1458
()
posted ago by Maga314 ago by Maga314 +1459 / -1
Comments (25)
sorted by:
29
Schroeder09 29 points ago +29 / -0

he basically gave hsi support. didn't join as a plaintiff. half measure.

17
Vegans4Trump 17 points ago +17 / -0

Sigh. Ok. Calling now to request he join as a plantiff

14
InarosPrime 14 points ago +14 / -0

Yost needs to be primaried out with DeWine and Portman in 2022

20
Anaconda 20 points ago +22 / -2

No he didn't. Half measure

15
Maga314 [S] 15 points ago +15 / -0

I emailed the Ohio AG office yesterday and they actually responded that they've filed an amicus brief for Texas! All these calls and emails are working!

4
deleted 4 points ago +13 / -9
5
iamherefortheluls 5 points ago +5 / -0

i don't understand this whole mindset that discarding illegal votes somehow "disenfranchises voters"

5
MakeLiberalsCryAgain 5 points ago +5 / -0

It disenfranchises illegal voters, who are mostly riggers.

1
sociopathix 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Democrats counted on the secrecy of the ballot. Once the ballot is separated and piled up with the others, you can't trace it back to anyone. So you can't discard anything or you "muh disenfranchise muh blue city muh racism". It's a license to cheat.

1
DwellerMike 1 point ago +1 / -0

the court has not seen proof of illegal votes, as in fake ballots, dominion machines etc.

this is about another "illegality" this is where Texas said a state bent the rules in their state to their favor to get the outcome they wanted. You can't do that, it takes time to change your states constitution. Now, that's what this is about. Texas says it's unconstitutional and disfranchises states that are doing it 'legal'.

If the supreme court wont take the case it basically means states can do whatever they want and the US Constitution is just a piece of paper with words. Therefor it's quite likely they'll take the case to rule on it either way to set a nationwide precedent moving forward.

BUT, as Cruz said in an interview today. The supreme court would need to have 5 out of the 9 justices to say yes to see the case. Although he expects them to take it, there is a very reasonable chance they wont.

In that case Trump will play is trump card I believe, the EO of 2018 and we'll see military tribunals.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Maga314 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup i got the same

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
7
Kraznaya 7 points ago +8 / -1

Can we please stop with this fake news?

2
Chuckwagon 2 points ago +2 / -0

When is he signing on as a plaintiff?

1
ArmyLady 1 point ago +1 / -0

YEAH! OH MY!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
MakeLiberalsCryAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Should be plaintiffs, but I guess it's better than nothing. Yost and Dewine need to GO come election time!

1
wmmiv2016v2 1 point ago +1 / -0

They filed an amicus, but in support of neither party. Click on the Amicus Brief link:

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/December-2020/Ohio-Attorney-General-Dave-Yost-s-Statement-on-Ami

1
Briben 1 point ago +1 / -0

Read his papers. Says yes, entertain Texas suit and then deny their request for relief. The last few pages give up the plot. “There will be another election in 2024”... Basically, yes please rule whether there were unconstitutional violations of law and fraud but having done that, don’t disturb the results of that fraudulent election and decide that because its after the fact its too late to fix. Totally cucked AG. DEPORT!

1
sociopathix 1 point ago +1 / -0

The whole point of the November->December waiting period is to settle everything that needs to be settled, if there is anything. And, since it was the old days, for all the electors to get to one spot to be able to vote.

0
ModsTakeYuan 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm proud of you patriots. Keep the pressure up on our representatives...let them know we're not happy with what is happening...that we demand change.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1