• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Clinton over 2016 Russia allegations

Glad this was resolved. The system works.
 
anatta said:
after SCOTUS refused to hear Tx vs. PA (over standing) - i gave up on the courts
Click to expand...
Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania election laws and therefore can not be a harmed party. Therefore they have no right to sue. That is how standing works. Standing is a concept designed to protect people for lawsuits by persons that were not harmed. Your disappointment should not be with the courts that have functioned as designed, but in your own ignorance. Hopefully you took that as opportunity to actually learn something rather than just cry in your beer because you didn't understand.

Trump has been a party to more than 4,000 lawsuits. Other than cases by his casino against deadbeats, Trump has a very bad win-loss record. In fact, he is often the deadbeat.

www.jdjournal.com

Donald Trump Involved in Almost 4,000 Lawsuits | JDJournal

Summary: USA Today analyzed Donald Trump’s bloated history of litigation. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. If that’s the case, why does Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump threaten to sue so many people who talk badly about him? That was a question...
www.jdjournal.com
en.wikipedia.org

Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The man abuses the court system. You should see what the Bible has to say about a man that does such a thing.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Texas has no interest in Pennsylvania election laws and therefore can not be a harmed party. Therefore they have no right to sue. That is how standing works. Standing is a concept designed to protect people for lawsuits by persons that were not harmed. Your disappointment should not be with the courts that have functioned as designed, but in your own ignorance. Hopefully you took that as opportunity to actually learn something rather than just cry in your beer because you didn't understand.

Trump has been a party to more than 4,000 lawsuits. Other than cases by his casino against deadbeats, Trump has a very bad win-loss record. In fact, he is often the deadbeat.

www.jdjournal.com

Donald Trump Involved in Almost 4,000 Lawsuits | JDJournal

Summary: USA Today analyzed Donald Trump’s bloated history of litigation. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. If that’s the case, why does Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump threaten to sue so many people who talk badly about him? That was a question...
www.jdjournal.com
en.wikipedia.org

Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The man abuses the court system. You should see what the Bible has to say about a man that does such a thing.
Click to expand...
Texas DOES have an interest if it's electors dont have the power to elect due to other states malfeasance

The weird part is the Supreme Court of PA ( Democratic tool) overrode there own state Constituiton of expanding mail in ballots when Act 77 was passed. (if i got this correct)

SCOTUS needed to hear this,but they despise getting into separation of powers issues.
Like I said "really no remedy exists for election disputes"
 
anatta said:
Texas DOES have an interest if it's electors dont have the power to elect due to other states malfeasance

The weird part is the Supreme Court of PA ( Democratic tool) overrode there own state Constituiton of expanding mail in ballots when Act 77 was passed. (if i got this correct)

SCOTUS needed to hear this,but they despise getting into separation of powers issues.
Like I said "really no remedy exists for election disputes"
Click to expand...
No it does not. I can't sue you because I do not like your vote, as it is your business. I cannot sue you because you allow your kids to stay up past their bed time, as it is your business. I have no standing in matters that are in your domain. Your actions that result in no ACTUAL harm to me are none of my business. If your actions, however, cause me ACTUAL harm, then I have standing. That is a simple view of standing, but sufficient for this discussion.

There was no ACTUAL injury to Texas based upon how Pennsylvania conducted its election. Texas essentially tried to sue because they didn't like Pennsylvania's vote. Texas has control over 38 electors. That is the extent of their power in the national election. Everything else is none of their business. How Pennsylvania voted (and the rules to determine thereof) caused no ACTUAL harm to Texas.

Again, standing exists so that courts can deal in actual matters of harm and cause, not in frivolous matters. Here is more than you want to know about standing, but its also far more than you apparently do know.

 
Last edited:
anatta said:
Texas DOES have an interest if it's electors dont have the power to elect due to other states malfeasance

The weird part is the Supreme Court of PA ( Democratic tool) overrode there own state Constituiton of expanding mail in ballots when Act 77 was passed. (if i got this correct)

SCOTUS needed to hear this,but they despise getting into separation of powers issues.
Like I said "really no remedy exists for election disputes"
Click to expand...
So desantis can gerrymander and draw his own districts and reject restoring voting rights for some felons after it was voted for by the people. happened

desantis can ban abortion unilaterally after the gerrymandered election. in progress / happened

then florida can sue to make all states ban abortion because if residents can get one elsewhere they have an invested interest. next

bam, fascism in 3 steps. sounds american as hell
 
upsideguy said:
No it does not. I can't sue you because I do not like your vote, as it is your business. I cannot sue you because you allow your kids to stay up past their bed time, as it is your business. I have no standing in matters that are in your domain. Your actions that result in no ACTUAL harm to me are none of my business. If your actions, however, cause me ACTUAL harm, then I have standing. That is a simple view of standing, but sufficient for this discussion.

There was no ACTUAL injury to Texas based upon how Pennsylvania conducted its election. Texas essentially tried to sue because they didn't like Pennsylvania's vote. Texas has control over 38 electors. That is the extent of their power in the national election. Everything else is none of their business. How Pennsylvania voted (and the rules to determine thereof) caused no ACTUAL harm to Texas.

