[HJB]

This is factually accurate but not germane to the 2020 POTUS election nor Texas standing to dictate election results in other states.

That's ridiculous. The question is about whether or not the Supreme Court should have heard the case and determined if there was illegal voting in the states that illegally changed their voting rules. How difficult can that be ?

 

[HJB]

I guess my reply to this is "but there wasn't fraud and scams".

Obviously, this is just going to be the next "lost cause".

In the year 2180, Southerners (mostly) are still going to be complaining about "fraud".

I suppose their Trump flags will fit next to their Confederate flags?

DH

That's not the point of my comment. My comment is only about whether or not the Supreme Court should have heard the case and reviewed the evidence. You don't know if there was fraud or scams or not, and neither does anyone else because the SCOTUS would not hear the case due to lack of standing.

 

[Nemo]

Someone is going to have to explain to me why Trump lacked standing on that case

Been tried several times already. Apparently you cannot or choose not to understand.

Nemo

 

[45_Fan]

That's ridiculous. The question is about whether or not the Supreme Court should have heard the case and determined if there was illegal voting in the states that illegally changed their voting rules.

Is that what they told you?

How difficult can that be ?

Waiting for you to figure that out so you can explain it to the rest of us. You are conflating standing with the "widespread fraud", for which you lack any proof that has yet survived a modicum of scrutiny.

Texas has no power to set polling location hours for Georgia, nor polling locations, nor primary dates, nor vendors, nor ballot handling processes, nor recounts, nor absentee rules, nor identification requirements, nor certification processes, nor ability to legally cast a single vote in a Georgia election. Why should Texas suddenly expect something different in front of SCOTUS?!?

 

[45_Fan]

That's not the point of my comment. My comment is only about whether or not the Supreme Court should have heard the case and reviewed the evidence. You don't know if there was fraud or scams or not, and neither does anyone else because the SCOTUS would not hear the case due to lack of standing.

Absurd! The two aren't even one in the same!

 

[HJB]

Been tried several times already. Apparently you cannot or choose not to understand.

Nemo

No one has tried to explain to me why the President of the United States, who is a candidate in an election for President of the United States and is filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against states who violated the election laws, would not have standing in that case ?

 

[HJB]

Is that what they told you?
Waiting for you to figure that out so you can explain it to the rest of us. You are conflating standing with the "widespread fraud", for which you lack any proof that has yet survived a modicum of scrutiny.

Texas has no power to set polling location hours for Georgia, nor polling locations, nor primary dates, nor vendors, nor ballot handling processes, nor recounts, nor absentee rules, nor identification requirements, nor certification processes, nor ability to legally cast a single vote in a Georgia election. Why should Texas suddenly expect something different in front of SCOTUS?!?

The president of the United States certainly has standing in state laws for the POTUS election in a state being violated and affecting the election. I don't know and neither do you if there was any proof. My point is the SCOTUS would not hear the case because the complainant "lacked standing." The president definitely not lack standing. And I don't even necessarily agree with you that the people of the State of Texas and the other 18 or 20 states that were part of the lawsuit, but certainly the President didn't.

Do you understand ? I'm saying the President had standing ! Is that clear to you now ? Can you understand that I'm saying the President had it ? Hope that helps....

 

[45_Fan]

The president of the United States certainly has standing in state laws for the POTUS election in a state being violated and affecting the election. I don't know and neither do you if there was any proof. My point is the SCOTUS would not hear the case because the complainant "lacked standing." The president definitely not lack standing. And I don't even necessarily agree with you that the people of the State of Texas and the other 18 or 20 states that were part of the lawsuit, but certainly the President didn't.

Do you understand ? I'm saying the President had standing ! Is that clear to you now ? Can you understand that I'm saying the President had it ? Hope that helps....

What are you talking about? Texas filed the suit and was rejected for lack of standing. Trump didn't file it.

 

[HJB]

What are you talking about ? Go look it up.

I'm tired of arguing an undeniable fact with you.

 

[45_Fan]

What are you talking about ? Go look it up.

I'm tired of arguing an undeniable fact with you.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

I did. I asked because I couldn't reconcile your statements with court documents I was reading.

 

[HJB]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

I did. I asked because I couldn't reconcile your statements with court documents I was reading.

Go research it, 17 other states also signed on. If you don't remember that then you are ill informed.

 

[moe mensale]

It is amazing how all the conservative commentator stopped talking about all the supposed fraud after last week isn't it.

Almost as if the never believed that BS to begin with.

Or maybe it has to do with losing your job because the station owner doesn't want to hear any more of your "stolen election" crap. Thank God for the 1st Amendment! Yay!

https://www.ajc.com/life/radiotvtal...a-stolen-election/PE2VM6SQKBFBZBULQTFZLQUV7A/

The company "will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved, and there are no alternate acceptable 'paths,'" the memo said. "If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately."

 

[moe mensale]

So with all those troops there in D.C., are there planned arrests at the inauguration ceremony? Just curious is all. I don't really believe so, but some may think so.

I don't think the commies are allowed to arrest themselves, are they?

 

[moe mensale]

Trump is just an idiot that threw away a landslide reelection and screwed over every decent patriotic American in the country.

Now his legacy will be crap.

Trump's legacy is just fine. Perhaps the finest of any President before him. His most important result was pulling back the curtains on the DC Swamp to show the world the levels of corruption that infest "The Shining City On A Hill." Why would any country want to emulate us anymore? Except by force of arms.

 

[moe mensale]

So, Trump never resigned.

He never conceded the election (even though there's no law that requires it).

He didn't invite Creepy Joe to the White House on inauguration morning.

He didn't attend Creepy Joe's inauguration.

He didn't pardon himself, his family or his close, inner circle.

My guess is he's waiting at Mar-A-Lago to get charged for obstructing the Mueller Russiagate clown show and/or the 2020 elections. Then Giuliani et al can finally bring out all the exculpatory and vindicating evidence in a courtroom for the world to see.

 

[NTA]

Or his pardon/s are in his pocket. The Dems are a rough bunch and will continue to go after him and those who support him.

 

[Schweisshund]

Or his pardon/s are in his pocket. The Dems are a rough bunch and will continue to go after him and those who support him.

And they will find out the hard way that we are tougher than they think.

 

[moe mensale]

Or his pardon/s are in his pocket. The Dems are a rough bunch and will continue to go after him and those who support him.

Wouldn't they have to be made public prior to the end of his administration?

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Trump's latest self inflicted injury is his greatest, meaning: the Capitol events last week and turning on the VP and his best friends in Congress. He cannot recover from these happenings, no matter his actual responsibility for them.

I hope he does not resign but may need to make a deal for a solid Pence pardon. Right now I'd give it a 50/50 that he resigns. The wind blowing against Trump and conservative folks on the internet is strong.

Wonder if the pressure will also come down on gun related forums ? The left is on a roll and no doubt will act on their success while it is working well for them.

If the powerful lefties can succeed in banning Trump's high level employees from employment (Forbes magazine yesterday), squashing Parler, and frightening law firms who represent conservative causes into bailing out then there are a lot of changes coming.

Some tiny bit of good news, at least the ACLU thinks the Parler crush goes too far.

Trump will not resign.

 

[moe mensale]

Trump will did not resign.

Fixed it for you. His administration ended on Jan 20. :mrgreen: