Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

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 post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Yeah. This was an attempt to overturn the findings of all the local/state courts.

What's the score, now? 1 win and 57 losses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

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

But in this case, they would have made fact findings, right? Because of original jurisdiction and whatnot?

Man, it’s been a long time since I took Federal Courts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BrickHorn said:

But in this case, they would have made fact findings, right? Because of original jurisdiction and whatnot?

Man, it’s been a long time since I took Federal Courts. 

Yes, if they had taken the case a special master would have been appointed to take evidence and make a recommendation to the Court, like magistrate jurisdiction.  And it takes years to get a decision. I suppose preliminary motions like a motion to dismiss might be heard earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There. Is. No. Federal. Election. Law.

Except the law and constitution that says it's up to the states.  And you can't violate the Equal Protection Clause.

You stupid fucking corrupt bastard.

Are the laws surrounding campaigns considered separate i.e. federal law but not 'election' law? As in financing, etc?

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

OAN News comments on the Trump Will Win the Texas Suit article is a hoot. Army of leftist trolls have descended. Bwahahaha

I think it’s hilarious that trumpets use rally size to argue actual support and therefore fraud, but they don’t notice or acknowledge that they are outnumbered on social media pretty handily in non-trumpkin spaces, and even in some trumpy places. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Are the laws surrounding campaigns considered separate i.e. federal law but not 'election' law? As in financing, etc?

The Founders left it up to the States. There is no precedent for this case. And the Supreme Court can tell the parties to go away.  They did - thankfully. The Court had no power to decide the case given the prosecution of the matter led by Texas. 

Spoiler

It's not a good look for the state, but that goes without saying.  Those who post on here have been yelling fire for years regarding the state of justice in the state.   

So there is hope.

Keep fighting the good fight ladies and gentlemen. 

Good people here. What a great night. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdmost said:

There's always going to be something coming out that will be THE thing which of course will turn into nothing. 

It really is a fascinating case study. I've never lurked on a site I had no interest in before, but I couldn't help myself and have been monitoring Tigerdroppings for a few weeks now (probably because I'm too embarrassed to go to TexAgs for the first time in over a decade).

There's a poster named Jjdoc that posts dozens of the most outright bullshit "Breaking News" threads from the dark corners of the internet. "Trump Legal Time Finds Evidence of Human Manipulation on 22 Dominion Machines." "Judge Seizes Hidden Ballots." "Court Blocks Key Evidence of Ballot Duplication in Jackson County." All day, every day. Everyone jumps in with upvotes and some version of "Oh my god, we've got them now." They (obviously) never pay off or turn out to be remotely accurate. No one calls him out. No one bumps the thread. He just posts another, and 5 seconds later..."Those cheating liberal bastards! It's so blatant! Keep up the lord's work, JJ!" He's busy as shit tonight trying to keep hope alive.

Even for stupid people, I'm amazed how easy it is to fool them not once or twice, but hundreds upon hundreds of times, and they welcome it and cheer it on.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The Founders left it up to the States. There is no precedent for this case. And the Supreme Court can tell the parties to go away.  They did - thankfully. The Court had no power to decide the case given the prosecution of the matter led by Texas. 

  Hide contents

It's not a good look for the state, but that goes without saying.  Those who post on here have been yelling fire for years regarding the state of justice in the state.   

So there is hope.

Keep fighting the good fight ladies and gentlemen. 

Good people here. What a great night. 

 

That part regarding the actual election in a specific state being wholly under a state’s aegis I understood (I believe); what I am wondering about is if, say, a candidate accused another candidate of improper action like violating something with campaign finances. That falls under the federal realm, correct? How is it categorized? I obviously need to spend more time educating myself and less poking around reading MAGA rants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

ahem....

but i didn’t migrate....i’ve been around these parts since the GoBig12 days back in ‘96 or so and every iteration thereof.

i do go there for shits and giggles though. and the food board. the recipe thread stickies to the top of that particular board is fucking amazing.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 what I am wondering about is if, say, a candidate accused another candidate of improper action like violating something with campaign finances. That falls under the federal realm, correct? How is it categorized? I obviously need to spend more time educating myself and less poking around reading MAGA rants.

That would be a federal and state law enforcement matter. 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ahem....

but i didn’t migrate....i’ve been around these parts since the GoBig12 days back in ‘96 or so and every iteration thereof.

i do go there for shits and giggles though. and the food board. the recipe thread stickies to the top of that particular board is fucking amazing.

I didn’t include you because I knew you were forumsexual and had long standing history on both boards.

Hugo got run off for daring to challenge the cult-think on the TD Poli Board.

I was never banned - I just couldn’t stomach the Poli Board and the way it infected all other boards.

Plus, that place is rife with misogyny.

The SECRant used to be a fun place but as the TrumpThink grew more pervasive even the football boards got very dog-whistley and the just down right racist.

I haven’t even visited there since I found this place.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm a little concerned (not in a Susan Collins way) that while Trump and his Cling-Ons made quite a bit of pocket change, the slightly unhinged are going to get obnoxious and unruly in the middle of a pandemic and I am praying our healthcare workers will make it through.

 

That is a concern.  With peak Covid now slamming the shores, there is no good reason to protest or counter-protest, unless one is touched in the mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Sad!

 

Trump lost again. That’s what losers do, they lose. 
 

His supporters can all go to hell. Fuck em. 
 

Beyond typing on keyboards, they won’t do Jack shit. Because they are all losers too.

The rest is just conversation.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

I'm the same.   Derplahoma when it comes to Trump.     I told my neighbor a couple of weeks ago to kindly fuck off with his civil war bullshit.    Huge effing echo chamber here.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

image.thumb.png.a871bdacff1d64eae3d7ae02f86a47ab.png

so this seems like one of those, "which is more likely" games.

either (1) the justices are all secret deep-state agents that (2) fooled trump, or (3) trump intentionally nominated deep-state justices, or (4) they're compromised, or (5) trump is actually playing 5d chess and (6) this is all part of his master plan, or (7) is trump compromised?

or

did trump lose the election?

tough call.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Listening to Jenny Ellis say that SCOTUS decided this on a political whim with SCOTUS being majority conservative and 3 being elected by Trump himself is the chefs kiss 

Sean Hannity whining tonight that conservatives continually get screwed over by the Courts. These same courts that have been denied of liberals while juiced with conservatives by Mitch McConnell for the last 10 years?

...and people eat up this shit with a spoon.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...