Republicans faced a simple choice: For or against democracy.

[Rogue Valley]

Republicans faced a simple choice: For or against democracy.

12/12/20
HOUSE REPUBLICANS have faced what amounts to a choice between standing for or against democracy: whether to sign on to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s delusional lawsuit to overturn the presidential election. A large majority of them failed the test. More House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), on Friday signed an amicus brief supporting Mr. Paxton, just hours before the Supreme Court unceremoniously rejected the suit. This is a disheartening signal about what these members of Congress might do on Jan. 6, when at least some Republicans probably will object to the counting of President-elect Joe Biden’s electoral votes. Mr. McCarthy and the other extremists and toadies who have signed their names to President Trump’s antidemocratic plot may think their complicity is costless, because the Supreme Court was bound to reject the Paxton lawsuit, as it did on Friday, and there are enough Democrats on Capitol Hill to foil any GOP mischief during the electoral vote counting. They are wrong. Their recklessness raises the once-unthinkable possibility that a Congress controlled by one party might one day flip a presidential election to its candidate in defiance of the voters’ will, citing claims of mass fraud just as bogus as the ones Republicans have hyped up this year. Rep. Paul Mitchell (R/MI) tweeted, “I will not be signing on to this amicus brief. Apparently I have failed the Trump won ‘loyalty tests’ thoroughly.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R-Utah) and incoming governor Spencer Cox, also a Republican, criticized Utah’s attorney general for bringing their state into the Paxton lawsuit. And Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) called it “madness” to propose that lawmakers should select the next president, which is the goal of the Paxton lawsuit. “The idea of supplanting the vote of the people with partisan legislators, is, is so completely out of our national character that it’s simply mad,” Mr. Romney said. Republicans who have sat by silently or encouraged Mr. Trump’s false allegations of massive voter fraud have another chance on Monday to put themselves on the right side of history. That is when the electoral college will cast its votes, making President-elect Biden’s victory official. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), and even staunch Trump sycophants such as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) have all pointed to Monday as the crucial day. Will they, at long last, acknowledge the will of the people? Or is the Republican Party destined to pledge itself to Mr. Trump, rather than democracy?

Which path will it be today for the Republican Party? The Constitution or sedition? Democracy or illiberalism?

Are GOP Congress-critters more concerned of their legacy in History? Or more terrified of Donald Trump? We're watching.

 

[less right]

I never thought voting for someone to be King was a good use of democracy.

 

[Conaeolos]

Just so we can recap:
1) A popular and well drafted lawsuit was denied to be heard on the merits because of a bogus standing claim (where it deserves to be heard)
2) The claims of voter fraud are extremely high, the evidence for which meaningful investigation abounds ( example: https://hereistheevidence.com/) and will not be adjudicated by deadlines.
3) Absentee method being the decisive factor, there remains a statistically improbably low rejection rate, and all officials to date (from both parties) have refused meaningful independent signature audit as recommended in the bipartisan/international best practices. The few limit audits showing a high likelihood of altered-results making this more likely motivated by a fear of a impactful finding hurting their credibility as contrasted to the limited benefit of improved-confidence ( e.g. if found, as non-significant, many will still claim fraud and blame dominion ect)

Make no mistake, 2020 will be historically recognized as a fraudulent vote. The lack of meaningful investigation to such evidenced claims are always taken as confession by the record. The constitution, recognized this as a possibility (contested election) in any imperfect democratic society thus providing remedy. Demonizing that remedy is foolish. A fair vote is not always realistic. A smart non-politicalized court would have heard the case, and perhaps they should well on the merits have denied it. The law is a complex thing, and the supreme court unique in her role to clarify such disputes and determine if indeed these states have violated the law as alleged in the claim and further if that damaged Texas (although obviously it would).

So, please go ahead and cry from the rooftops that those who wanted their day in court were denied based on the merits, but you are lying. Cry it's anti democratic to want audit a vote, but you are lying.

I bet dollars to donuts. Joe Biden will be president next year. If you want to ignore the red flags and think he got that legit, be my guest. Make no mistake though, it is not Trump supporters who 'killed' democracy nor would it be Bidens in participating in a historically fraudulent vote. It is the choice of those in institutional power to either uphold the "rule of law" by recognizing that rest on "faith in the law", "faith in fair trial", "Faith to have yoru day in court" or not.

Our over-political supreme court choose not. They think it's easier and better for them to deny it's their role. Should we be surprised? We live in the age of Covid-19 where governments with long history of rule of law and god-given rights collectively have chosen to suspend such practices. Rights now are a joke in the west. And saying it the pandemic is insane as none such measures are targeted at those vulnerable groups but rather the general populous. Maybe for you it was another issue, "systemic racism" etc...

I just hope you understand, democracy is breathing her last breath. But individual politics is not the problem...governments no longer fear their people, we are a classed society, and without equality there can never be democracy.

