Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what exactly do you believe is wrong in the introduction?
It basically says "we already certified the vote so don't meddle in our business even if we violated our own state constitution to dilute the votes of the whole country"
What amazes me, is that two different groups of people can see the exact same thing and come away with completely different interpretations of it. Maybe it's because we get our information from different sources with different agendas. Personally, I like listening to and mostly agree with speakers like Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Murray, Thomas Sowell, and Ben Shapiro; and for daily "news", like Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, and Laura Ingraham. I absolutely detest CNN and MSNBC, they spin the news more than most DJ's used to spin records in the 80's, and feel they cannot be trusted to tell me what time it is. I'm sure that folks on the other side feel the same way, but with the opposite viewpoints. This thread is essentially 200 pages long and simply illustrates what I'm saying here.
The bottom line is that I believe, based on how far apart we are politically, is that we can no longer be a single country. Obviously, the big winners out of this will be China and Russia, who likely had a hand in engineering this discord. But it's worked. So before it comes down to violence, wouldn't it make sense to start talking about how we can do a divorce without violence? As much as many don't want to live under Trump, there is an equal amount not wanting to live under Biden. In (1994?) 400,000 Hutus and Tutsis killed each other in Rwanda over a short period of time, mostly using machetes. I have to think we're closing in on the same thing happening here. How are we going to handle that? It's a lot more important a question than "Who's President?" for the next term.
Last edited by Curly Q. Bobalink; 12-10-2020 at 02:49 PM..
The MSM has brainwashed so many people to the point that logic has no meaning anymore. Even judges are highly political and biased. I blame the media including Big Tech.
The trump campaign and allies are 0-56
Dozens of judges have written scathing rulings pointing out no evidence of widespread fraud has been presented
The DOJ and CISA say there has been no widespread fraud
Republican governors and election officials say there is no fraud
Trumps own lawyers will not argue in open court that fraud has been committed
The votes have been certified
It is past the safe harbor date
I don’t see the scotus disenfranchising 4 states with a combined population of almost 30 million in light of the above.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this court and other court.
This is going to be more baseless garbage tossed out and dismissed.
Those states violated their own Constitutions. You can complain all you want, but the laws were broken and diluted the entire vote of this country. Blame them for not following the law and creating this election debacle; it's 100% their fault.
The states changed the laws without legislature approval.
Which makes it a state matter.
In order for Texas to sue, Texas must show that it was harmed. So Texas has to show that fraud resulted from the law changes and that the fraud was so widespread it actually changed the outcome of the election. How is Texas going to do that, when none of the other lawsuits have been able to show that?
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this court and other court.
So what? Courts and judges get it wrong all the time and are often highly political. Why do you think we have all these levels of courts...it's a check and balance. Lower court judges are often the worst, which is why they're in the lower court
What amazes me, is that two different groups of people can see the exact same thing and come away with completely different interpretations of it. Maybe it's because we get our information from different sources with different agendas. Personally, I like listening to and mostly agree with speakers like Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Murray, Thomas Sowell, and Ben Shapiro; and for daily "news", like Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, and Laura Ingraham. I absolutely detest CNN and MSNBC, they spin the news more than most DJ's used to spin records in the 80's, and feel they cannot be trusted to tell me what time it is. I'm sure that folks on the other side feel the same way, but with the opposite viewpoints. This thread is essentially 200 pages long and simply illustrates what I'm saying here.
The bottom line is that I believe, based on how far apart we are politically, is that we can no longer be a single country. Obviously, the big winners out of this will be China and Russia, who likely had a hand in engineering this discord. But it's worked. So before it comes down to violence, wouldn't it make sense to start talking about how we can do a divorce without violence? As much as many don't want to live under Trump, there is an equal amount not wanting to live under Biden. In (1994?) 400,000 Hutus and Tutsis killed each other in Rwanda over a short period of time, mostly using machetes. I have to think we're closing in on the same thing happening here. How are we going to handle that? It's a lot more important a question than "Who's President?" for the next term.
Dividing the country does not make any sense at all.
Those states violated their own Constitutions. You can complain all you want, but the laws were broken and diluted the entire vote of this country. Blame them for not following the law and creating this election debacle; it's 100% their fault.
If the states violated their own Constitutions, then it is a state matter. Texas has no standing to sue and certainly doesn't have grounds for the remedy it is requesting.
I disagree. Their "state matter" affected the outcome of an election to appoint federal roles, which oversee all 50 states. That's the whole premise of this Texas (+ 19 state) lawsuit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
