Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, sharkman said:

Okay, here's some news. Judge Alito, who has charge of the Third District Court, has asked officials in Pennsylvania to file briefs in response to a lawsuit to overturn the election results there.  It apparently has to do with the Act 77 legislation that was voted into law in 2019, and is in direct violation of the Pennsylvania constitution. 

By 9 am tomorrow they are to have filed their briefs.  The suit is arguing that Act 77 was illegal because it allowed people to have mail in ballots with no reason or excuse.  This Act was passed in October 2019, long before Covid could have been an excuse for it.

Tomorrow is apparently an important day, its called a Safe Harbour day.  By this day its hoped that any controversy over a Presidential election has worked itself out.  The States are to now begin making their electoral college selections so that they are complete by December 14.  So time is of the essence.

To add to this legal case, Texas just sued Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.  Read all about it here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Update, I just made a donation to your gofundme for Breonna.  The wager was fun, right up until the end.  Thanks for being a good sport, and enjoy the next 4 years.

Truth.  

But the fraud has been completely visible, no faith involved.  It actually takes more “faith” to look at the various videos and claim you see no fraud.

Posted Images

13 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

As I understand it use of memes as a compliment to a posted, thought-out opinion is permissible, but just flopping one down is not.

Is that correct or not?

Correct. 

 

 

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

What there’s a no meme rule here?

It is not that complicated.

There is an unspoken rule here that goes like this: "Contrary to popular culture, a picture is not worth a thousand words."
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

Correct. 

 

 

It is not that complicated.

There is an unspoken rule here that goes like this: "Contrary to popular culture, a picture is not worth a thousand words."

I would have thought a comic strip full of words would have been sufficient. A comic strip is not a meme IMO. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

 

There is an 'unspoken rule'  here that goes like this: "Contrary to popular culture, a picture is not worth a thousand words."

Typical for this forum . . . . . can't speak the rule, but it's written out as above. ^ ^

Jerome Corsi's petition to the SCOTUS is intended to bring the whole election process to light.  Would be interesting to see what comes out of it.  Regardless, it should be looked at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

A comic strip is not a meme IMO. 

Like I said, it is not that complicated. 

SHORT VERSION:  If you have nothing to say yourself, then do not post. 

 

Now, I will make it complicated:  In this forum, when your fellow members are so kind as to alert you of proper etiquette so as to avoid drawing the attention of the moderator, take heed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sharkman said:

To add to this legal case, Texas just sued Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.  Read all about it here.

Are you aware that all four of those states have Republican majorities in their state assemblies?

Does it not even occur to you how nutso it is to think four Republican state governments would violate the constitution to benefit a Democratic candidate for president?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are never-trump republicans. There are Republicans with connections to the Chinese, to wall street or even to democrats. I've heard Republican secretary of state, Ratsinburger accused of being connected to Democrat vote fixer Stacey Abrahams. Mitt Romney voted to have Trump impeached. The pretend Republicans of The Lincoln Project actively campaigned against Trump. I've heard you claim to be right wing and I have no problem believing if you were in a state congress you would have voted for these anti-trump, non-constitutional voting rule changes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Are you aware that all four of those states have Republican majorities in their state assemblies?

Does it not even occur to you how nutso it is to think four Republican state governments would violate the constitution to benefit a Democratic candidate for president?

Whether or not it makes sense to you at this point, is irrelevant. They passed legislation that superseded their own constitution. It was a stupid thing to do.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Argus said:

Are you aware that all four of those states have Republican majorities in their state assemblies?

Does it not even occur to you how nutso it is to think four Republican state governments would violate the constitution to benefit a Democratic candidate for president?


hmm, no love for Arizona 😂

You assumed they knew that they passed a legislation that would benefit a Democratic candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 366h34d said:


hmm, no love for Arizona 😂

You assumed they knew that they passed a legislation that would benefit a Democratic candidate.

Arizona also has Republican majorities in both state houses and the governor is a Republican.

You're saying that Republicans in all four states were stupid and didn't understand politics and law?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Whether or not it makes sense to you at this point, is irrelevant.

I'm asking if it makes sense to you. That not only were they too pig ignorant to understand that the laws they passed were unconstitutional - laws which have NOT been found unconstitutional in their state courts, btw - but that they were also all too stupid to understand they would benefit a Democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

I'm asking if it makes sense to you. That not only were they too pig ignorant to understand that the laws they passed were unconstitutional - laws which have NOT been found unconstitutional in their state courts, btw - but that they were also all too stupid to understand they would benefit a Democrat.

I've noticed that you don't usually come out and say that voting fraud never happened.  Instead, you ask, why did the court in so and so(fill in the blank) throw out the case?  

And similarly here, you don't claim that their suit is without merit or frivolous, instead you ask if the actions of the various Rinos makes sense.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I have insider's knowledge of the state politics involved, so I simply can't answer that question, and neither can you.  But whether or not it makes sense is not relevant.  The legal issues involved are what is relevant.

At the end of the day, Why the various legislation was passed is not going to affect whether or not it opposes the related state constitutions.  In at least one case, the legislation was passed long before the Covid Pandemic started (Georgia, October of 2019).  Either their constitution takes precedence or it does not.

 

Edited by sharkman
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Arizona also has Republican majorities in both state houses and the governor is a Republican.

You're saying that Republicans in all four states were stupid and didn't understand politics and law?

Airzona had McCain family crossed the line, and they helped biden presidential campaign.

At the end, I don't say that 🤭

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Arizona also has Republican majorities in both state houses and the governor is a Republican.

You're saying that Republicans in all four states were stupid and didn't understand politics and law?

I'm confused. What exactly are you suggesting?

That Arizona should have objected? Shouldn't have? Did? Didn't? In spite of being Republican? Because the state congress is Republican?

Spell it out so I can agree or disagree with you based on this:

Invoked Article 2, Section 1 Of The United States Constitution–Arizona Now Contested

And if that's unclear try this one:

https://thespectator.info/2020/12/08/rep-daniel-mccarthy-announces-arizona-legislators-invoked-article-2-section-1/

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what exactly are you alleging the Republicans of the other 4 states did or didn't do that they should or shouldn't have done as Republicans?

What did they do or not do in Michigan for instance?

Quote

The Trump campaign on Monday asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review a legal challenge seeking “meaningful access” for poll challengers to observe ballot counting in the state.

Although Michigan had already certified its 2020 election results, the campaign is asking the state’s top court to declare that the Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, violated the state’s constitution and election laws by permitting the counting of absentee ballots without meaningful access for poll challengers to observe the counting and processing.

They argue that Benson’s actions also violated voters’ constitutional right to fair and lawful elections.

“Michigan citizens’ constitutional rights are being violated by Secretary Benson’s failure to prevent unlawful ballots to be processed and her failure to ensure that statutorily-authorized challengers have a meaningful opportunity to observe and challenge the process,” the campaign wrote in their brief.

Jocelyn Benson is a Democrat.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sharkman said:

I've noticed that you don't usually come out and say that voting fraud never happened.  Instead, you ask, why did the court in so and so(fill in the blank) throw out the case?  

I'm not God (quite) so I can't say for sure what happened where. All I can go on is logic. If there was a serious belief among even somewhat reputable people that fraud existed in any large degree they'd be saying so. They're not. If there was widespread fraud there'd be evidence a court would pay attention to. There isn't.

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

And similarly here, you don't claim that their suit is without merit or frivolous, instead you ask if the actions of the various Rinos makes sense. 

Are you saying all Republican governors are RINOS? Along with Bill Barr?

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

At the end of the day, Why the various legislation was passed is not going to affect whether or not it opposes the related state constitutions.  In at least one case, the legislation was passed long before the Covid Pandemic started (Georgia, October of 2019).  Either their constitution takes precedence or it does not.

As you pointed out, you're not a lawyer, yet you appear to have decided that these legislative actions violated the various state constitutions just because some partisan schmuck told you so. You should stop believing partisan schmucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sharkman said:

Okay, here's some news. Judge Alito, who has charge of the Third District Court, has asked officials in Pennsylvania to file briefs in response to a lawsuit to overturn the election results there.  It apparently has to do with the Act 77 legislation that was voted into law in 2019, and is in direct violation of the Pennsylvania constitution. 

By 9 am tomorrow they are to have filed their briefs.  The suit is arguing that Act 77 was illegal because it allowed people to have mail in ballots with no reason or excuse.  This Act was passed in October 2019, long before Covid could have been an excuse for it.

Yeah... about that...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive defeat in the popular vote and Electoral College.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944230517/supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-reverse-pennsylvania-election-results

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm not God (quite) so I can't say for sure what happened where. All I can go on is logic. If there was a serious belief among even somewhat reputable people that fraud existed in any large degree they'd be saying so. They're not. If there was widespread fraud there'd be evidence a court would pay attention to. There isn't.

Are you saying all Republican governors are RINOS? Along with Bill Barr?

As you pointed out, you're not a lawyer, yet you appear to have decided that these legislative actions violated the various state constitutions just because some partisan schmuck told you so. You should stop believing partisan schmucks.

1)  A court hasn't paid attention.  Yet...

2)  There are plenty of Republicans who are a part of the establishment first and conservative second, or not at all.  Any Republicans who brought in the Dominion voting machines are either useful idiots or a part of the establishment/problem.

3)  The news media has become an entertainment industry chasing market share rather than one that seeks the truth first and let the chips fall where they may.  So you're listening to just as many partisan schmucks as I am.  Your problem is, you don't realize it yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah... about that...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive defeat in the popular vote and Electoral College.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944230517/supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-reverse-pennsylvania-election-results

Everything that’s happened with Trump’s baseless lawsuits and fake accusations is exactly what would normally happen to baseless lawsuits and fake accusations. Funny how that is. 
 

For the deluded Trump kool-aid drinkers, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and smells like a duck, IT’S REALLY A HORSE AND THERE’S A VAST WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY !!!!!!!😱😱😱😱😱

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...