind driven snow, so they were not disenfranchised. So the violation of rights was not in TX. It then becomes a question of how significant is the secondary problem perceived by the state vs the voting rights of the people in the other states. Increasing the number of affected states improves your standing to bring the complaint.
Click to expand...

HUH? How can you say they were not disenfranchised? That is exactly what happened. While they were not deprived of the right to vote they were deprived of the outcome that was what they wanted by nature of the inability of other states to properly count votes or follow the law on how voting should happen according to their own laws. I'm guessing that the legal argument is that by whatever means they present that the votes in Texas were basically nullified. What I find interesting and have not had any time to look into is the rumors that a bunch of states changed the voting laws in a hurry. And the way that they were changed and who changed them was 100% illegal. I don't know what the way to fix it is, I don't think anyone does. But I have heard that they are simply trying to get those votes thrown out.
 
MattS said:
HUH? How can you say they were not disenfranchised? That is exactly what happened. While they were not deprived of the right to vote they were deprived of the outcome that was what they wanted by nature of the inability of other states to properly count votes or follow the law on how voting should happen according to their own laws. I'm guessing that the legal argument is that by whatever means they present that the votes in Texas were basically nullified. What I find interesting and have not had any time to look into is the rumors that a bunch of states changed the voting laws in a hurry. And the way that they were changed and who changed them was 100% illegal. I don't know what the way to fix it is, I don't think anyone does. But I have heard that they are simply trying to get those votes thrown out.
Click to expand...

You are neglecting the electoral college. Their votes are accurately passed on from them. You are entitled to a vote, not an outcome.
 
junkytj said:
What he's talking about is standing to bring the suit. Which is what I was concerned about. Having more than one state feeling fucked over gives credence to the single state feeling fucked over. Lefty's response is mind your own business and there is some merit to it. It is unconstitutional, but the people actually wronged directly are the people in the states that were treated unconstitutionally and had their votes nullified by people voting illegally. It would be awesome if a group of citizens were to rise up and join this effort, but that is unlikely.

Since this is a federal election and affects the government affecting other states, Righty is a secondary type of complainant. As the people of TX votes were presumably clean as the wind driven snow, so they were not disenfranchised. So the violation of rights was not in TX. It then becomes a question of how significant is the secondary problem perceived by the state vs the voting rights of the people in the other states. Increasing the number of affected states improves your standing to bring the complaint.
Click to expand...

Thanks for breaking it down for me. I was over here thinking it was as simple as- there's evidence to suggest proof laws were broken, so it must be addressed. Silly me for believing it was that easy. :shaking:
 
junkytj said:
You are neglecting the electoral college. Their votes are accurately passed on from them. You are entitled to a vote, not an outcome.
Click to expand...

Sure. But if by nature of the votes being improperly counted or invalid due to the host of other issues the electors are not voting properly. Thereby 14th Amendment violation.
 
If it were as simple as you guys are making it, there wouldn't be two sides. Rather than me try to convince you to consider the other side, why do you want the other states to join the case?
 
junkytj said:
If it were as simple as you guys are making it, there wouldn't be two sides. Rather than me try to convince you to consider the other side, why do you want the other states to join the case?
Click to expand...

And we can't force you to recognize the blatant fraud taking place... you would need to ignore your bias. We are advocating other states join, because they were also slighted by the rampant fraud that took place in the mentioned States.

Ignoring something won't make it not true.
 
flecker said:
And we can't force you to recognize the blatant fraud taking place... you would need to ignore your bias. We are advocating other states join, because they were also slighted by the rampant fraud that took place in the mentioned States.

Ignoring something won't make it not true.
Click to expand...

I'm acknowledging the fraud. It is ridiculous and needs to be addressed.

My wife's vote for Trump was counted and will be put forth in the electoral college. My vote for Jorgenson didn't make the cut. The point is both of our votes were cast and considered in an equitable way.

If we were in one of the states named, our votes would have been cancelled by corrupt votes and we would have been directly disenfranchised. We would have better standing than all others to bring a complaint.

In the other 46 states, you are not disenfranchised. Your complaint is that the 4 states are not complying with the contract that binds the states (Constitution) and it is affecting in some way the national election that affects all of us. A more distributed harm. Even in those those other states approximately half the people voted for Biden that might go to Trump in the EC. So you have the supreme court trying to decide who has the most harm, the people in the 4 states under scrutiny or the group of people complaining about the violation of the contract. Those people were not disenfranchised, their votes are still being counted.
 
junkytj said:
I'm acknowledging the fraud. It is ridiculous and needs to be addressed.

My wife's vote for Trump was counted and will be put forth in the electoral college. My vote for Jorgenson didn't make the cut. The point is both of our votes were cast and considered in an equitable way.

If we were in one of the states named, our votes would have been cancelled by corrupt votes and we would have been directly disenfranchised. We would have better standing than all others to bring a complaint.

In the other 46 states, you are not disenfranchised. Your complaint is that the 4 states are not complying with the contract that binds the states (Constitution) and it is affecting in some way the national election that affects all of us. A more distributed harm. Even in those those other states approximately half the people voted for Biden that might go to Trump in the EC. So you have the supreme court trying to decide who has the most harm, the people in the 4 states under scrutiny or the group of people complaining about the violation of the contract. Those people were not disenfranchised, their votes are still being counted.
Click to expand...

I think you actually just made the point though...

Does it matter what state your in when the vote is taking place on the Federal level? Every state is involved in that particular race. Ergo, if the votes in Pa. have been gathered in a fraudulent manner, why does it NOT affect the other states? Just because the EC is going to cast their votes a certain way makes zero difference in the fraud being allowed to move forward, it still affects the outcome of the overall election... and therefore EVERY state is affected by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh