Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes.
Sometimes I wonder about those far leftists that put no less than 300 stickers on their car yet many of the statements will contradict another statement on that very same car. It is almost as if you can read their progression in to the dark side.
CØƏXÏST bumper stickers are all around my town. We actually have an entire car dedicated to trying to convince passersby that the earth is flat. Denton is a fucked place
Idiot in my neighborhood has about 50 stickers covering her Volvo station wagon one for every Democrat candidate: Yang, Marianne Williamson, the whole lot. A veritable Blue No Matter Whomobile.
I don't think I've made the connection until just now as to leftists having 300 bumper stickers might be the reason their 'memes' are the length of a Hemmingway novel.
Literally ½ hour ago saw ugly libtard (woman?) driving a little econo car with the bumper sticker “Don’t confuse your racism with Patriotism” or some such shit.
The vast majority of other republicans would have just bent over and let the democrats screw them - probably because team red will get them back in 2024 or because the donors told them not to mess up their plans for the year - most big players back both horses in the race.
Trump is such an egotist and a mad man he won't let anyone screw him or tell him what to do.
Thing is if they had just shut up and kept quiet they might have been able to wait him out and go back to business and normal and put Michelle Obama in the white house in 2024 and go back to the neo-liberal agenda but no. Orange man had to go by whatever means necessary.
Trump is ready. Since 2017 he's been methodically prepping for what the Dems and foreign countries are trying to pull off. He'll thwart them and ultimately turn everything to our advantage. What a suspense filled thrill ride we're on!!!
And.. ignoring their own states constitutions regulations on how laws and election rules are changed. That's the correct of the whole case.
Can a state just decide to do things differently?
To be honest, it probably doesn't make a difference that PA disrespected them. Either they're the kind of people to sell out and they'll rule against us, or they're not the kind of people to sell out/we somehow have enough leverage to convince them not to and we win.
Those under deep state control eat their pride and screw over the American people or they get the boot, a black eye, or who knows what else.
Edit: I was just referring to the Democrats in office who ignored the court orders if that wasn't clear. I of course agree that the support of the people both in and outside of PA is important. That's part of the leverage I meant, the support of the people and their willingness to provide both support and if necessary, pressure to do the right thing. The other part of the leverage would be what cards Trump and company may have behind the scenes we may not be completely aware of.
It makes a difference if PA is willing to put action to words. they can't resist this alone, they'll need help. so if they get support from other states and those states are ballsy (see stupid) enough to back PA up and including violently then its civil war brothers and sisters and they have population but we have interior positioning and we've got all the food.
depending how many and in what manner states support this it could be over really quick or we might just say fuck it and let the blues split off.
Thinking out loud: Pacific coast, and the greater northeast with a sizable red rural population scattered in their midst. the blues are nicely and neatly contained in major metro areas in red states which means its a more controllable situation and reds will consolidate quicker.
If it turns into war you'll see fighting in the great lakes region AKA rust belt and likely some very nasty warfare in the Rockies. Fights around cities like Denver, Seattle, Sacramento, Minneapolis, Chicago, St Louis. Blues take Denver and hold it and Take and hold Des Moines, that's the ball game for them, they probably are able to negotiate a split. If the reds get Denver, Seattle, and Chicago that puts the reds in a position to get a clean break or they are well positioned to push to break the blue states entirely.
Don't forget an obvious fact that there will be outside help for them as well. The outside help doesn't need to be directly involved just has to make it last for a while. That is the problem these sellouts propose. If there is a civil war it needs to be very swift otherwise we are open to foreign interference making it last longer than necessary, and making it so that America is weaker for say China to take over areas of the world that we could have contested but couldn't due to the civil war.
Still, At least this is getting to the point we will know which direction to take anyways.
If SCOTUS has the balls to do what's right. Don't get ahead of ourselves.
Yes, Texas or other Lawsuits where SCOTUS doesn't have to either hear the case(s) or even rule on them. This is another reason why the WIN WIN Plan works so well, because these problems like all other problems are avoided.
Trump said a month ago he wanted to do a "big beautiful lawsuit against all the states" but lawyers told him he won't have standing.
The WIN WIN Plan doesn't require standing, nor realistically allow SCOTUS refusal.
The WIN WIN Plan can resolve the issues in the Texas Lawsuit; but the Texas lawsuit doesn't resolve the WIN WIN Plan.
Focus on State Legislators for Electors! 3 days remaining!
There is still time for State Legislators to do their Constitutional duty.
With the Fraud, means all the States that cheated/frauded) will lose 25-50% of it's House Seats for this next decade (2022-232) during reapportionment from this US Census; as per 14th Amend, Section 2.
No, they don't, that's not what this is about, at all. And, that's not supporting the cheating Dems, it's just factual. Texas has gone out of it's way to not make the court decide who won.
No, I don't think so. They need to be seen making a 'fair' judgement. I don't think they're going to send it back down. It would look like they're favoring the democrats if they did that.
The only way to win is not to play, per se. These states violated the constitution. You've all been very naughty and caused such a mess amongst yourselves that now we have to take away your shiny little elector toys.
No one gets electors. Everyone gets their hand slapped. Votes will go to house of delegates. 1 vote per state. Vote on party lines. Don't play games or you'll be in real trouble little misters.
This ruling makes the most sense to me in a sense of fairness (even though it favors trump). It makes the courts look like they're punishing everyone because no one can play nice. So they're able to uphold their stance of being neutral by being able to say they took electors away from everyone because they're all being little faggots about it.
In the WI hearing, live, a bit ago today, the legislators state that since they had ceded their election control to so0me commission, years ago, that "Our hands are tied by our own actions"
I'm just another pede, and no lawyer. But my take on the Texas statement is that it says "No, we're not asking you to declare the winner. We're just asking you to invalidate the schemes of the fraudsters to want to illegally declare Bidet the winner." Because, of course, if we only count legal votes, DJT is the landslide winner.
No. I'm not doing your homework for you, that would take me hours to summarize, and it's not my job. Start with the actual filings like we all did, read them, google what you don't understand.
Start with the "relief" part of Texas's ruling, where they don't ask the 4 states to prove Biden won. At all. You have to ask for a result in a lawsuit, and Texas did.
lol reminds of when the "let me google that for you" site was popular about ten years ago on internet forums. Just a way for snarky assholes to try and humiliate people for asking questions on internet forums made for....asking each other questions.
Texas doesn't have to ask the states to prove anything.
Texas states that the defendant states violated the Constitution by illegally changing election law.
When a law or process is found to be unConstitutional the relief is to throw out the law or the process and reverse the damage caused by the unConstitutional act.
That would mean any ballots received using the illegal laws or processes would be tossed. If the state claims they cannot determine which votes came from legal processes and which ones came from illegal processes then the entire vote should be thrown out.
Then don't say anything if you don't have anything meaningful to add, you fucking dick.
It's not hard. You're not important. No one cares about how you'd have to agonizingly summarize something you've claimed you studied and gained mastery over.
Either contribute something meaningful or go back to fucking yourself.
The great state of Texas - home to countless Miss America contestants - truly beautiful people there, must be something in the water, am I right? Texas does not ask this Court to reelect Your favorite President, second only to maybe Lincoln, even though it's obvious he won by a LOT... and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters - nobody thinks that, I've talked to lots of people, very smart people - some would say the smartest in the industry - and they all tell me "you can't disenfranchise people who don't actually exist. You can't disenfranchise xerox copies" they tell me. Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration - which was a complete mess - truly a disgrace - of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes, even though everybody already knows it.
They had to do some editing, but I think it was fine the first time
Haha brilliant! But this is such a good point: by throwing out fraudulent votes, no one is being disenfranchised, because no one actually cast those votes! It's all just made up people.
This sounds a lot more professional than PAs response. "Fuck you SCOTUS. Fuck your absentee ballot order Alito. Fuck TX. We cheat however we want.". I'm paraphrasing.
For real on the oil workers. I don't know anyone working right now. Welders can probably jump ship but all the inspectors I know are out of work right now. Gas companies are holding their funds back I guess and not bidding out jobs.
Most wells are shut in or idling. Many have been capped.im working but ended up laying off the guys on my side business. China is still one of our largest energy coustomers,more so when you consider where the production to mexico ends up.its bad in oil and if the steal happens will get worse.as a bonus ten percent of the whole economy goes out the window esp worser for dakota texas pa,ok ,nv,etc.plus the goverment will not only raise taxes to cover that shortfall but rember the fed gets the royalties on all those leases on fed land and that is much more money than most people realize .
Most likley complain and not figure it out just like if biden steals it and trump quits they will all be confused when rent goes up and the homeowners will be agasht when the value of there house magically becomes income.
And boy howdy, is CJ doubling down on the cunt-ness. Have you seen that one's latest video? Bitch is all but admitting to abject fraud in Detroit and how JoeHoe "owes" her. Also BEGGING SO HARD for a war in which, I'm sure, she'd likely be one of the first casualties. #GoodFuckingRiddance
Which therefore ends the republic. Taxation without representation. This is LITERALLY the concept that the war of independence was fought over. Why should Americans in the overwhelmingly majority of counties agree to be ruled by select major cities that conduct themselves unlawfully?
5 PARASITIC CITES WHO are trying to destroy freedom, disenfranchise every legal American vote, kill off the boomer generations & enslave and sterilize those who are left. Traitors are those selected AGs and Governors whose states are not listed in full support of the Texas filing to SC.To me it goes way beyond taxes, but yes that too.
I agri, ferrow caterpirrar. Trump is verry tarr man, but he honestry rost. Rets erect mitt romnery in 2024. He arso tarr man but better rooking and wear speciar underwear.
GK Chesterton is a big influence on me. He once said: “It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it”
It is said that in his debates with atheist George Shaw, he would guffaw with laughter at Shaw's harsh insults (many sophisticated ones about Chesterton's weight), and then throw some right back at him. He was just having a blast with an intellectual equal and the two continued to have a good friendship throughout their lives.
You just reminded me, one of the best burns I ever heard was in a religion debate, where basically the theist complimented the atheist on being one of the best thinkers... of the 19th century.
Let's all pretend that the massive cities that vote 98% for Biden don't have something.... peculiar about them.
It's territory colonized by Africans, that's what it is.
No, go see Margaret Sanger's quote on how comped preachers would be their way to silence dissent. And many Dems saying similar. Use their trust and faith against them, just as they've done in schools, all churches possible and the news most of all.
The argument against the electoral college is simply so Dem run states can fraudulently pump up their vote totals by millions of votes. “Muh popular vote” is a fictional number
I said this a few days ago but the problem with the electoral college, or rather, the problem that these people have with the electoral college, is that it is incompatible with how they view the role of the federal government.
States don't exist to them. They think the President has, (and should have) absolute power. That's why they blame covid-19 on Trump and not their governors. That's why they want a Federal universal healthcare rather than asking their states to implement on..
In a world where you think the Federal government should be responsible for everything, it kind of makes sense that the person in charge of the federal government should be more directly elected by the people rather than the states. The issue is that is simply now how the United States government works.
Good points. These people are tending toward centralization — they actually want a single dictator and get angry when the president isn't one, while hallucinating that he's a dictator who's just not doing what they want. They don't understand that he can't order lockdowns, etc. He's not sent the military in to control riots because no governor has requested it. Seems like the demise of local media and communities is partially responsible for this mindset (of wishing for a dictator for the whole country), as well as the media monopolies that we have now mostly talking about federal government because they're national/international corporations. We need more local media — that isn't all owned by the same few social media or publishing companies, or some NPR/PBS affiliate.
They want to remove the Electoral College because it's just a step towards what they truly want. They want the whole world, humanity as one, to vote for one single world government.
Which also means that white people will have to maintain blacks and Arabs on a global scale, not just on a national scale like it happens now.
Been going on a lot longer than that, pede. Election fraud is nothing new, it's been going on probably since the founding of the nation. Dem specific fraud has been going on since the Civil War. Best example is it's well known and barely disputed that JFK's father bought him the Presidency.
It's just never this blatant, and not this incompetently done. I'm really leaning towards the theory they had a certain amount of fraud ready to go the night before the election, but the Trump landslide was so powerful, so off the charts even for conservative pundits, they freaked out and mashed every cheat button they could.
If you live in CA, you have to question if your vote EVER counted, going back to before Reagan.
They got away with it unchecked since the 1982 consent decree that didn’t end until Dec 2017. They didn’t have to worry about being sloppy. In addition to making a shit ton of last minute votes, they had no practice with being discreet, so they didn’t bother.
Yeah I'm in Tujunga, and I wouldn't call it "Trump country", but Schiff is my representative, who won 75-25 against Eric Early, and that felt like TOO much. I don't now though. I wish they would audit every election. They need to open source all of this stuff and make any citizen capable of auditing every election everywhere, but the fact they don't is all the proof you need that the shit is rigged.
Hopefully we gets this fraud corrected and then can install a nationwide voting system where each machine publishes the votes online and you can add up all the records yourself.
I hope so! My thoughts on it started when Trump asked us to write handwritten letters to him at the White House asking for a full audit of the election in every state. I think he wanted the option to redo the election with military monitoring to guarrantee transparency. That IS the only safe secure way right now, so I understood he was trying to save this years election by any means possible. We dont have a robust digital system available now.
We have two (Kiley (6) and Gallagher (3) who have been consistently fighting Newsom, but the entire state system is so stacked against them, it’s hard for them to gain traction. They give me hope, though.
Legal pede: it is standard lawyer speak in this context. One of the elements for a preliminary injunction is that the movant is "likely to prevail on the merits".
One of the explicit reasons SCOTUS exists is to resolve “Controversies between two or more States.” Not making a ruling here is an admission that they’re completely useless
I think they are likely to say it is up to Congress to accept or reject the electors from each state, and that if congress determined that some electors should not be recognized, that is their prerogative.
Not necessarily. If they grant relief and those votes are tossed, then the election goes to the House. The House can do whatever, they're as much a wildcard as the voters themselves, perhaps more so.
I wouldn't call them kingmakers if they favor Texas. Simply because it would push things to another rung of our election system, which, in this case, seems like the only thing the court can do. This is in no way kingmaking. And there are no guarantees at this point.
If they don't take the case or rule against Texas, then they've effectively endorsed the actions of the defendant states. This would force some sort of revolution or civil war due to the fracturing of the union and a complete dismissal of the constitution on behalf of the defending states. Again, I don't think this is kingmaking either, but is closer to it due to the questions surrounding those 4 states. They'd simply be ignoring the possibility that the constitution was violated. It would be bizarre.
There is something else that I think is allowed to happen. They could call for a complete investigation of the election before allowing for voting to occur. That may be a possibility that the court has access to. Again, the most important date is Jan 20th. Everything can be delayed. If the SCOTUS says there is too much question to allow proceeding, then they'll force a federal investigation into the matter, which would allow Trump to use the information gathered with his EO. Information he wouldn't have any other way to truly present because there's no other court or circumstance to immediately utilize the information in. This seems like a possibility here that I've not really seen anyone bring up.
It could be something like - SCOTUS sees the case. Demands investigation into the elections of these states. Trump already has the info and just dumps it over to them. They see what's going on and basically state the elections in these states were conducted, not only against the constitution, but with intention to subvert the electoral process. They rule this way in front of the whole country, hopefully unanimously due to the nature and types of evidence. Then the criminal charges can be brought forth on those actors. Further investigations occur. Then the prosecutions and charges flow.
I was listening to talk radio earlier and the host also said if SCOTUS allows this to stand then it gives the green light to any states moving forward to declare any type of emergency and change election laws as a result. In short, a state or county could say “oh it’s snowing outside so we need to close all poll stations but one,” etc and to basically they could use any Bs “emergency” excuse to alter the voting laws to benefit a particular candidate. This set alarm bells off in my head so I really hope SCOTUS fixes this.
That's not true. The reason TX is suing those 4 states is because they blatantly broke their own laws on top of breaking the contract the states have with eachother to follow their laws as to not infringe on eachothers rights or disenfranchise their constituents.
If a state just sued another state because they didn't like who won that state, that wouldn't be a baseless claim and be thrown out because there's no violation of the states contract.
Texas wants those other states to follow their laws so they don't dick over their citizens. That's it (at least on face value. Read between the lines and Texas is asking to have the electoral votes nullified so it goes to delegates and Trump wins, but that's not what the lawsuit is saying directly. They did a kick ass job on the brief, honestly. The states being sued know what Texas wants, but they can't call them out because that's not what they're saying in the suit)
Why does that matter? Just because two means result in the same ends doesn't mean the means are equivalent. What we should be concerned about here is that the constitution is upheld regardless of the election result it effects. We're all Trump supporters here, but I would like to think we are all more principled than Democrats such that even if these ends meant Biden won instead, we would ultimately support it because it meant the constitution was preserved.
We're all Trump supporters here, but I would like to think we are all more principled than Democrats such that even if these ends meant Biden won instead, we would ultimately support it because it meant the constitution was preserved.
Get fucked, cuck!
There is no way any self respecting person could accept fucking Biden as legitimate. Even if he did receive more legal votes, he still is illegitimate because he owes his win to the brainwashing of the media, big tech, and universities - all of which are communist foreign assets. Not to mention all the Soros money in countless lobby groups and lawfare.
Cuckservatives need to fucking wake up. Foreign communist forces are taking over America and if they do that by brainwashing our children or defeating us militarily by invading us with their armies there is little difference.
Stick your "muh principles" up your ass while your son is being coaxed in school to cut off his dick.
I'm not so sure. If the four states are excluded from the EC, Biden may still have the votes to prevail. The constitution simply states the winner must prevail by half. SCOTUS can send it to the house, or the house itself can toss the EC on January 6th.
Isn't it the case that filing a suit you should know lacks merit or won't win because it is clearly contradicted by the law is considered malpractice and actionable at least against your professional credentials?
Different standard - a preliminary injunction is a remedy that you get before the case is fully tried. So it has to appear clear that the movant is likely to win on the merits at that point - as opposed to a potentially tough decision between two good arguments. In the later case (which isn't frivolous, just a tough call), the preliminary injunction will be denied and the movant must wait until after trial to get any remedy.
Not when the people hiring you are also leftist authoritarian shitheads that view your lack of morals as a positive.
On that note, one constitutional amendment that I think needs to be made, is actual criminal consequences for people who infringe on constitutional rights.
It's absolutely insane to me that the constitution, the single most important document in the country, can just be absolutely trampled over by a bureaucrat, or police officer, or governor or whoever, and the only remedy is for people to spend millions of dollars taking it to court, where even if it goes 100% in their favor, the outcome is that the law is stricken, and the offending party doesn't even get a slap on the wrist and just get's to try again a different way (like Whitmer literally did with her lockdowns. The state supreme court called the lockdowns unconstitutional, and she literally announced she'd try and do the same thing a different way).
That's fucked up. Infringing on peoples rights should be criminal. If you want to pass a law and you're not sure if it will infringe on peoples right's, get it okayed by the courts first before enacting it. Peoples rights are not something that these people should just play games with
Wouldn't come from your boss necessarily. Not being an attorney I was taking my cue from a series of videos by Steve Lehto a MI attorney who was sued and had the attorney for the plaintiff sanctioned because there were many problems with the case a competent attorney would have recognized. So at least in MI other attorneys can flag your stupid for review.
Different standard - a preliminary injunction is a remedy that you get before the case is fully tried. So it has to appear clear that the movant is likely to win on the merits at that point - as opposed to a potentially tough decision between two good arguments.
The latter isn't meritless, it's just not a clear "likely to win".
Otherwise you could bring meritless suits in order to inflict injunctions on your enemies, and then drag out the trial date to extend the injunction despite knowing you have no valid case. That would be fucking nasty.
It is. A statement showing the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail is part of the procedural requirement for SCOTUS to grant leave (permission) to even hear the case.
Ted isn’t going to do much with the Texas case. I don’t think there will be oral arguments. I’m a big supporter of Ted Cruz but it’s not an oral argument case.
I don't know how it hasn't occurred to me yet, but Ted has proven himself a worthy successor when POTUS finishes his 3rd or 4th term (DJT deserves a rest at that point, c'mon man!)
I watched this archived CNN clip where dems claim that Trump insulted Cruz so much and Cruz hasn't forgotten it and is trying to use the "Trumplicans" to further his own career. What do you think about that.
That's not the Ted Cruz I know. He's a fucking awesome dude. He knows what war is about, and he knows he and Trump were in one at the time. And now they're on the same side, for WTP.
Oh he will, he is pretty much one of the only members left in the GOP that isn't a RINO because they get along with each other pretty well now. Trump and Ted went from enemies of each other in 2016 to pretty much BFFs RIGHT F***ING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Kristi Noem!
And even Lindsey Graham has his moments, but of course we've all known he was compromised and in bed with the same people as NoName since antiquity. Even though he's a RINO cuck, he has still stood up and loudly lent his voice to OUR causes at several important times. I'll never forget his speech during the Kavanaugh hearing--he said shit, out loud and with all eyes in the country on him, that no one was saying that loudly at the time.
Graham is a tough one to get behind. I think he puts one thing first and one thing only, and that's Lindsey Graham. If what's best for him aligns with what's best for the country, then he's a great patriot and a strong voice for the cause a la Kavanaugh hearings. When he thinks he can get ahead by compromising and simpering, that's the line he takes. All that to say, he's a smart, competent dude and I don't trust him.
It's true. Don't misconstrue my comment to mean I like him. But there's a spark of Patriotism somewhere underneath all that swamp water. Maybe if we drain him out and dry him off, it will blaze up. The guy looks like a pussy, no way he would have ever stood up to the type of people that show up to inform you that you now work for Mr. Rothschild or Mr. Soros or whoever the fuck. Cut his strings and maybe he'll be a decent guy.
But then, another guy mentioned that he fist bumped Kamala Harris after the election. What the fuck?
A great philosopher once said "A dishonest man, you can always trust to be dishonest". If I ran the zoo I'd refuse to trust Graham with anything important but on the rare instances when his goals aligned with mine, his contributions are appreciated
Eh, I'd argue that the GOP has gotten substantially better- especially considering that we have over 100 House Representatives that are definitively Pro-Trump- I'd argue that almost all of them are Pro Trump. Hell, we even have Mitch McConnell on our side every now and then.
The problem is that various positions of major power are held by RINOs.
Agreed. I believe that it’s more of an “adapt or die”, Machiavellian thing than it is them “coming around”. Bottom line is this: Trump has transformed the GOP base, and the RINOs have no choice but to change or they won’t win re-election. Mitt tried to stand up to Trump and you see how well that went for him.
Phish newb here. Saw Dead @ Soldier in 94, shoulda went in 95, resisted Phish for many moons, now its the biggest music (i.e. YouTube bookmarks) folder in my browser.
Damn strong response. They did their homework, as expected, and had a cogent, well articulated response to the 4 states' response of "NO U CAN"T DO THAAAAAAT".
Yes. You look up what defines true liberalism, and those asshats are not even close to that. For the most part, it describes us but what they really are is just pure fascism and communism all in one package.
I'm a liberal pede. I want only that people start realizing that Progressives are the problem. They're on the track for Socialism being collectivists.
American Liberals and Conservatives are both individualists who argue about the best way to make America successful. Progressives are collectivists who want to tear everything down and remake the country without all of the bothersome rights to citizens. Democrats and RINOs are the soulless establishment politicians with no values at all beyond doing whatever they can and supporting whoever they can if it gives them any power at all.
They want their people desperate.
The entire goal of the Deep State is not putting Biden in office with 270, but by causing such massive unrest, that Trump will end up folding.
They really are that arrogant and stupid. To them, we’re always going to sit there and take it, like we have for 75 years.
They don’t understand, that they have now crossed a line that we cannot ignore.
Give us 30 minutes to get some national guardsmen in a few key locations, 'cuz you all know what's coming as soon as SCOTUS strikes down the electors of those states.
The trash cans and Starbucks will never be the same.
We need some sort of declaration, of like, I dunno. A period of modified rule of law. During which people are warned that violence and acting lawlessly will be punished with force, including deadly force if necessary. Where Americans are given carte blanche to put a stop to any destructive commie bullshit taking place. Maybe with a bit of... Martial assistance.
"We are displeased by the news media's characterization of current events, which we have recently consumed. We desire complementary retail goods as compensation for our displeasure. Should any citizens or structures bar our way to said goods, our wroth shall be terrible. Cheerio."
As I read the constitution, it's not 270 to win, it's just half the EC. So will Biden possibly still prevail if EC proceeds without the four defendants? Ie 242/232. Of course it's likely that more states will investigate their election and correct the fraud.
No it's 270. Without that Congress decides. (now there's different outcomes that determine whether the Senate or House decides, but someone else can clarify)
That's right but the majority of the total EC has to vote for either candidate. (270 right now) So if neither candidate gets that - because four states decided not to participate or were disqualified - the majority of remaining electors doesn't count. A different process is followed then. That's my understanding having not read the constitution for a long time though.
My understanding is that it's based on the number of electors there should be, i.e. you need 270 even if some states are prevented from sending any. But a law-pede would have to clarify that.
You joke but that's exactly what Georgia did - and it's not going the way you'd imagine.
The local officials court Dominion thinking they will get them the win, but for plausible deniability they can't outright ask them to cheat. They wine and dine them, and promise a huge contract, but Dominion works for the highest bidder to determine the outcome. That's the uniparty bosses and the globalists. For local elections it may work in your favor some of the time, but when the uniparty or Soros decide to trade your state for another more strategic state, then you lose.
This hits home. Just have the SOS order it and a friendly judge rule on it. Screw the constitution, going through the legislature, and having people vote on it. Tell them “you guys want to unconstitutionally change how you vote? Fine. We’ll unconstitutionally change how many electors we send. You want to disenfranchise our vote? Cool. We’ll disenfranchise your vote even more.” See how this works? When the constitution doesn’t matter there are no rules, thus there is chaos and whoever cheats more wins. Either SCOTUS upholds the constitution or people will..you know the thing
Next election all red states change their laws 1 day before the election. Allow children to vote. Allow all votes to count as three votes. Disallow your vote completely if you voted blue in the past.
Does the original constitution actually require an election where citizens vote? Or has it merely evolved as law? Could legislatures just pick the winners without a direct election, ie no presidential election, but the state election implicitly decides the federal election?
No it's not in the constitution. However it was one of the earliest laws and people were already voting in their colonies, so I'm pretty sure there's a general right and expectation of citizens to vote. (with states determining who is an eligible voter) It's just so patently obvious they didn't need to write it down.
Yes legislatures could probably just decide to stop holding elections but they wouldn't last long after that. There would be legal challenges and those legislators would get thrown out of office. (there might even be some precedent for that)
You're close. Think it through. If we can't have fair elections, a right the founders of the nation and the armies of George Washington fought bitterly for and many died, if that fundamental right is corrupt and subverted...do we have a Republic anymore?
Just finished reading it. This thing is a work of pure brilliance and eviscerates the defendants' arguments.
Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin?
This is the biggest part for me. This was my first time voting , I'm 32. If this is thrown out... why should I ever vote again? Whoever "they" want in office they can get. As long as they know how much they need to cheat.
Does the use of this language also mean that in this supreme court case the plaintiff intends to bring to the court evidence of voter fraud in these urban centers?
We will likely bring evidence of fraud to support the case, but that is not our primary argument (and that's an important distinction to make). Our argument is that states illegally changed the rules of the election, which puts their results in questions and disenfranchises Texas voters, who have a vested interest in not only the Presidency, but particularly in the Vice Presidency, who breaks ties in the Senate (the same Senate that could be 50-50 deadlocked this next term).
Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin? Acting now, once, removes any incentive for future lawlessness. Injunctions and/or acts of executive fiat that undermine the lawful election process will cease if the Court acts now.
Chastened by this Court’s mandate,future non-legislative actors will know they must seek legislative ratification before an election for any changes to election procedures that they believe to be necessary or compelling.The public interest demands ending the abusive conduct that produced this dilemma.
This. This is something every common man can understand; punish bad behavior harshly which, in turn, prevents any future similar bad behavior. This should be at the forefront of any conversation about this election.
This is the saddest part of this election. Even if Biden wins, that's not the tragedy. The tragedy is the precedent it will set, that people can just cart in boxes of unaccountable ballots days after the polls close and we'll all be expected to just believe it's legit. Rogue governors and AGs can just change election laws at a whim weeks before the vote.
This isn't even about Trump being president. It's about any citizen ever having faith in our elections ever again. Democrat voters should be just as outraged by the behavior we saw this year. But they don't give a fuck as long as their guy wins. Disgusting.
Eventually there need to be very harsh penalties coming out of this.
So harsh that Democrats themselves become interested in putting an end to their cheating.
I see no problem with 50 year or death sentences. Election cheating and fraud isn't a crime of passion like murder, it isn't a crime of survival like stealing bread, you fucking knew what you were doing and you did it anyways. Throw away the key.
I can’t see ever voting again if that’s the case. Why would I if it doesn’t matter at all and the strings are just being pulled by someone else. Voting would just be an empty gesture with no meaning.
If Biden wins...1776. And I'm not sure enough of the nation will ever agree. They're frogs who have been boiled for so long they complain if it isn't hot enough.
One of TX arguments should be, this could all be solved with a simple audit of five states, instead every state that probably cheated is doing everything in their power to NOT have somebody look at the votes.
I mean, the simple fact that they're fighting us over an audit, when if it came back as everything was done correctly, nothing would change, is proof that they're hiding something.
Which is exactly why a SCOTUS decision should not kick the onus back down on crooked Secretaries of State to further mismanage and pervert a lawful electoral process by overseeing more sham audits, recounts, whatever. These four states have had a month to act honorably and honestly, and they've failed to do so.
Yeap. This argument doesn't rely on proving any amount of fraud took place. It only relies on empirical, unquestionable facts about conduct that no one can claim didn't take place, period. They definitely and illegally changed their election rules without going through the legislature and as a result, every measure of accountability was circumvented and thus Texas correctly argues that there's no way to know who won the majority of legal votes in those states.
In short, they violated the constitution and there is no choice but to throw out the election results of all four states entirely. Through these obviously lawless actions, they disenfranchised all of their own voters.
Right, it's disenfranchise the nation because of a few states, or disenfranchise those few states as bad actors. Seems pretty obvious what the choice should be, but I can't be asked to view any part of government with optimism.
Oh, they'll try and say "Muh Covid" but there's nothing in the constitution that says Article II or its modifying amendments are superseded by concerns over a politically-leveraged virus we check for using a test that has been factually shown as not fit for purpose.
At this point its a contested election. It goes to the state delegations. 1 vote per state. as outlined in the constitution.
You clearly don't know how things work. A contested election does NOT mean a contingent election will be held. A contingent election will ONLY be held if both Trump and Biden tie in Electoral Votes OR enough Electors vote for a 3rd candidate to bring Biden under 270. Basically impossible. Trump has a WAY better chance of flipping contested states entirely and winning 270 outright than it ever going to a contingent election.
I'm more pointing out all the dead people, address issues, signature, etc...the simple fact that they're fighting us when all we want to do is look at it, and if they were all 100% correct it wouldn't change a thing, is proof that they're lying about everything being done right.
How do you account for the people who were coerced either by social pressure or simple bribes like food into signing a mailed in ballot in front of someone? There is reason why we have secret elections.
That's the beauty of this argument. It relies on zero claims of fraud; so it avoids the mountains of discovery needed to prove that. It's purely constitutional.
november 4th I was hoping we had a broad case where we have a silver bullet so we aren't looking at random postal workers, random boxes coming from under tables etc. this is the way to win.
Really, that goes to the center of it. They in many cases destroyed the ability to audit, and disregarded the law in how they conducted themselves during the election to begin with. It is impossible to audit and there is no particularly good fix. The worst case is to do nothing as it makes elections pointless, but most other solutions are bad too.
That would work but it's not an argument that SCOTUS would be receptive to, this approach wherein constitutional rights, duties, and proscriptions are argued is the best way forward.
It has to be the way when it's state vs. state. An audit is an internal matter and the SCOTUS would never allow one state to order an audit in another state in such a way. But the SCOTUS can make them follow the Constitution, or enjoin them for not doing so.
Those "fraud" arguments were tossed by a million lower courts. Did not even want to hear the case nor examine the fraud evidence.
Texas AG Paxton said he was disappointed in the other courts tossing the fraud cases and that his case, by design, is "Fundamentally NOT based on fraud.It is based on States creating unconstititional laws."
Yep, and most of those lower courts are run by swamp things.
However, the SCOTUS doesn't want to hear about it. It's beneath the dignity of the court to engage in partisan back and forth. Instead, Paxton is genius for attacking them on the Constitutional violations, which the SCOTUS would be very interested in hearing about.
There are sufficient indicia of fraud or
intentional irregularities to trigger review under
substantive due process, but Texas relies on the
appearance of fraud under intentionally relaxed
ballot-integrity measures to press the seriousness of
the Electors Clause issues that Texas presents.
1
Not gonna lie, sometimes you guys are like "Wow what a smackdown", and then I'll read it and it will be like "meh..." but reading this thing really does give you an impression of a smack down!
I feel like paying taxes to Texas instead of my crappy state because my state doesn't care about its citizens. I'm getting more out of them than I do from my state. Roads have potholes, schools don't educate, drug addicts and homeless people at every highway offramp and under bridges, parks littered with needles, and it goes on and on. And now, my vote doesn't even count.
Texas is not without its issues. The highway system in some of the cities is a nightmare to deal with, but they're working on it. The whole state is way above average for the whole country on most metrics, though. They give a damn. And they do it without an income tax.
They are all well-positioned to know that the Roths have marked their race and religion for extermination and replacement. The question is, have they been gotten to and promised a free pass if they cooperate?
ADVANCE AND HOLD! SHIELD WALL! (Since the enemy has armed themselves with nerf guns and spit balls, use Tshirts and arm chair pillows as shields) They are NOT Sparta.
“ TEXAS IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL.
In support of leave to file, Texas rebuts Defendant
States’ arguments that they complied with their State
law. Texas Reply in Support of Leave to File. Here, Texas demonstrates that Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.
A. Defendant States violated the Electors
Clause by modifying their legislatures’
election laws through non-legislative action.
Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes. Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.“
Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would.
[...]
Defendant States first assume that Mr. Biden won their States legitimately, then use that assumption to criticize Texas’s arguments for disenfranchising voters. If the flawed 2020 results stand, that result would disenfranchise voters. At best for Defendant States, the balance of equities could be neutral. But because Defendant States cannot—or at least do not—seriously defend the merits or show that Mr. Biden actually prevailed, the equities tip in favor of Texas and of the lawful process for resolving contested elections.
Don't know why this isn't brought up more. Democrats are using circular reasoning here.
It's not about being loyal to Trump. It's about being true to the constitution. Like Trump said we need people (justices) with COURAGE to stay true to the constitution with all this pressure and aggression.
Of course they are going to hear it. This is the biggest case EVER - don't try to tell me that not even four conservative judges are going to bother with it.
I advocate impeachment, disbarrment, and other punishments up to and including execution for any justice that cannot sufficiently defend their anti-constitutional stance.
"Although the Founders understandably feared the emergence of an
all-powerful Executive based on their experience with King George, they were not fearful of expanded legislative representation, which King George had denied them."
Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as
taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting
decisively will not only put lower courts but also state
and local officials on notice that future elections must
conform to State election statutes, requiring
legislative ratification of any change prior to the
election. Far from condemning this and other courts
to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the
flood of election-season litigation.
It's amazing to see the difference in Texas' response compared to the Defendant states. Texas argues constitutional law while the Defendant argues pure emotion. Typical Democrat response.
We're about to find out if Justice is dead in America based on what SCOTUS says! We're a country that was built on laws and truth. Emotion should play no part in their decision.
If SCOTUS punts on this, then it is time for Trump to seriously consider invoking the Insurrection Act. As in the most recent historical case with President Lincoln, history will give our president a pass for taking such drastic action since Biden is a compromised national security risk --- all the evidence clearly shows he should be disqualified to ever hold office again, as well as being indicted for racketeering and perhaps even treason.
If, OTOH, the electors meet on Monday and cast their votes illegitimately for this duplicitous traitor and his crime family, that vote will be extremely difficult to undo.
The remedy is, obviously, to negate the ballots and turn the vote over to the legislature. Thus is what our Founding Fathers meant with the concept of federalism: it makes states' rights an independent and countervailing source of power to that of the federal government.
Michigan also has a better fact that the state can’t explain why 175,000 absentee ballots out of Wayne County do not tie to a registered voter.
The brief buried that lead.
Just read the whole thing. The TX lawyer 'pedes brought their A-game. If SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of TX, or if they refuse to hear the case, they become a clown court, and the Constitution becomes less worthless than toilet paper. Simple as that.
I do believe and I pray for this to go our way, I find myself refreshing this site every 5-10 minutes and checking twitter constantly for any updates, everything is on the line.
Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect
President Trump, and Texas does not seek to
disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’
voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to
recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’
maladministration of the 2020 election makes it
impossible to know which candidate garnered the
majority of lawful votes.
I'm glad they're also referencing what is essentially the "burden of proof"
Texas is saying that the defendants are saying "Joe Biden won, prove us wrong", when it should really be (to the defendants) "You prove to us that either candidate won via a fair, fraud-free election"
You have to be able to prove the legitimacy of the ballots you assert should be counted, not assert some count and put the burden on the challenger to prove its illegitimacy
That's what I'm hearing. Not dooming, but 4th box is looking like a true option. I pray that those who are at work on this make the right choice. COURAGE.
Each States' House delegation takes a vote for either of the top two Electoral college vote getters, and it counts as 1 state for that candidate. Candidate with most state delegations that vote for them wins.
Or to put it another way ... California's reps gets 1 vote, and Liz Cheney gets 1 vote.
State delegations vote. So the representatives from each state talk among themselves to decide who the state votes for, no strict procedure as far as I’m aware.
That said, even if we lose the house in total numbers, republicans hold more states (something like 28-22), so losing there would be an uphill battle
IMO, if the defendant states' electors get invalidated, but congress still puts Biden in because they're afraid of controversy, I still think that's some degree of win. Much better than Biden being installed by illegitimate electors without challenge.
If states get invalidated, then no matter the end result, it's clear: Watch out, you don't get to cheat. Take this seriously or there will be consequences. The Republic and people's faith in democracy and rule of law is protected because they can believe it will be protected, even if that protection failed in 2020.
But if Biden gets through with no one being held to account, then we'll never have a real election again.
This wins it all
Game. Set. Match.
"In a nutshell..." they're fucked.
Without lube, yes.
Razor bladed cock
Hunter Biden’s cock
That escalated quickly.
F
ang fang
F
To quote Rick James, "The milk's gone bad!"
wish I had 4 hands...so I could give those titties 4 thumbs down
What the fucking hell? Did you mean Kagan? Good lord wtf
get him away from his niece then....
Any word on when Hunter & Natalie's child is due?
That is probably the first time that phrase has been used in reference to his cock.
Now with your choice of M&Ms, Reese Pieces, or Skittles
Niece’s pieces 🤮
🤮🤮🤮
As fucked as Swalwell!
ET phone Ukraine!
Vy Enna sausage Im sure...ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Getting herpes getting aids, screwing around the world.
fyi he's impotent
And set aflame.
whats in the box!?
You got it!
Damn!
Chainsaw
Sideways
With 18 cowboys in the shower at ram ranch
Asian Andy where you at?
Big Mike has entered the chat!
Lube: A thing that this train clearly lacks!!!
We're going in dry, Boys!!!
Royally. They picked the wrong president to screw with.
They never read any bumper stickers
Sometimes I wonder about those far leftists that put no less than 300 stickers on their car yet many of the statements will contradict another statement on that very same car. It is almost as if you can read their progression in to the dark side.
CØƏXÏST bumper stickers are all around my town. We actually have an entire car dedicated to trying to convince passersby that the earth is flat. Denton is a fucked place
Earth is flat, locally.
Are these the same kung-flu sissies who say "trust the science"?
I was reading this post and thought, "Sounds like Denton". Got to end. Was not disappointed.
Look on Amazon for the parody bumper stickers that use religious symbols to spell "EAT A DICK". They're awesome.
Are you saying I shouldn't send my daughter to UNT next year?
Idiot in my neighborhood has about 50 stickers covering her Volvo station wagon one for every Democrat candidate: Yang, Marianne Williamson, the whole lot. A veritable Blue No Matter Whomobile.
Potato in the exhaust still works
I don't think I've made the connection until just now as to leftists having 300 bumper stickers might be the reason their 'memes' are the length of a Hemmingway novel.
leftist memes are just lengthy snotty lectures. They do NOT understand the basic concept.
Literally ½ hour ago saw ugly libtard (woman?) driving a little econo car with the bumper sticker “Don’t confuse your racism with Patriotism” or some such shit.
they spelled COmMuNiSt wrong
Underrated comment
They spelled victim of jihad wrong
merged into DONT FUCK WITH CHICKY
YESSS. Epic name btw. lol
NEVER BET AGAINST ME
And hit back 10 times harder.MAGA
They picked the wrong America to screw with.
The vast majority of other republicans would have just bent over and let the democrats screw them - probably because team red will get them back in 2024 or because the donors told them not to mess up their plans for the year - most big players back both horses in the race.
Trump is such an egotist and a mad man he won't let anyone screw him or tell him what to do.
Thing is if they had just shut up and kept quiet they might have been able to wait him out and go back to business and normal and put Michelle Obama in the white house in 2024 and go back to the neo-liberal agenda but no. Orange man had to go by whatever means necessary.
They have the power. I hope they have the courage and wisdom.
2021 will be a disaster. 2022 will be the mop up operation.
2020 isn't over yet.
2022 will be brought to you by dominion.blatently.
We need to pray for their safety, and to be bold in the face of evil.
TIL SCOTUS is Gannon
Spez- confirmed
The whole Triforce
The supreme court defers to the legislative/executive branches of government to enforce decisions.
Trump would likely have to send US Marshals if they don't comply.
Good.
Trump is ready. Since 2017 he's been methodically prepping for what the Dems and foreign countries are trying to pull off. He'll thwart them and ultimately turn everything to our advantage. What a suspense filled thrill ride we're on!!!
And.. ignoring their own states constitutions regulations on how laws and election rules are changed. That's the correct of the whole case. Can a state just decide to do things differently?
To be honest, it probably doesn't make a difference that PA disrespected them. Either they're the kind of people to sell out and they'll rule against us, or they're not the kind of people to sell out/we somehow have enough leverage to convince them not to and we win.
Those under deep state control eat their pride and screw over the American people or they get the boot, a black eye, or who knows what else.
Edit: I was just referring to the Democrats in office who ignored the court orders if that wasn't clear. I of course agree that the support of the people both in and outside of PA is important. That's part of the leverage I meant, the support of the people and their willingness to provide both support and if necessary, pressure to do the right thing. The other part of the leverage would be what cards Trump and company may have behind the scenes we may not be completely aware of.
It makes a difference if PA is willing to put action to words. they can't resist this alone, they'll need help. so if they get support from other states and those states are ballsy (see stupid) enough to back PA up and including violently then its civil war brothers and sisters and they have population but we have interior positioning and we've got all the food.
depending how many and in what manner states support this it could be over really quick or we might just say fuck it and let the blues split off.
Thinking out loud: Pacific coast, and the greater northeast with a sizable red rural population scattered in their midst. the blues are nicely and neatly contained in major metro areas in red states which means its a more controllable situation and reds will consolidate quicker.
If it turns into war you'll see fighting in the great lakes region AKA rust belt and likely some very nasty warfare in the Rockies. Fights around cities like Denver, Seattle, Sacramento, Minneapolis, Chicago, St Louis. Blues take Denver and hold it and Take and hold Des Moines, that's the ball game for them, they probably are able to negotiate a split. If the reds get Denver, Seattle, and Chicago that puts the reds in a position to get a clean break or they are well positioned to push to break the blue states entirely.
Just my opinion.
Don't forget an obvious fact that there will be outside help for them as well. The outside help doesn't need to be directly involved just has to make it last for a while. That is the problem these sellouts propose. If there is a civil war it needs to be very swift otherwise we are open to foreign interference making it last longer than necessary, and making it so that America is weaker for say China to take over areas of the world that we could have contested but couldn't due to the civil war.
Still, At least this is getting to the point we will know which direction to take anyways.
Don't forget the truckers are on our side! How many ammo companies are in red states?
Yes, Texas or other Lawsuits where SCOTUS doesn't have to either hear the case(s) or even rule on them. This is another reason why the WIN WIN Plan works so well, because these problems like all other problems are avoided.
Trump said a month ago he wanted to do a "big beautiful lawsuit against all the states" but lawyers told him he won't have standing.
The WIN WIN Plan doesn't require standing, nor realistically allow SCOTUS refusal.
The WIN WIN Plan can resolve the issues in the Texas Lawsuit; but the Texas lawsuit doesn't resolve the WIN WIN Plan.
Focus on State Legislators for Electors! 3 days remaining!
The WIN WIN Plan:
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8EhtERu/for-everyone-who-wants-djtpence-/
LONG LIVE OUR REPUBLIC!
There is still time for State Legislators to do their Constitutional duty.
With the Fraud, means all the States that cheated/frauded) will lose 25-50% of it's House Seats for this next decade (2022-232) during reapportionment from this US Census; as per 14th Amend, Section 2.
Republican House SuperMajority: https://thedonald.win/p/11QlB7elzZ/x/c/4DpMxWIOHO5
Focus on State Legislators for Electors! 3 days remaining!
No, they don't, that's not what this is about, at all. And, that's not supporting the cheating Dems, it's just factual. Texas has gone out of it's way to not make the court decide who won.
Under rated comment
No, I don't think so. They need to be seen making a 'fair' judgement. I don't think they're going to send it back down. It would look like they're favoring the democrats if they did that.
The only way to win is not to play, per se. These states violated the constitution. You've all been very naughty and caused such a mess amongst yourselves that now we have to take away your shiny little elector toys.
No one gets electors. Everyone gets their hand slapped. Votes will go to house of delegates. 1 vote per state. Vote on party lines. Don't play games or you'll be in real trouble little misters.
This ruling makes the most sense to me in a sense of fairness (even though it favors trump). It makes the courts look like they're punishing everyone because no one can play nice. So they're able to uphold their stance of being neutral by being able to say they took electors away from everyone because they're all being little faggots about it.
It's actually a pretty slick way around it.
no way SCOTUS tells a state "sorry you can't vote for president this year". Forget it
even if it did happen, Biden would still have the majority of the appointed electors. Nowhere in the constitution it says that he needs 270.
In the WI hearing, live, a bit ago today, the legislators state that since they had ceded their election control to so0me commission, years ago, that "Our hands are tied by our own actions"
I'm just another pede, and no lawyer. But my take on the Texas statement is that it says "No, we're not asking you to declare the winner. We're just asking you to invalidate the schemes of the fraudsters to want to illegally declare Bidet the winner." Because, of course, if we only count legal votes, DJT is the landslide winner.
Bidet... haha autocorrect finally gets one right
It's not autocorrect. That's how I always spell it online.
I dunno, at least a bidet is useful for something, like washing away shit, unlike Biden.
No. I'm not doing your homework for you, that would take me hours to summarize, and it's not my job. Start with the actual filings like we all did, read them, google what you don't understand.
Start with the "relief" part of Texas's ruling, where they don't ask the 4 states to prove Biden won. At all. You have to ask for a result in a lawsuit, and Texas did.
Try not to be a jerk. Many people on here are working 40 hours, praying 40 hours, cooking, cleaning AND homeschooling their children.
Asking what another person means when you don’t get it isn’t a sin. Being a smarmy is.
lol reminds of when the "let me google that for you" site was popular about ten years ago on internet forums. Just a way for snarky assholes to try and humiliate people for asking questions on internet forums made for....asking each other questions.
Politely, mind your own business?
Texas doesn't have to ask the states to prove anything.
Texas states that the defendant states violated the Constitution by illegally changing election law.
When a law or process is found to be unConstitutional the relief is to throw out the law or the process and reverse the damage caused by the unConstitutional act.
That would mean any ballots received using the illegal laws or processes would be tossed. If the state claims they cannot determine which votes came from legal processes and which ones came from illegal processes then the entire vote should be thrown out.
Then don't say anything if you don't have anything meaningful to add, you fucking dick.
It's not hard. You're not important. No one cares about how you'd have to agonizingly summarize something you've claimed you studied and gained mastery over.
Either contribute something meaningful or go back to fucking yourself.
They really dropped the soap this time
RMAO
KEK!
I see you are a man of curture
:D
Sank you very much! 😂
BIG MIKE
Pretty obvious it was Trump though
shh
Goddamit Cletus keep your yap shut till we’re done ok?
We haven't gotten to that chapter yet, Daddy's still reading.
No manga spoilers bro!
I actually have a copy of the original draft
They had to do some editing, but I think it was fine the first time
Hahahahah, please photoshop this into a shitpost
Haha brilliant! But this is such a good point: by throwing out fraudulent votes, no one is being disenfranchised, because no one actually cast those votes! It's all just made up people.
I think President Trump lurks here and shitposts!
Hi President Trump.
Yes, but this lawyer speak is more likely to work
that's what the "To both points" alludes to...
This sounds a lot more professional than PAs response. "Fuck you SCOTUS. Fuck your absentee ballot order Alito. Fuck TX. We cheat however we want.". I'm paraphrasing.
I think you forgot "fuck you americans" "fuck you oil workers", "Chy Na you coo",
Fucka you whare! Fucka you dorphin!
Oh I rika dis arot
For real on the oil workers. I don't know anyone working right now. Welders can probably jump ship but all the inspectors I know are out of work right now. Gas companies are holding their funds back I guess and not bidding out jobs.
Most wells are shut in or idling. Many have been capped.im working but ended up laying off the guys on my side business. China is still one of our largest energy coustomers,more so when you consider where the production to mexico ends up.its bad in oil and if the steal happens will get worse.as a bonus ten percent of the whole economy goes out the window esp worser for dakota texas pa,ok ,nv,etc.plus the goverment will not only raise taxes to cover that shortfall but rember the fed gets the royalties on all those leases on fed land and that is much more money than most people realize .
Yup. We're feeling it Oklahoma. I wonder what these people will do when their gas prices triple. I can't wait to tell them I told you so!
Most likley complain and not figure it out just like if biden steals it and trump quits they will all be confused when rent goes up and the homeowners will be agasht when the value of there house magically becomes income.
The few people that wanted harris ,not the fake votes,are legit too stupid and disconnected to make the connection.
They may as well have just worded this way. Justice Alito had to have had a beer while reading their "response."
I didn't realize you were paraphrasing at first because it looked exactly like what they wrote.
Texas is classy ya know
I'd also like to add that most of the political leaders in defense states are ASSHOE!!
Who will attempt to dox and threaten their opponents... like cunt Cynthia Johnson
fronthole .... this one does not have origial parts
ok if you say so ;0
And boy howdy, is CJ doubling down on the cunt-ness. Have you seen that one's latest video? Bitch is all but admitting to abject fraud in Detroit and how JoeHoe "owes" her. Also BEGGING SO HARD for a war in which, I'm sure, she'd likely be one of the first casualties. #GoodFuckingRiddance
While begging for her job back...
As someone in GA Kemp is mega asshoe
Kemp is China
CHINA IS ASSHOE
Not leaders, they're elected officials. Or, even more accurately, selected officials.
This. period. end of story. dot.
or as leftys like to say FULL STOP!!! REEEEE!!!!
Full 👏🏻Stop 👏🏻
OH SHIT!!! full stop with clappy hands!!! Can't argue that.
Imagine how strongly it would go over in a Supreme Court argument?
“There was fraud 👏🏻full 👏🏻Stop👏🏻“
Someone let Ted Cruz know
They wont hear it 75/25
FULL STOP.
ALWAYS GO FULL STOP.
PERIODT
peridot
Which therefore ends the republic. Taxation without representation. This is LITERALLY the concept that the war of independence was fought over. Why should Americans in the overwhelmingly majority of counties agree to be ruled by select major cities that conduct themselves unlawfully?
5 PARASITIC CITES WHO are trying to destroy freedom, disenfranchise every legal American vote, kill off the boomer generations & enslave and sterilize those who are left. Traitors are those selected AGs and Governors whose states are not listed in full support of the Texas filing to SC.To me it goes way beyond taxes, but yes that too.
Risten fren, ret me terr you sum ting. I ruv Trump but he shourd just conceeeeeeeed arready. Ret's win in 2024!
I agri, ferrow caterpirrar. Trump is verry tarr man, but he honestry rost. Rets erect mitt romnery in 2024. He arso tarr man but better rooking and wear speciar underwear.
Fuck I love this place
As someone who wears special underwear, this is hilarious.
GK Chesterton is a big influence on me. He once said: “It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it”
It is said that in his debates with atheist George Shaw, he would guffaw with laughter at Shaw's harsh insults (many sophisticated ones about Chesterton's weight), and then throw some right back at him. He was just having a blast with an intellectual equal and the two continued to have a good friendship throughout their lives.
You just reminded me, one of the best burns I ever heard was in a religion debate, where basically the theist complimented the atheist on being one of the best thinkers... of the 19th century.
*Pierre Delecto
I shouldn’t have laughed. Help!
CHINA IS ASSHOE
Seeing bullshit like this is why I had to leave that subreddit /r/cuckservative... A bunch of spineless fools who wonder why they keep losing.
They are controlled.
The way you said that, makes me feel red-pilled all over again.
Trump would be more of a benevolent monarch than a pure dictator as he gives freedoms.
The war of independence was fought over a 1% stamp tax. The founders would be ashamed of the present situation.
Amen. And the demonrats just want to tax more and more. More tax, less representation. What a combo.
Democracy will be our downfall.
2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The actual reality is two wolves and sixteen sheep voting on what's for dinner, and the wolves die of malnourishment because they cannot eat grass.
Unless said wolves remember they have teeth.
He is quoting some one.
Its
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, a republic is two wolves and a heavily armed sheep etc
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Franklin was no fool.
Technically they can and do eat grass, often when sick, but yeah they can't survive on it.
Democracy is just a fancy word for "mob rule"
No. It's joggers that are America's downfall.
Let's all pretend that the massive cities that vote 98% for Biden don't have something.... peculiar about them. It's territory colonized by Africans, that's what it is.
Oh, because the poor black victims are too stupid to make rational choices, eh? It's always white people's fault, eh?
Fuck you you racist piece of shit. Take some responsibility instead of always blaming white people for your problems
No, go see Margaret Sanger's quote on how comped preachers would be their way to silence dissent. And many Dems saying similar. Use their trust and faith against them, just as they've done in schools, all churches possible and the news most of all.
Democracy is simply a more well known and society accepted mob rule.
YouMeanItsAlwaysBeenAboutEndingTheElectoralCollege_AlwaysHasBeen_Spacemen.jpg
The argument against the electoral college is simply so Dem run states can fraudulently pump up their vote totals by millions of votes. “Muh popular vote” is a fictional number
I said this a few days ago but the problem with the electoral college, or rather, the problem that these people have with the electoral college, is that it is incompatible with how they view the role of the federal government.
States don't exist to them. They think the President has, (and should have) absolute power. That's why they blame covid-19 on Trump and not their governors. That's why they want a Federal universal healthcare rather than asking their states to implement on..
In a world where you think the Federal government should be responsible for everything, it kind of makes sense that the person in charge of the federal government should be more directly elected by the people rather than the states. The issue is that is simply now how the United States government works.
Good points. These people are tending toward centralization — they actually want a single dictator and get angry when the president isn't one, while hallucinating that he's a dictator who's just not doing what they want. They don't understand that he can't order lockdowns, etc. He's not sent the military in to control riots because no governor has requested it. Seems like the demise of local media and communities is partially responsible for this mindset (of wishing for a dictator for the whole country), as well as the media monopolies that we have now mostly talking about federal government because they're national/international corporations. We need more local media — that isn't all owned by the same few social media or publishing companies, or some NPR/PBS affiliate.
Countries don't exist for them, not states.
They want to remove the Electoral College because it's just a step towards what they truly want. They want the whole world, humanity as one, to vote for one single world government.
Which also means that white people will have to maintain blacks and Arabs on a global scale, not just on a national scale like it happens now.
Democrats want to abolish the electoral college. No surprise they’re currently subverting it
Been going on a lot longer than that, pede. Election fraud is nothing new, it's been going on probably since the founding of the nation. Dem specific fraud has been going on since the Civil War. Best example is it's well known and barely disputed that JFK's father bought him the Presidency.
It's just never this blatant, and not this incompetently done. I'm really leaning towards the theory they had a certain amount of fraud ready to go the night before the election, but the Trump landslide was so powerful, so off the charts even for conservative pundits, they freaked out and mashed every cheat button they could.
If you live in CA, you have to question if your vote EVER counted, going back to before Reagan.
They got away with it unchecked since the 1982 consent decree that didn’t end until Dec 2017. They didn’t have to worry about being sloppy. In addition to making a shit ton of last minute votes, they had no practice with being discreet, so they didn’t bother.
Yeah I'm in Tujunga, and I wouldn't call it "Trump country", but Schiff is my representative, who won 75-25 against Eric Early, and that felt like TOO much. I don't now though. I wish they would audit every election. They need to open source all of this stuff and make any citizen capable of auditing every election everywhere, but the fact they don't is all the proof you need that the shit is rigged.
Hopefully we gets this fraud corrected and then can install a nationwide voting system where each machine publishes the votes online and you can add up all the records yourself.
paper ballots in person only, is at this point, all I can trust
Understand but you can still get the BLM counters messing up the count. We can make a robust completely transparent system
I hope so! My thoughts on it started when Trump asked us to write handwritten letters to him at the White House asking for a full audit of the election in every state. I think he wanted the option to redo the election with military monitoring to guarrantee transparency. That IS the only safe secure way right now, so I understood he was trying to save this years election by any means possible. We dont have a robust digital system available now.
Are there no good senators and reps to vote for? Depends on where in CA you live though.
We have two (Kiley (6) and Gallagher (3) who have been consistently fighting Newsom, but the entire state system is so stacked against them, it’s hard for them to gain traction. They give me hope, though.
A decade? Come on man.
Why pay taxes if our representation isn’t what people actually voted for?
Yeah that's my stance. I'm not paying taxes to a Biden administration under any circumstances, good luck feds.
Ding ding ding ding.
Tax revolt for the win..
I'm with you 100%. If Biden is installed, I will never vote again. It's time for the next box.
Bidet won't be installed. That's defeatist talk.
But even when SCOTUS hands down a favorable decision, it's still time for the next box.
Exactly. THERE IS NO 2024! ONLY 2020.
Texas's response was amazing.
Legalese that a common man could understand and it was spicy.
Well it‘s on point and as truthful as it gets.
Even the Table of Contents has dragon energy!!!
Legal pede: it is standard lawyer speak in this context. One of the elements for a preliminary injunction is that the movant is "likely to prevail on the merits".
SCOTUS has to take it or they have zero reason to exist. I am furthest thing from lawyer however.
One of the explicit reasons SCOTUS exists is to resolve “Controversies between two or more States.” Not making a ruling here is an admission that they’re completely useless
I think they are likely to say it is up to Congress to accept or reject the electors from each state, and that if congress determined that some electors should not be recognized, that is their prerogative.
effective as Barr on a diet>
Hopefully they don’t view themselves as kingmakers but rather as defenders of the United States Constitution, which is what we pay them to do.
They're kingmakers by not taking the case. They're kingmakers either way.
Not necessarily. If they grant relief and those votes are tossed, then the election goes to the House. The House can do whatever, they're as much a wildcard as the voters themselves, perhaps more so.
They won't make a king. The Constitution will make a President however.
I wouldn't call them kingmakers if they favor Texas. Simply because it would push things to another rung of our election system, which, in this case, seems like the only thing the court can do. This is in no way kingmaking. And there are no guarantees at this point.
If they don't take the case or rule against Texas, then they've effectively endorsed the actions of the defendant states. This would force some sort of revolution or civil war due to the fracturing of the union and a complete dismissal of the constitution on behalf of the defending states. Again, I don't think this is kingmaking either, but is closer to it due to the questions surrounding those 4 states. They'd simply be ignoring the possibility that the constitution was violated. It would be bizarre.
There is something else that I think is allowed to happen. They could call for a complete investigation of the election before allowing for voting to occur. That may be a possibility that the court has access to. Again, the most important date is Jan 20th. Everything can be delayed. If the SCOTUS says there is too much question to allow proceeding, then they'll force a federal investigation into the matter, which would allow Trump to use the information gathered with his EO. Information he wouldn't have any other way to truly present because there's no other court or circumstance to immediately utilize the information in. This seems like a possibility here that I've not really seen anyone bring up.
It could be something like - SCOTUS sees the case. Demands investigation into the elections of these states. Trump already has the info and just dumps it over to them. They see what's going on and basically state the elections in these states were conducted, not only against the constitution, but with intention to subvert the electoral process. They rule this way in front of the whole country, hopefully unanimously due to the nature and types of evidence. Then the criminal charges can be brought forth on those actors. Further investigations occur. Then the prosecutions and charges flow.
I think he is saying they will be perceived that way by the public.
I agree not actually the case. Dems cant blame scotus they got their politicians to unconstitutionally change the law.
The demrats will accept nothing short of our total destruction. Probably 1/4 of the Demrats believe that America is too irredeemable to exist.
I was listening to talk radio earlier and the host also said if SCOTUS allows this to stand then it gives the green light to any states moving forward to declare any type of emergency and change election laws as a result. In short, a state or county could say “oh it’s snowing outside so we need to close all poll stations but one,” etc and to basically they could use any Bs “emergency” excuse to alter the voting laws to benefit a particular candidate. This set alarm bells off in my head so I really hope SCOTUS fixes this.
I think that's what New Jersey did, actually.
That's not true. The reason TX is suing those 4 states is because they blatantly broke their own laws on top of breaking the contract the states have with eachother to follow their laws as to not infringe on eachothers rights or disenfranchise their constituents.
If a state just sued another state because they didn't like who won that state, that wouldn't be a baseless claim and be thrown out because there's no violation of the states contract.
Texas wants those other states to follow their laws so they don't dick over their citizens. That's it (at least on face value. Read between the lines and Texas is asking to have the electoral votes nullified so it goes to delegates and Trump wins, but that's not what the lawsuit is saying directly. They did a kick ass job on the brief, honestly. The states being sued know what Texas wants, but they can't call them out because that's not what they're saying in the suit)
I don't really see how what you are saying contradicts what TrumpTrainChoooChoo2 said.
Texas isn't asking SCOTUS to declare a winner. They want SCOTUS to declare that Congress needs to decide the election.
Why does that matter? Just because two means result in the same ends doesn't mean the means are equivalent. What we should be concerned about here is that the constitution is upheld regardless of the election result it effects. We're all Trump supporters here, but I would like to think we are all more principled than Democrats such that even if these ends meant Biden won instead, we would ultimately support it because it meant the constitution was preserved.
Get fucked, cuck!
There is no way any self respecting person could accept fucking Biden as legitimate. Even if he did receive more legal votes, he still is illegitimate because he owes his win to the brainwashing of the media, big tech, and universities - all of which are communist foreign assets. Not to mention all the Soros money in countless lobby groups and lawfare.
Cuckservatives need to fucking wake up. Foreign communist forces are taking over America and if they do that by brainwashing our children or defeating us militarily by invading us with their armies there is little difference.
Stick your "muh principles" up your ass while your son is being coaxed in school to cut off his dick.
I'm not so sure. If the four states are excluded from the EC, Biden may still have the votes to prevail. The constitution simply states the winner must prevail by half. SCOTUS can send it to the house, or the house itself can toss the EC on January 6th.
If this election goes to the House, I'm not 100% confident in the result, given the number of RINOs there.
A republican delegation that voted to seat a democrat who cheated to "win" would be tossed out on it's ass at the very next opportunity.
Isn't it the case that filing a suit you should know lacks merit or won't win because it is clearly contradicted by the law is considered malpractice and actionable at least against your professional credentials?
Different standard - a preliminary injunction is a remedy that you get before the case is fully tried. So it has to appear clear that the movant is likely to win on the merits at that point - as opposed to a potentially tough decision between two good arguments. In the later case (which isn't frivolous, just a tough call), the preliminary injunction will be denied and the movant must wait until after trial to get any remedy.
Not when the people hiring you are also leftist authoritarian shitheads that view your lack of morals as a positive.
On that note, one constitutional amendment that I think needs to be made, is actual criminal consequences for people who infringe on constitutional rights.
It's absolutely insane to me that the constitution, the single most important document in the country, can just be absolutely trampled over by a bureaucrat, or police officer, or governor or whoever, and the only remedy is for people to spend millions of dollars taking it to court, where even if it goes 100% in their favor, the outcome is that the law is stricken, and the offending party doesn't even get a slap on the wrist and just get's to try again a different way (like Whitmer literally did with her lockdowns. The state supreme court called the lockdowns unconstitutional, and she literally announced she'd try and do the same thing a different way).
That's fucked up. Infringing on peoples rights should be criminal. If you want to pass a law and you're not sure if it will infringe on peoples right's, get it okayed by the courts first before enacting it. Peoples rights are not something that these people should just play games with
Wouldn't come from your boss necessarily. Not being an attorney I was taking my cue from a series of videos by Steve Lehto a MI attorney who was sued and had the attorney for the plaintiff sanctioned because there were many problems with the case a competent attorney would have recognized. So at least in MI other attorneys can flag your stupid for review.
So there's due diligence on the part of officers of the court not to bring meritless suits before the court?
Could have fucking fooled me.
Different standard - a preliminary injunction is a remedy that you get before the case is fully tried. So it has to appear clear that the movant is likely to win on the merits at that point - as opposed to a potentially tough decision between two good arguments.
The latter isn't meritless, it's just not a clear "likely to win".
Otherwise you could bring meritless suits in order to inflict injunctions on your enemies, and then drag out the trial date to extend the injunction despite knowing you have no valid case. That would be fucking nasty.
That would be Longhorn bull variety.
It is. A statement showing the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail is part of the procedural requirement for SCOTUS to grant leave (permission) to even hear the case.
Both
Texas Forever
Give em hell, Ted!
If he pulls this off, he will assume his final form: TIGER KING TED CRUZ
His beard will triple in size!
And a vast Mullet shall then rise from his scalp.
So it is written.
So shall it be done.
It is the way.
So it is prophecy that Ted Cruz will Rise to defend America? Is he the next Dragonborn?
"DAHNALLDDDD" ...his courageous voice thundered across the mountain range. "It is time." says one Greybeard. "Wait, do we talk?" asks another.
Ted isn’t going to do much with the Texas case. I don’t think there will be oral arguments. I’m a big supporter of Ted Cruz but it’s not an oral argument case.
Unless SCOTUS changes that.
TIGER CRUZ MISSILE ENGAGED
I don't know how it hasn't occurred to me yet, but Ted has proven himself a worthy successor when POTUS finishes his 3rd or 4th term (DJT deserves a rest at that point, c'mon man!)
I watched this archived CNN clip where dems claim that Trump insulted Cruz so much and Cruz hasn't forgotten it and is trying to use the "Trumplicans" to further his own career. What do you think about that.
That's not the Ted Cruz I know. He's a fucking awesome dude. He knows what war is about, and he knows he and Trump were in one at the time. And now they're on the same side, for WTP.
If he pulls this off I already know who I'm voting for in 2024.
After eating the required tiger penis soup.
Oh he will, he is pretty much one of the only members left in the GOP that isn't a RINO because they get along with each other pretty well now. Trump and Ted went from enemies of each other in 2016 to pretty much BFFs RIGHT F***ING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gaetz and Hawley are our guys.
Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Kristi Noem!
And even Lindsey Graham has his moments, but of course we've all known he was compromised and in bed with the same people as NoName since antiquity. Even though he's a RINO cuck, he has still stood up and loudly lent his voice to OUR causes at several important times. I'll never forget his speech during the Kavanaugh hearing--he said shit, out loud and with all eyes in the country on him, that no one was saying that loudly at the time.
Lindsey fist bumped Kamala Harris, he can officially go fuck himself.
Did not see that. He also met with Huma at McStain's funeral, didn't he? Or have I got details crossed.
Can you imagine if he was nominated as the Republican candidate. That’d be about like the dems nominating Biden.
I would not help Lindsay cheat. He probably shared his tricks on how to get Soros off.
Graham is a tough one to get behind. I think he puts one thing first and one thing only, and that's Lindsey Graham. If what's best for him aligns with what's best for the country, then he's a great patriot and a strong voice for the cause a la Kavanaugh hearings. When he thinks he can get ahead by compromising and simpering, that's the line he takes. All that to say, he's a smart, competent dude and I don't trust him.
It's true. Don't misconstrue my comment to mean I like him. But there's a spark of Patriotism somewhere underneath all that swamp water. Maybe if we drain him out and dry him off, it will blaze up. The guy looks like a pussy, no way he would have ever stood up to the type of people that show up to inform you that you now work for Mr. Rothschild or Mr. Soros or whoever the fuck. Cut his strings and maybe he'll be a decent guy.
But then, another guy mentioned that he fist bumped Kamala Harris after the election. What the fuck?
With a guy like Graham you know where he stands. Just gotta make it worth his while and time and he'll be loyal.
He's like a mercenary.
And there are things that are best done by mercenaries.
A great philosopher once said "A dishonest man, you can always trust to be dishonest". If I ran the zoo I'd refuse to trust Graham with anything important but on the rare instances when his goals aligned with mine, his contributions are appreciated
He fist-bumped the hoe before he realized that Trump and the People are dead serious about standing up to the thieves.
If it's reliable and predictable, we can use it.
Exactly.
You know what he is when you pick him up. He may be a snake but you can put a snake in a barn to eat the vermin.
I dread to think how infested this world would be if we did not have snakes, spiders, or frogs.
Add Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, too.
You haven’t been paying attention. AT ALL.
obama spied on trd cruz just like he did on trump in 2016
it was never just trump
obama is a fronthole cunt
If the Kenyan spied on you, it’s a sign you’re doing something right.
he spied on ALL OF US
still is
Eh, I'd argue that the GOP has gotten substantially better- especially considering that we have over 100 House Representatives that are definitively Pro-Trump- I'd argue that almost all of them are Pro Trump. Hell, we even have Mitch McConnell on our side every now and then.
The problem is that various positions of major power are held by RINOs.
Agreed. I believe that it’s more of an “adapt or die”, Machiavellian thing than it is them “coming around”. Bottom line is this: Trump has transformed the GOP base, and the RINOs have no choice but to change or they won’t win re-election. Mitt tried to stand up to Trump and you see how well that went for him.
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are pretty much the only ones remaining I still have confidence in.
Good housekeeping!!
Maybe the Zodiac Killer was killing Leftists all along? Thi
He should go ahead and ask the court to appoint Ted Cruz President.
New Rules!
*not arguments
fo shizzle
THE STARS AT NIGHT ARE BIG AND BRIGHT
FEMA REGION 6
Hearing its new name just fills me with patriotic pride!
THE PRAIRIE SKY IS WIDE AND HIGH
👏👏👏👏
^^ This is the correct response.
It's in the basement of the Alamo!
DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS!
Deepinaharta, Tx
the stars really sucked tonight- Phish
Where is Icculusbased where this lyric comes from :P
Love seeing other Pedes who are into phish.
We are everywhere! (line is from Sanity, btw. Same kinda vibe, though.)
Phish newb here. Saw Dead @ Soldier in 94, shoulda went in 95, resisted Phish for many moons, now its the biggest music (i.e. YouTube bookmarks) folder in my browser.
oh yeah - long day. both from junta!
Read this while listening to 6/29/16 H Hood, fwiw.
headddddy- cant believe they played that 97 hampton show for daam. 3.0 has had some greeaaaaat hoods
Damn strong response. They did their homework, as expected, and had a cogent, well articulated response to the 4 states' response of "NO U CAN"T DO THAAAAAAT".
"and it was printed on the wrong kind of paper so we think the court should throw out the case"
It was racist because it wasn't written in crayon with pictures to where our constituents could understand it.
If they try this unhanded crap it's going to be this, but xLots
CRYSTAL clear response. No way SCOTUS cannot hear this case.
John Roberts: Hold my cosmo...
modern liberalism is a sin. It is evil. It is against good.
It's a severe mental illness
and not liberal! go figure 🤔
Yes. You look up what defines true liberalism, and those asshats are not even close to that. For the most part, it describes us but what they really are is just pure fascism and communism all in one package.
I'm a liberal pede. I want only that people start realizing that Progressives are the problem. They're on the track for Socialism being collectivists.
American Liberals and Conservatives are both individualists who argue about the best way to make America successful. Progressives are collectivists who want to tear everything down and remake the country without all of the bothersome rights to citizens. Democrats and RINOs are the soulless establishment politicians with no values at all beyond doing whatever they can and supporting whoever they can if it gives them any power at all.
"progressives" just means sheltered idiots who vote for feels instead of reels and never read past the headline, if they can even read.
You mean Progressives.
Progressives are collectivists who want to tear everything down and remake the country without all of the bothersome rights to citizens.
AKA useful Idiots.
It’s Communism wearing a mask.
No mask even, it’s just pure Communism
They used to be better at hiding it. Trump made them so mad, they unmasked themselves.
Like the crazy lady at the supermarket who rips off her mask to yell at you for not wearing a mask.
Under its chin while REEEing. Spreading its disease everywhere.
"Plenty of people make a God of their own desires. God wants people who want to do what he wants them to do."
I don't remember whose quote this is and I probably got it slightly wrong, but what a great quote.
And it's contagious
CA just shut down the food pantry and toy drive because fuck the now poor people affected by quarantine
They want their people desperate. The entire goal of the Deep State is not putting Biden in office with 270, but by causing such massive unrest, that Trump will end up folding.
They really are that arrogant and stupid. To them, we’re always going to sit there and take it, like we have for 75 years. They don’t understand, that they have now crossed a line that we cannot ignore.
That's crazy, do you a linky?
Just the websites of the local food drives
I guess the info will be suppressed by the MSM.
Of course
What's happening now is actually more like post-WW1 Weimar Germany, right down to the transgender "movement". Look it up, crazy shit!
Just uphold the Constitution Justices, it's the only reason you are there.
They literally have one job.
The obummer appointees think they have a different job
Then off with their heads!
Now the Supreme Court can act at "any time" - Jordan Sekulow
Give us 30 minutes to get some national guardsmen in a few key locations, 'cuz you all know what's coming as soon as SCOTUS strikes down the electors of those states.
I already bought a ton of beer to celebrate. But I'm sure liberals have a different idea on what's acceptable means of celebration.
The trash cans and Starbucks will never be the same.
We need some sort of declaration, of like, I dunno. A period of modified rule of law. During which people are warned that violence and acting lawlessly will be punished with force, including deadly force if necessary. Where Americans are given carte blanche to put a stop to any destructive commie bullshit taking place. Maybe with a bit of... Martial assistance.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed a law on Nov 11th the business owners could shoot rioters to defend their businesses.
The rioters do not have to be threatening lives... just destroying business property.
Pew pew on you, jogger....
Got ammo??
Not as much as I like, but then, I tend to be efficient with it.
more burn loot and murder i guess
We know Justice Kav approves
Truth!
Be careful pede I wouldn't be drunk if you live in the city if SCOTUS judges in our favor. Shit might go down.
If you're in the country have at it for a night though.
A lot more joggers out on the streets to blow off some stress?
"We are displeased by the news media's characterization of current events, which we have recently consumed. We desire complementary retail goods as compensation for our displeasure. Should any citizens or structures bar our way to said goods, our wroth shall be terrible. Cheerio."
As I read the constitution, it's not 270 to win, it's just half the EC. So will Biden possibly still prevail if EC proceeds without the four defendants? Ie 242/232. Of course it's likely that more states will investigate their election and correct the fraud.
No it's 270. Without that Congress decides. (now there's different outcomes that determine whether the Senate or House decides, but someone else can clarify)
I’m no expert but I do not believe the number 270 is in the constitution. It’s the majority of electoral college votes.
That's right but the majority of the total EC has to vote for either candidate. (270 right now) So if neither candidate gets that - because four states decided not to participate or were disqualified - the majority of remaining electors doesn't count. A different process is followed then. That's my understanding having not read the constitution for a long time though.
I understand that. But I was responding to the comment that if SCOTUS eliminates the four states electoral votes, then 270 is no longer the majority.
My understanding is that it's based on the number of electors there should be, i.e. you need 270 even if some states are prevented from sending any. But a law-pede would have to clarify that.
Nb4 muh intent
Preach on, brother!
Yessss especially that last one, been calling for that for all of Obammys reign of terror
If this isn't fixed, then what stops Republican governors&state secretaries from arbitrary changing election law?
Texas should just send 271 electors and claim that it's their right to do so.
Each plaintiff state should send 100
Red states should start buying Dominion machines too. It’ll be funny when South Dakota has 43,000,000 votes for the Republican candidate.
You joke but that's exactly what Georgia did - and it's not going the way you'd imagine.
The local officials court Dominion thinking they will get them the win, but for plausible deniability they can't outright ask them to cheat. They wine and dine them, and promise a huge contract, but Dominion works for the highest bidder to determine the outcome. That's the uniparty bosses and the globalists. For local elections it may work in your favor some of the time, but when the uniparty or Soros decide to trade your state for another more strategic state, then you lose.
Or when your name is Stacey Abrams and someone else cut a better deal so he could cheat instead of you
Yep, Texas population is growing fast. 4.2 billion now.
They should let Dominion tabulate the Census numbers.
This hits home. Just have the SOS order it and a friendly judge rule on it. Screw the constitution, going through the legislature, and having people vote on it. Tell them “you guys want to unconstitutionally change how you vote? Fine. We’ll unconstitutionally change how many electors we send. You want to disenfranchise our vote? Cool. We’ll disenfranchise your vote even more.” See how this works? When the constitution doesn’t matter there are no rules, thus there is chaos and whoever cheats more wins. Either SCOTUS upholds the constitution or people will..you know the thing
I'll allow it.
“But watch yourself McCoy…”
Next election all red states change their laws 1 day before the election. Allow children to vote. Allow all votes to count as three votes. Disallow your vote completely if you voted blue in the past.
Just make up shit as we go.
There is no next election.
Only Emperor Trump.
Fuck that. I just want my America back from these goddamn globocommunists.
Fine, Emperor Trump and I will move to Greenland!
Does the original constitution actually require an election where citizens vote? Or has it merely evolved as law? Could legislatures just pick the winners without a direct election, ie no presidential election, but the state election implicitly decides the federal election?
No it's not in the constitution. However it was one of the earliest laws and people were already voting in their colonies, so I'm pretty sure there's a general right and expectation of citizens to vote. (with states determining who is an eligible voter) It's just so patently obvious they didn't need to write it down.
Yes legislatures could probably just decide to stop holding elections but they wouldn't last long after that. There would be legal challenges and those legislators would get thrown out of office. (there might even be some precedent for that)
If this isnt fixed, we no longer have a democracy and it's time to remind people why the 2nd amendment exists
You're close. Think it through. If we can't have fair elections, a right the founders of the nation and the armies of George Washington fought bitterly for and many died, if that fundamental right is corrupt and subverted...do we have a Republic anymore?
Just finished reading it. This thing is a work of pure brilliance and eviscerates the defendants' arguments.
This is the biggest part for me. This was my first time voting , I'm 32. If this is thrown out... why should I ever vote again? Whoever "they" want in office they can get. As long as they know how much they need to cheat.
33, first time voter. Feel the same way.
I'm 51, and a first-time voter as well. And if this mess isn't made right, I will never vote again. There'll be no point.
Does the use of this language also mean that in this supreme court case the plaintiff intends to bring to the court evidence of voter fraud in these urban centers?
We will likely bring evidence of fraud to support the case, but that is not our primary argument (and that's an important distinction to make). Our argument is that states illegally changed the rules of the election, which puts their results in questions and disenfranchises Texas voters, who have a vested interest in not only the Presidency, but particularly in the Vice Presidency, who breaks ties in the Senate (the same Senate that could be 50-50 deadlocked this next term).
Legend says that Texas tucks it in their sock
THERE’S A SNAKE IN MY BOOT!
Or tie it around their saddle so they don't fall off.
Am Texan, can confirm
they dont call them tube socks for nothing mate
We've got the best um ... well, you know the thing. :)
Badakathcare?
I must have missed that one the first time around, I assume it's similar to trunalmprzure.
While pointing and laughing at the tiny thing the defendants call a dick.
Now to be fair, not all Dems have tiny dicks. Case in point: Michelle Obama.
😂🤣 Very true!
I wouldn't call it tiny..
You means Michael?🤣😂
Big Mike!
This is my favorite bit:
From next to last page:
This. This is something every common man can understand; punish bad behavior harshly which, in turn, prevents any future similar bad behavior. This should be at the forefront of any conversation about this election.
This is the saddest part of this election. Even if Biden wins, that's not the tragedy. The tragedy is the precedent it will set, that people can just cart in boxes of unaccountable ballots days after the polls close and we'll all be expected to just believe it's legit. Rogue governors and AGs can just change election laws at a whim weeks before the vote.
This isn't even about Trump being president. It's about any citizen ever having faith in our elections ever again. Democrat voters should be just as outraged by the behavior we saw this year. But they don't give a fuck as long as their guy wins. Disgusting.
Eventually there need to be very harsh penalties coming out of this. So harsh that Democrats themselves become interested in putting an end to their cheating.
I see no problem with 50 year or death sentences. Election cheating and fraud isn't a crime of passion like murder, it isn't a crime of survival like stealing bread, you fucking knew what you were doing and you did it anyways. Throw away the key.
You are correct.
And that's why I won't feel bad when we win and stomp and grind them into the dirt politically.
Apparently 30% of them do care
"Yeah there was cheating but I'm not gonna fight against it" is not the same as caring
Those are the 30% that actually voted for them and only voted once. ;)
The other 70% were just Richard Domino and Marty S. Matic.
I can’t see ever voting again if that’s the case. Why would I if it doesn’t matter at all and the strings are just being pulled by someone else. Voting would just be an empty gesture with no meaning.
Rogue DAs placed by Soros.
If Biden wins...1776. And I'm not sure enough of the nation will ever agree. They're frogs who have been boiled for so long they complain if it isn't hot enough.
Well, I do like to believe that most of them know which end is up, but they don't care, provided their side benefits.
I may be wrong on this one.
One of TX arguments should be, this could all be solved with a simple audit of five states, instead every state that probably cheated is doing everything in their power to NOT have somebody look at the votes.
No audit needed to see that the elections are unconstitutional.
Correct
I mean, the simple fact that they're fighting us over an audit, when if it came back as everything was done correctly, nothing would change, is proof that they're hiding something.
Which is exactly why a SCOTUS decision should not kick the onus back down on crooked Secretaries of State to further mismanage and pervert a lawful electoral process by overseeing more sham audits, recounts, whatever. These four states have had a month to act honorably and honestly, and they've failed to do so.
Yeap. This argument doesn't rely on proving any amount of fraud took place. It only relies on empirical, unquestionable facts about conduct that no one can claim didn't take place, period. They definitely and illegally changed their election rules without going through the legislature and as a result, every measure of accountability was circumvented and thus Texas correctly argues that there's no way to know who won the majority of legal votes in those states.
In short, they violated the constitution and there is no choice but to throw out the election results of all four states entirely. Through these obviously lawless actions, they disenfranchised all of their own voters.
Right, it's disenfranchise the nation because of a few states, or disenfranchise those few states as bad actors. Seems pretty obvious what the choice should be, but I can't be asked to view any part of government with optimism.
Oh, they'll try and say "Muh Covid" but there's nothing in the constitution that says Article II or its modifying amendments are superseded by concerns over a politically-leveraged virus we check for using a test that has been factually shown as not fit for purpose.
True, but EVERY state should still be audited.
You clearly don't know how things work. A contested election does NOT mean a contingent election will be held. A contingent election will ONLY be held if both Trump and Biden tie in Electoral Votes OR enough Electors vote for a 3rd candidate to bring Biden under 270. Basically impossible. Trump has a WAY better chance of flipping contested states entirely and winning 270 outright than it ever going to a contingent election.
No TX has already argued the votes are spoiled. Can't audit a pile of shit.
I'm more pointing out all the dead people, address issues, signature, etc...the simple fact that they're fighting us when all we want to do is look at it, and if they were all 100% correct it wouldn't change a thing, is proof that they're lying about everything being done right.
How do you account for the people who were coerced either by social pressure or simple bribes like food into signing a mailed in ballot in front of someone? There is reason why we have secret elections.
Who hasn't heard about a couple where the wife makes the husband fill out his absentee ballot in front of her?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEe0k1T6EUQ
fraud doesn't matter. doing what they did without the legislatures is unconstitutional.
That's the beauty of this argument. It relies on zero claims of fraud; so it avoids the mountains of discovery needed to prove that. It's purely constitutional.
november 4th I was hoping we had a broad case where we have a silver bullet so we aren't looking at random postal workers, random boxes coming from under tables etc. this is the way to win.
That belongs in state court.
This
Really, that goes to the center of it. They in many cases destroyed the ability to audit, and disregarded the law in how they conducted themselves during the election to begin with. It is impossible to audit and there is no particularly good fix. The worst case is to do nothing as it makes elections pointless, but most other solutions are bad too.
That would work but it's not an argument that SCOTUS would be receptive to, this approach wherein constitutional rights, duties, and proscriptions are argued is the best way forward.
It has to be the way when it's state vs. state. An audit is an internal matter and the SCOTUS would never allow one state to order an audit in another state in such a way. But the SCOTUS can make them follow the Constitution, or enjoin them for not doing so.
Those "fraud" arguments were tossed by a million lower courts. Did not even want to hear the case nor examine the fraud evidence.
Texas AG Paxton said he was disappointed in the other courts tossing the fraud cases and that his case, by design, is "Fundamentally NOT based on fraud.It is based on States creating unconstititional laws."
Yep, and most of those lower courts are run by swamp things.
However, the SCOTUS doesn't want to hear about it. It's beneath the dignity of the court to engage in partisan back and forth. Instead, Paxton is genius for attacking them on the Constitutional violations, which the SCOTUS would be very interested in hearing about.
unconstitutional?
Not gonna lie, sometimes you guys are like "Wow what a smackdown", and then I'll read it and it will be like "meh..." but reading this thing really does give you an impression of a smack down!
It's just one cogent argument after another!
I am glad we pleased you, sahib.
You've pleased me well. I commend you for it
The magnitude of this smackdown is undeniable!
The MAGAnitude!
Pop pop
the MAGnacity!
A 6.2 on the Grenell Gauge and a 7.93 (repeating, of course) on the Flynn Factor!
pechow!
I feel like paying taxes to Texas instead of my crappy state because my state doesn't care about its citizens. I'm getting more out of them than I do from my state. Roads have potholes, schools don't educate, drug addicts and homeless people at every highway offramp and under bridges, parks littered with needles, and it goes on and on. And now, my vote doesn't even count.
Texas always needs more pedes.
Best place I've ever lived
Bonus: TX has no state income tax.
You also in CA?
Unfortunately that now describes up to 20 statrs
I love your name, btw. Very clever, Chloe!
Texas is not without its issues. The highway system in some of the cities is a nightmare to deal with, but they're working on it. The whole state is way above average for the whole country on most metrics, though. They give a damn. And they do it without an income tax.
Property taxes are high but it’s not so bad considerIng.
True, but at least they have a partial homestead exemption.
Pray that the SCOTUS Justices make the right call. 4 of the 5 solid conservatives are Catholic! Pray that their minds are fixed on the Lord.
They are all well-positioned to know that the Roths have marked their race and religion for extermination and replacement. The question is, have they been gotten to and promised a free pass if they cooperate?
And are they stupid enough to believe the free pass will be given to them.
Three worked on Bush v Gore. One has a dish served cold with Biden’s name on it.
The disenfranchisement argument seems ridiculous. If there's disenfranchisement, it started with the unlawful acts, not with seeking remedy.
"Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would." -TX
BOOM!
ADVANCE AND HOLD! SHIELD WALL! (Since the enemy has armed themselves with nerf guns and spit balls, use Tshirts and arm chair pillows as shields) They are NOT Sparta.
Neither are we. We are better.
Waves of Antifa poured over the hill toward the Patriots, clown horns and Communist Manifestos in their sweaty fists.
I'd fight to the death in a Shield Wall with you fuckers any day.
affix (plastic) bayonets
“ TEXAS IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL. In support of leave to file, Texas rebuts Defendant States’ arguments that they complied with their State law. Texas Reply in Support of Leave to File. Here, Texas demonstrates that Texas is likely to prevail on the merits. A. Defendant States violated the Electors Clause by modifying their legislatures’ election laws through non-legislative action. Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes. Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.“
oh shi- "violated the Electors Clause"
Also check out the 12th Amendement!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
Republicans control 29 state houses!
Merry Christmas!
[...]
Don't know why this isn't brought up more. Democrats are using circular reasoning here.
9-0 SCOTUS ruling time
Ima go with 5-4.
Thankfully they don’t get much stronger than this folks.
It's not about being loyal to Trump. It's about being true to the constitution. Like Trump said we need people (justices) with COURAGE to stay true to the constitution with all this pressure and aggression.
If the case is picked up, I'll have far more confidence. The main obstacle is to get inside the court
Of course they are going to hear it. This is the biggest case EVER - don't try to tell me that not even four conservative judges are going to bother with it.
they're in a meeting as we speak, I believe. not officially stated what the meeting is about, but I'll give you three guesses
the whole court is in a meeting or just some of them ?
The case will be picked up and I’m extremely confident in winning it.
What I’m nervous as fuck about is THE REMEDY.
The case gives the SCOTUS multiple clear ways for Trump to win the case and still lose the election.
Kagan will not vote for the Republic, either. We could see a 6-3 but 5-4 is where the bettors go.
I would love to see Kagan's and Sotomayor's dissenting opinions. "Yes, the states obviously violated the Constitution, but ORANGE MAN BAD!"
I advocate impeachment, disbarrment, and other punishments up to and including execution for any justice that cannot sufficiently defend their anti-constitutional stance.
Kek but also sad cuz true
apparently that's how our government works now, so yes.
i also have a pet dog whose last wish was to vote for this, so I think it's now 11-0
King George Bad:
"Although the Founders understandably feared the emergence of an all-powerful Executive based on their experience with King George, they were not fearful of expanded legislative representation, which King George had denied them."
Extremely underrated comment.
Brit man bad
Dems trying to install KING JOErge
This is a point we need to bring up more often.
"STANCH"....
That is my new favorite verb.
I thank you.
It's amazing to see the difference in Texas' response compared to the Defendant states. Texas argues constitutional law while the Defendant argues pure emotion. Typical Democrat response.
It's Family Court law
This sort of shit plays out every day while mothers strip fathers of guardianship and parental rights.
We're about to find out if Justice is dead in America based on what SCOTUS says! We're a country that was built on laws and truth. Emotion should play no part in their decision.
If SCOTUS punts on this, then it is time for Trump to seriously consider invoking the Insurrection Act. As in the most recent historical case with President Lincoln, history will give our president a pass for taking such drastic action since Biden is a compromised national security risk --- all the evidence clearly shows he should be disqualified to ever hold office again, as well as being indicted for racketeering and perhaps even treason.
If, OTOH, the electors meet on Monday and cast their votes illegitimately for this duplicitous traitor and his crime family, that vote will be extremely difficult to undo.
Texas just slapped these defendant States and lawyers in the face with its massive donger
It’s pronounced “Texas”
LARRY!!!!!!!
"Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would."
EVERY SINGLE VOTER
BUT WHAT KIND OF RACIST ARE YOU TO DISENFRANCHISE DEAD VOTERS?
I'd argue more voters, not as many. Trump had the majority of votes.
Specious - superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
I'm learning English over here
The remedy is, obviously, to negate the ballots and turn the vote over to the legislature. Thus is what our Founding Fathers meant with the concept of federalism: it makes states' rights an independent and countervailing source of power to that of the federal government.
This year we've all learned constitutional law, English, history, geopolitics, virology. We may soon be learning guerilla warfare as well.
If you watched Kings of Queens, you'd have learned this word.
They are really pushing SCOTUS to the corner. No more BS, act now or they will be just another rubber stamp court for the corrupted crooks.
Michigan also has a better fact that the state can’t explain why 175,000 absentee ballots out of Wayne County do not tie to a registered voter. The brief buried that lead.
Texas’ response: “Fuck your feelings.”
Just read the whole thing. The TX lawyer 'pedes brought their A-game. If SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of TX, or if they refuse to hear the case, they become a clown court, and the Constitution becomes less worthless than toilet paper. Simple as that.
I do believe and I pray for this to go our way, I find myself refreshing this site every 5-10 minutes and checking twitter constantly for any updates, everything is on the line.
If SCOTUS does not hear this case, succession is inevitable
Both
I think that's an underlying suggestion of this case.
"Dear SCOTUS, if you don't seriously consider this case, then in the view of these states, the Union is meaningless. In which case..."
Get fucked commies!
I am so hard right now
I think Drax said it best: It makes my nether regions engorged.
Total smackdown.
I'm glad they're also referencing what is essentially the "burden of proof"
Texas is saying that the defendants are saying "Joe Biden won, prove us wrong", when it should really be (to the defendants) "You prove to us that either candidate won via a fair, fraud-free election"
You have to be able to prove the legitimacy of the ballots you assert should be counted, not assert some count and put the burden on the challenger to prove its illegitimacy
Burden of Proof is so easy here.
Constitution says the legislature decides how the elections go.
There is tons of evidence that others changed this.
That's what I'm hearing. Not dooming, but 4th box is looking like a true option. I pray that those who are at work on this make the right choice. COURAGE.
Each States' House delegation takes a vote for either of the top two Electoral college vote getters, and it counts as 1 state for that candidate. Candidate with most state delegations that vote for them wins.
Or to put it another way ... California's reps gets 1 vote, and Liz Cheney gets 1 vote.
State delegations vote. So the representatives from each state talk among themselves to decide who the state votes for, no strict procedure as far as I’m aware.
That said, even if we lose the house in total numbers, republicans hold more states (something like 28-22), so losing there would be an uphill battle
On top of that the Constitition only requires a 37 state quorum so Pelosi would have a hard time trying to stall.
IMO, if the defendant states' electors get invalidated, but congress still puts Biden in because they're afraid of controversy, I still think that's some degree of win. Much better than Biden being installed by illegitimate electors without challenge.
If states get invalidated, then no matter the end result, it's clear: Watch out, you don't get to cheat. Take this seriously or there will be consequences. The Republic and people's faith in democracy and rule of law is protected because they can believe it will be protected, even if that protection failed in 2020.
But if Biden gets through with no one being held to account, then we'll never have a real election again.
If that is the case Trump will win, the majority of states House of Representatives lie with Trump. 26-24
by ONE swing vote??