Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

My mom actually put up a ‘TRUMP 2020 MAKE ‘ EM CRY AGAIN’ sign in her yard.  Sickening.

I would like to call her and be like ‘ Yo What’s up now Bitch?’ ..but she’s my mom so I would never talk to her or disrespect her like that.

But seriously, WHATS UP NOW BITCH?Haha 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

First, lol at "Silver lining is that Biden will be removed soon" and second, holy shit the Q thread replies are almost at 16k.

"It's time for Louisiana to secede". 

 

Yeah, having visited that shithole a dozen or so times, I couldn't agree more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Meh.  Standing is not procedure.  It's far more fundamental than that.  It's not a dodge.

It's "you have no claim, motherfucker" at its most fundamental.

Exactly. Lack of standing is in a sense the complement of an acquittal. The latter says the defendant did nothing wrong; the former says nothing wrong happened to the plaintiff. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all ever continue to wonder why Hugo and I migrated to this fine establishment?

This shit right here. And this mess is actually restrained compared to the usual nutty squirrel turds that usually make up that board.

dec71ae29bf5e2c3532a66119a7d6689.jpg

16,000 replies to the latest Q comings and goings seems reasonable.

How the hell did they not kill Hugo over there? 

Edited by aggie08
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Exactly. Lack of standing is in a sense the complement of an acquittal. The latter says the defendant did nothing wrong; the former says nothing wrong happened to the plaintiff. 

That seems to be what the Parler crowd are carrying on about now. They're saying that Texas "wasn't injured" but that Trump was, so Trump should sue. Something along these lines:

image.png.40c4dea866020bb08351f77386499473.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Louisiana were to secede:

1) we get rid of Louisiana. 
2) I believe they have a lot of oil refining capacity, so it should expedite our transition away from that stuff

3) I assume LSU would be forced to leave the sec and ncaa, as a foreign institution- and all that money. 
4) we get rid of Louisiana. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If Louisiana were to secede:

1) we get rid of Louisiana. 
2) I believe they have a lot of oil refining capacity, so it should expedite our transition away from that stuff

3) I assume LSU would be forced to leave the sec and ncaa, as a foreign institution- and all that money. 
4) we get rid of Louisiana. 

Can we keep New Orleans? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If Louisiana were to secede:

1) we get rid of Louisiana. 
2) I believe they have a lot of oil refining capacity, so it should expedite our transition away from that stuff

3) I assume LSU would be forced to leave the sec and ncaa, as a foreign institution- and all that money. 
4) we get rid of Louisiana. 

New Orleans is in Louisiana.  I like New Orleans.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

New Orleans is in Louisiana.  I like New Orleans.

I'm willing to give up New Orleans to get rid of the rest of that shit hole state.  Last I checked you can get drunk in a lot of places and there's plenty of YouTube videos on how to make a mean ass gumbo.  It takes some personal experience to know which videos are legit, but you can't go wrong with my main man Chef Charlie Andrews.  That brother is legit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Exactly. Lack of standing is in a sense the complement of an acquittal. The latter says the defendant did nothing wrong; the former says nothing wrong happened to the plaintiff. 

Thank you.  That helps me frame this for my "discussions" with the legions of Trumpers I grew up with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s foreign interference now too?

Apparently, despite what the former CISA official, Chris Krebs, had stated (regarding the elections) they've deduced some convoluted mishmash that relates to Trump's executive order (from 2018) regarding foreign influence in elections, the Swalwell story, Dominion, and I don't know what all else plus the Ratcliffe bit that was in the Parler post. I can't keep it all straight but I'm sure it makes sense to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thank you.  That helps me frame this for my "discussions" with the legions of Trumpers I grew up with.  

To be clear, lack of standing does not mean “nothing wrong happened.” It just means that, if something wrong was done, the harm didn’t fall on the plaintiff. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kilroydos said:

You know what?  Threads like this make me incredibly disappointed and sad as hell when comparing them to similar ones on Oklahoma boards.  I'm a Sooner, but it feels like I've got way more in common with you all than with them on 95% of these things.  Football is fun as hell, and so is hating Texas, but when it comes to the future of the goddamn country, this is where I'd rather be.

Hook 'em.

Vomit in my mouth.

There's a reason I post here more often than the Baylor board, and the Cal/ Berkeley board is too disinterested in football.  The Colorado board is fucking awesome though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

To be clear, lack of standing does not mean “nothing wrong happened.” It just means that, if something wrong was done, the harm didn’t fall on the plaintiff. 

In that sense, it is true that the Supremes did not evaluate whether there was fraud or something beyond ordinary irregularity that happens in any election where hundreds of millions of votes are cast.

But there have been fifty-some-odd other suits that have established that there is no credible evidence of that.

The Supremes never would rule on the fraud or related issues, anyway, as they don't make fact findings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, lack of standing does not mean “nothing wrong happened.” It just means that, if something wrong was done, the harm didn’t fall on the plaintiff. 

Which also means “you can’t file an original case in SCOTUS. You have to file it in district court. Where you’ve done nothing but gotten your ass kicked. Relentlessly and repeatedly.”
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...