Again, standing exists so that courts can deal in actual matters of harm and cause, not in frivolous matters. Here is more than you want to know about standing, but its also far more than you apparently do know.

Click to expand...
thats a matter of opinion and it was never litigated.. PA actions DID harm Tx voters will -if the PA votes were unConstitionally inflated.. that is not a" frivolous" matter,and SCOTUS never claimed that
 
Chomsky said:
www.reuters.com

Judge rejects Trump lawsuit vs. Clinton, others as 'hyperbole'

A U.S. judge has dismissed Donald Trump's lawsuit against his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton, saying the former Republican president's allegations that Democrats tried to rig that election by linking his campaign to Russia was an attempt to "flaunt" political grievances that did not belong in court.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com


--

Mr. Trump appears to be keeping his losing record intact, since his 2020 election law suits.
Click to expand...
Is this the lawsuit they drove 70 miles from Mar a lago to file in "judge" cannon's court a couple of years ago?
 
anatta said:
thats a matter of opinion and it was never litigated.. PA actions DID harm Tx voters wil
Click to expand...
No they didn't. Laughable nonsense. Thus laughed out of court.
 
anatta said:
thats a matter of opinion and it was never litigated.. PA actions DID harm Tx voters will -if the PA votes were unConstitionally inflated.. that is not a" frivolous" matter,and SCOTUS never claimed that
Click to expand...
No, it did not.... not in your wildest dreams, which apparently are quite wild. Texas controls the rules around its vote; Pennsylvania controls its vote. Texas has no more interest in how Pennsylvania votes than I do in how you vote. I can not sue you because I don't like your vote even if nor rigor was involved (ya flipped a coin). How you vote is your business. How Pennsylvania votes it its business, not Texas.

More over, the issue deals with ACTUAL harm. There is no way to determine ACTUAL harm in a vote. Hence, there would be no standing.

Moreover, how is there any harm? The election happened as prescribed. Texas gets its vote; Pennsylvania theirs. That actually happened. Texas made their best efforts to help Trump be re-elected. That re-election effort fell short because other states wanted Biden. That is they American elections work. If there was an issue around the Pennsylvania vote, those issues belong in the domain of the Pennsylvania courts to be determined by Pennsylvanians, unless civil rights were violated, which none were.

I suggest you read a little bit about this issue to understand it, as you clearly do not. There is no point getting your panties bunched by your own ignorance.

 
Last edited:
jpn said:
Trump promised to hire "only the best people." He can't even find competent lawyers to defend him and his silly lawsuits.
Click to expand...
My theory on that is that he stiffs every one of them but can always find new lawyers to represent his frivolous lawsuits because of the notoriety.
 
Middleground said:
My theory on that is that he stiffs every one of them but can always find new lawyers to represent his frivolous lawsuits because of the notoriety.
Click to expand...
Except that being on Trump's side means playing a losing hand (as well as worrying about being paid). Lawyers are like pitchers, they are paid to win. Losses are always a hit to the record.
 
Chomsky said:
www.reuters.com

Judge rejects Trump lawsuit vs. Clinton, others as 'hyperbole'

A U.S. judge has dismissed Donald Trump's lawsuit against his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton, saying the former Republican president's allegations that Democrats tried to rig that election by linking his campaign to Russia was an attempt to "flaunt" political grievances that did not belong in court.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com


--

Mr. Trump appears to be keeping his losing record intact, since his 2020 election law suits.
Click to expand...
He was better off filing lawsuits against those who didn't have the means or tenacity to fight back legally.
 
upsideguy said:
No, it did not.... not in your wildest dreams, which apparently are quite wild. Texas controls the rules around its vote; Pennsylvania controls its vote. Texas has no more interest in how Pennsylvania votes than I do in how you vote. I can not sue you because I don't like your vote even if nor rigor was involved (ya flipped a coin). How you vote is your business. How Pennsylvania votes it its business, not Texas.

More over, the issue deals with ACTUAL harm. There is no way to determine ACTUAL harm in a vote. Hence, there would be no standing.

Moreover, how is there any harm? The election happened as prescribed. Texas gets its vote; Pennsylvania theirs. That actually happened. Texas made their best efforts to help Trump be re-elected. That re-election effort fell short because other states wanted Biden. That is they American elections work. If there was an issue around the Pennsylvania vote, those issues belong in the domain of the Pennsylvania courts to be determined by Pennsylvanians, unless civil rights were violated, which none were.

I suggest you read a little bit about this issue to understand it, as you clearly do not. There is no point getting your panties bunched by your own ignorance.

Click to expand...
Encouraging someone who clearly can't (or won't) read to read is just being mean. ;) I didn't intend to read any of that back-and-forth in this thread because it was so apparently ridiculous, but, to keep up with the conversation, I did, and now I can't stop laughing. That is some of the weirdest drivel I've read in some time. It belies an INCREDIBLE lack of acumen regarding basic concepts and the astounding ability to spin oneself up over inanity. But, that is par for the course (at least on a Trump course) for a Trumpist acolyte. He could be a Trump lawyer! Hoo Boy, what will they think of next?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom