EVEN IF you live in a state with a Democrat attorney general. You can still send them a letter. Use their own talking points against them, including the fact that Republicans can bypass state legislatures to cheat too, and that it opens the door to Russian interference. Butter them up and say, "Our state played by the rules, they should also have to." Also mention several times that Joe Biden definitely won, and that this is about election integrity and not him.
My AG is literally a radical Islamic terrorist who endorses Antifa. (Ellison D-Satan) Sorry, but I'd have better luck talking to Xi himself. Instead I've spoken with people in states that may actually care.
There's still a fucking vote by mail box in the park here they print on it huge warning that it's a felony to tamper with meanwhile you're not allowed to play in the park but you are allowed to shoot up heroin into your arm with a needle you will not be bothered by the police. They're busy dealing with the huge uptick of violence. Even gang related. Yes they still have gangs they didn't socially distance. If you don't believe me go look at youtube. Good way to do some local research on your local gangs.
Just troll him and see how much he'll say... He would definitely incriminate himself of wrongdoing sooner or later, they got no self awareness. Just brag up his policies and your in, they are arrogant people looking for weak reassurance, anyone can provide that.
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Huh. I was unaware of that. Though it's definitely possible for two parties in a lawsuit to both be in the wrong, and for the court to rule as such. Such as a violation of contract but where both parties violated the contract, so the court rules it null and void, or provides some other legal remedy.
It's also possible that you could argue that minor changes, like moving a date, aren't substantial enough to need legislative approval. Versus what these other states did with signature verification that basically changed the entire process.
The entire lawsuit doesn't hinge on Article II, though, there's also the Equal Protection violation and the evidence of voter fraud/impropriety. There's at least three things that need to be ruled on.
My worries are that the Supreme Court will say, "Well, technically the legislature didn't make these changes, but a state official does so that still counts as the 'legislature.'"
But that doesn't change the other two things I mentioned.
My worries are that the Supreme Court will say, "Well, technically the legislature didn't make these changes, but a state official does so that still counts as the 'legislature.'"
Yeah this is kind of the angle I was driving toward, because if it can be shown that enough states did this, they can probably make some kind of argument that "clearly this is considered standard operating procedure done without objection from state legislatures nationally, even among the states bringing this case, therefore there's not really any problem", or something like that.
The biggest concern I have about it is that while you're right it's not the only thing the case rests on, an article 2 complaint is by far the clearest in terms of giving Texas standing. If they lose that as a line of attack, the others might not be enough to give it to them (e.g. it's not clear that a state actually has standing to sue another state because voters in that state committed fraud)
I guess we'll see. I have to say though, regardless, it does cast the case in a rather weird light after I learned about that. (2 of the cosigning states even made changes to accept mail in ballots after election day in this fashion...very strange position all around)
Then they were in on it. Never hurts to try though, and I think we need a mix of tactics. Lots of patriots have already emailed them but if they see that "even people on our own side" are concerned then maybe that gets their attention.
EVEN IF you live in a state with a Democrat attorney general. You can still send them a letter. Use their own talking points against them, including the fact that Republicans can bypass state legislatures to cheat too, and that it opens the door to Russian interference. Butter them up and say, "Our state played by the rules, they should also have to." Also mention several times that Joe Biden definitely won, and that this is about election integrity and not him.
I've included an example below. https://thedonald.win/p/11Qld7hC0H/heres-what-to-send-your-ag-if-yo/c/
My AG is literally a radical Islamic terrorist who endorses Antifa. (Ellison D-Satan) Sorry, but I'd have better luck talking to Xi himself. Instead I've spoken with people in states that may actually care.
OOF
DFL. Get rid of your dominion voting machines, and do it by 2022. This is your mission. So let it be done, so help us God.
Yes, I was expecting the country to be stolen and us to descend into civil war. But if we can keep it together, this is the way.
There's still a fucking vote by mail box in the park here they print on it huge warning that it's a felony to tamper with meanwhile you're not allowed to play in the park but you are allowed to shoot up heroin into your arm with a needle you will not be bothered by the police. They're busy dealing with the huge uptick of violence. Even gang related. Yes they still have gangs they didn't socially distance. If you don't believe me go look at youtube. Good way to do some local research on your local gangs.
Just troll him and see how much he'll say... He would definitely incriminate himself of wrongdoing sooner or later, they got no self awareness. Just brag up his policies and your in, they are arrogant people looking for weak reassurance, anyone can provide that.
Yup, every year that passes, it's getting harder and harder to live in this cuck State.
I'm actually curious to get people's thoughts on this bit here in light of the case, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks it means in terms of the implications if the case succeeds.
The main gist of the case is that the states in question made changes to their election laws outside of the legislature, and since only legislatures have that authority, any state that did this should have its election invalidated.
However, where I'm worried the case is going to get tripped up is the fact that, while these states certainly did that, so did lots of others not named here. Most interestingly, Texas itself did this, as the governor made changes to election laws extending the absentee voting period, etc, doing the exact thing that they are arguing should nullify a state's election.
So in contrast to this quote, I have to wonder what SCOTUS will make of this fact when it is inevitably brought up in the hearing that many of the cosigning states, and especially the plaintiff, did not play by the rules. I don't think we even know how many states this actually applies to.
Huh. I was unaware of that. Though it's definitely possible for two parties in a lawsuit to both be in the wrong, and for the court to rule as such. Such as a violation of contract but where both parties violated the contract, so the court rules it null and void, or provides some other legal remedy.
It's also possible that you could argue that minor changes, like moving a date, aren't substantial enough to need legislative approval. Versus what these other states did with signature verification that basically changed the entire process.
The entire lawsuit doesn't hinge on Article II, though, there's also the Equal Protection violation and the evidence of voter fraud/impropriety. There's at least three things that need to be ruled on.
My worries are that the Supreme Court will say, "Well, technically the legislature didn't make these changes, but a state official does so that still counts as the 'legislature.'"
But that doesn't change the other two things I mentioned.
Dan Bonginos podcast today talked about this today...
Yeah this is kind of the angle I was driving toward, because if it can be shown that enough states did this, they can probably make some kind of argument that "clearly this is considered standard operating procedure done without objection from state legislatures nationally, even among the states bringing this case, therefore there's not really any problem", or something like that.
The biggest concern I have about it is that while you're right it's not the only thing the case rests on, an article 2 complaint is by far the clearest in terms of giving Texas standing. If they lose that as a line of attack, the others might not be enough to give it to them (e.g. it's not clear that a state actually has standing to sue another state because voters in that state committed fraud)
I guess we'll see. I have to say though, regardless, it does cast the case in a rather weird light after I learned about that. (2 of the cosigning states even made changes to accept mail in ballots after election day in this fashion...very strange position all around)
It's also patriotic to thank Ken Paxton the AG of Texas for trying to save the Republic.
I guess you are assuming AG may act in good faith. What if your AG was in on it?
Then they were in on it. Never hurts to try though, and I think we need a mix of tactics. Lots of patriots have already emailed them but if they see that "even people on our own side" are concerned then maybe that gets their attention.
nevada didn't play by the rules though.
NV burned the rules. To the ground.
it sucks. me being a resident in NV. fuck sisolak that communist.