 

[Slavister]

A smart non-politicalized court would have heard the case

What are you smoking? The court is 6-3 Conservative. None of the 6 Conservatives, including 3 Trump appointed ones agreed with the case. (The 2 that would allow it on procedural grounds said they would reject the arguments)

The claims of voter fraud are extremely high

So why did not you guys collect your BEST evidence of all and present it? The courts (including many with Republican judges) had to throw out over 50 law suits you brought which clearly did not have anywhere enough evidence worth a damn.

 

[Questerr]

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” - David Frum

 

[Bullseye]

Republicans faced a simple choice: For or against democracy.

Which path will it be today for the Republican Party? The Constitution or sedition? Democracy or illiberalism?

Are GOP Congress-critters more concerned of their legacy in History? Or more terrified of Donald Trump? We're watching.

Yet another WaPoo
This is more of a question for the Dems/libs. Of course the answer is obvious; you guys haven’t favored democracy and the American system for decades. Totalitarian/collectivism are your utopia and nirvana combined. One of you should actual look up “sedition” since it seems to be your latest talking point. Hint - study the Democratic Party for last twelve years - you’ll have a good start.

 

[JasperL]

Just so we can recap:
1) A popular and well drafted lawsuit was denied to be heard on the merits because of a bogus standing claim (where it deserves to be heard)

Congrats - wrong from the jump.

FWIW, it was easy to identify the lawsuit as the bullshit exercise it was by noting that in a filing with SCOTUS, Paxton et al. pretended to be illiterate morons and referred to Biden's party as the "Democrat" party. Really, that's all anyone needed to read. The rest was just as bad.

And the argument was - "Hey, we're lazy morons and didn't notice that a bunch of states changed their election laws. About a MONTH AFTER Trump lost, someone did what we were too stupid and lazy to do in the months heading up to election day, and told us other states didn't do it right. So, therefore, after the game is played and because we lost, we demand that the entire country throw out their votes for president, all 160 million votes, tossed in the trash, and let the House decide!!!

We is smart!!

No need to address the rest...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Just so we can recap:
1) A popular and well drafted lawsuit was denied to be heard on the merits because of a bogus standing claim (where it deserves to be heard)
2) The claims of voter fraud are extremely high, the evidence for which meaningful investigation abounds ( example: https://hereistheevidence.com/) and will not be adjudicated by deadlines.
3) Absentee method being the decisive factor, there remains a statistically improbably low rejection rate, and all officials to date (from both parties) have refused meaningful independent signature audit as recommended in the bipartisan/international best practices. The few limit audits showing a high likelihood of altered-results making this more likely motivated by a fear of a impactful finding hurting their credibility as contrasted to the limited benefit of improved-confidence ( e.g. if found, as non-significant, many will still claim fraud and blame dominion ect)

Make no mistake, 2020 will be historically recognized as a fraudulent vote. The lack of meaningful investigation to such evidenced claims are always taken as confession by the record. The constitution, recognized this as a possibility (contested election) in any imperfect democratic society thus providing remedy. Demonizing that remedy is foolish. A fair vote is not always realistic. A smart non-politicalized court would have heard the case, and perhaps they should well on the merits have denied it. The law is a complex thing, and the supreme court unique in her role to clarify such disputes and determine if indeed these states have violated the law as alleged in the claim and further if that damaged Texas (although obviously it would).

So, please go ahead and cry from the rooftops that those who wanted their day in court were denied based on the merits, but you are lying. Cry it's anti democratic to want audit a vote, but you are lying.

I bet dollars to donuts. Joe Biden will be president next year. If you want to ignore the red flags and think he got that legit, be my guest. Make no mistake though, it is not Trump supporters who 'killed' democracy nor would it be Bidens in participating in a historically fraudulent vote. It is the choice of those in institutional power to either uphold the "rule of law" by recognizing that rest on "faith in the law", "faith in fair trial", "Faith to have yoru day in court" or not.

Our over-political supreme court choose not. They think it's easier and better for them to deny it's their role. Should we be surprised? We live in the age of Covid-19 where governments with long history of rule of law and god-given rights collectively have chosen to suspend such practices. Rights now are a joke in the west. And saying it the pandemic is insane as none such measures are targeted at those vulnerable groups but rather the general populous. Maybe for you it was another issue, "systemic racism" etc...

I just hope you understand, democracy is breathing her last breath. But individual politics is not the problem...governments no longer fear their people, we are a classed society, and without equality there can never be democracy.

1. As predicted by virtually every legal expert across the country, the completely bogus “Hail Mary” Texas lawsuit was properly denied.

2. The many false claims of voter fraud have been rightly dismissed/ruled against in dozens of lawsuits.

And your supporting reference is garbage. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/?amp

3. There has been absolutely no proof whatsoever of widespread voter/election fraud.

The 2020 election will be recorded as one of our country’s most contentious elections even though the results were clear and there was no widespread voter/election fraud.

A huge black eye for the Republican Party.

 

[Conaeolos]

1. As predicted by virtually every legal expert across the country, the completely bogus “Hail Mary” Texas lawsuit was properly denied.

You should read the statement. So what if some or even most legal experts guessed the supreme court would deny on standing. The point of the post is one deserves a day in court, by denying this popular, well drafted “Hail Mary” on standing verses the merits the supreme court participates in the erosion of faith in the "rule of law".

2. The many false claims of voter fraud have been rightly dismissed/ruled against in dozens of lawsuits.

LOL, do you know the difference between a procedural dismissal and a ruling on the merits?

Now, think hard why might that be relevant to my point about erosion of faith in the law and how there is more importance in having one's day in court rather than a positive legal outcome...

And your supporting reference is garbage. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/?amp

I respect in this day and age you choose to vet information before wasting your time reading it.
That crowdsource platform however sources everything to a primary source with fair indication of the reliability from 'circumstantial claim' to 'requires serious explanation' . You're basically telling me, why are you citing a wikipedia article?

You're free to explore the link or not. The reality is fraud is very much suspected by a good number of people for a wide variety of reasons.My statement that historically this will be viewed as fraudulent is almost assured. There remains a lot of unanswered acquisitions and anomalies (such as outlined at the link and touch upon in my point 3). People in the positions to do so, are choosing not to investigate these. That is only ever interpreted one-way: confession of fraud.

3. There has been absolutely no proof whatsoever of widespread voter/election fraud.

We agree Biden will be president next year. So obviously there isn't proof to that level. Myself viewing him as having won by cheat and getting away with it and you having legitimately won are but two movies one screen. This idea though there is 'absolutely no proof whatsoever' is absurd. I told you clearly what I would need to agree, right there in my point. I am statistical person, so for me, when I see suspect voting patterns (similar demographic/geographic area with vastly different voting patterns) and frozen votes as some counties wait for others results(you should at minimum know how many votes are left); I take a closer look. What I find here, is in absentee voting, average rejection rate in key states where you'd expect 2-5% you instead find impossibility low <1% rates with margins of victory of averaging 0.28%. In other words, because this is so significant I'd expect independent signature match verification to be a given. You know the one check on fraud for absentee ballots. It's very common! It's bipartisan. It's best practice.
That's not what we saw. This at every turn has been prevented. And that to me and I guarantee you historically is why this is be considered confession of fraud.

Do you know how much more flimsy an un-investigated suspicion has turn an election to be known as fraudulent? Are you really so confident those signatures will never be matched (with the real rejection rate revealed) even once Biden is president?

The 2020 election will be recorded as one of our country’s most contentious elections even though the results were clear and there was no widespread voter/election fraud.

There is almost no chance. It will historically be known as a stolen election. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of conflicting-views of history and how these conclusions are derived.

A huge black eye for the Republican Party.

Actually agreed, the blame will most certainly be on the Republican Party. You can't predict election fraud (as was the case here) then do nothing meaningful to prevent it and come up smelling of roses.

 

[Conaeolos]

Congrats - wrong from the jump.

FWIW, it was easy to identify the lawsuit as the bullshit exercise it was by noting that in a filing with SCOTUS, Paxton et al. pretended to be illiterate morons and referred to Biden's party as the "Democrat" party. Really, that's all anyone needed to read. The rest was just as bad.

And the argument was - "Hey, we're lazy morons and didn't notice that a bunch of states changed their election laws. About a MONTH AFTER Trump lost, someone did what we were too stupid and lazy to do in the months heading up to election day, and told us other states didn't do it right. So, therefore, after the game is played and because we lost, we demand that the entire country throw out their votes for president, all 160 million votes, tossed in the trash, and let the House decide!!!

We is smart!!

No need to address the rest...

If your claim is it was badly drafted or that SCOTUS wasn't the proper venue. You're kidding yourself.
A simple exercise can show this:

Hypothetically, assume the core simplified claims.

States within the union are allowing fraud in their process, but more importantly doing so in violation of the spirit/wording of constitutional agreement between the states.

In such a hypothetical:
1) Is this a matter between states and hence the sole jurisdiction of SCOTUS?
2) Would the State sustain injury where it not for the the actions of the other states

If you agree, and it hard to think you can't. Then your real argument is this should have failed quickly on its merits and I think that is fair. I take no offence in calling this a "hail mary".

That's not what SCOTUS did or said. They considered nothing on the merits. They made a political statement within their rights, despite the real-world consequences. And, like most controversial/bad/politicalized legal decisions making that's simply stated in the dissent.

Claiming anyone who is in agreement with a dissent is misinformed is absurd. Of course welcome to 2020, where if someone disagrees with our all so holy opinion the only possible explanation could be 'they're dumb'

 

[Conaeolos]

What are you smoking? The court is 6-3 Conservative. None of the 6 Conservatives, including 3 Trump appointed ones agreed with the case. (The 2 that would allow it on procedural grounds said they would reject the arguments)

I would have been fine with them hearing it and rejecting it on the merits. Doing what they did however undermines the 'rule of law'.

Procedural rejections on popular cases will never do the courts any favours.
People need their day in court.
The dissent outlined was correct move.

And, I don't know what you have been smoking these last 4 years? Just because someone is considered a conservative or was appointed by Trump does not make them loyal to Trump. I don't even think the majority of people in his administration were? And again, even if all 9 were hostile, I'd still want them to rule on the merits.

I care far more about the faith in 'rule of law' than who is president.

So why did not you guys collect your BEST evidence of all and present it? The courts (including many with Republican judges) had to throw out over 50 law suits you brought which clearly did not have anywhere enough evidence worth a damn.

The majority of which were procedural rejections.

So we still pretending the courts aren't political? No judge including those on SCOTUS want to overturn the election even if they themselves are a Trump voter. Pretending like there is some good ending here for either side has always been curious to me. Overturn and it's seen as coup by millions of people regardless of the evidence. Don't overturn and it's seen as coup by millions of people as massively suspicious election went un-investigated.

The only relief would have been if an independent audit/canvass had verified the results, showing officials had confidence in their process and weren't hiding something. We don't live in that world. That's not how it went down. Officials, republican and democrat alike don't want blow back and judges sure as hell don't want to get involved with this hornets nest. There is no opportunity for fair process. We are way past that. I just hope we come together after this and actually agree we want fair elections...no weird political company machines, no claims you shouldn't need id to vote, no mailing in of votes without an observed signature check. Get back to old fashioned campaigning instead of political machines.

If come 2024+, you're still seeing judges arguing observers don't need to be able to see the ballets in question. I just hope you know the world will call us on our sham. A confident lie doesn't work indefinitely. And don't pretend you think there is no fraud (rather than no enough), next you'll be tell me the democratic primaries aren't fixed or the polls were accurate...sure, sure

 

[Hamish Howl]

I would have been fine with them hearing it and rejecting it on the merits.

Yeah, we felt the same way about Merrick Garland's nomination.

 

[Geoist]

2) The claims of voter fraud are extremely high, the evidence for which meaningful investigation abounds ( example: https://hereistheevidence.com/)

Considering the fact you guys have gone 1 for 58ish in court so far, either the evidence is not as strong as you claim or the Trump Squad hired the most incompetent lawyers in history. Which is it?

 

[bongsaway]

Just so we can recap:
1) A popular and well drafted lawsuit was denied to be heard on the merits because of a bogus standing claim (where it deserves to be heard)
2) The claims of voter fraud are extremely high, the evidence for which meaningful investigation abounds ( example: https://hereistheevidence.com/) and will not be adjudicated by deadlines.
3) Absentee method being the decisive factor, there remains a statistically improbably low rejection rate, and all officials to date (from both parties) have refused meaningful independent signature audit as recommended in the bipartisan/international best practices. The few limit audits showing a high likelihood of altered-results making this more likely motivated by a fear of a impactful finding hurting their credibility as contrasted to the limited benefit of improved-confidence ( e.g. if found, as non-significant, many will still claim fraud and blame dominion ect)

Make no mistake, 2020 will be historically recognized as a fraudulent vote. The lack of meaningful investigation to such evidenced claims are always taken as confession by the record. The constitution, recognized this as a possibility (contested election) in any imperfect democratic society thus providing remedy. Demonizing that remedy is foolish. A fair vote is not always realistic. A smart non-politicalized court would have heard the case, and perhaps they should well on the merits have denied it. The law is a complex thing, and the supreme court unique in her role to clarify such disputes and determine if indeed these states have violated the law as alleged in the claim and further if that damaged Texas (although obviously it would).

So, please go ahead and cry from the rooftops that those who wanted their day in court were denied based on the merits, but you are lying. Cry it's anti democratic to want audit a vote, but you are lying.

I bet dollars to donuts. Joe Biden will be president next year. If you want to ignore the red flags and think he got that legit, be my guest. Make no mistake though, it is not Trump supporters who 'killed' democracy nor would it be Bidens in participating in a historically fraudulent vote. It is the choice of those in institutional power to either uphold the "rule of law" by recognizing that rest on "faith in the law", "faith in fair trial", "Faith to have yoru day in court" or not.

Our over-political supreme court choose not. They think it's easier and better for them to deny it's their role. Should we be surprised? We live in the age of Covid-19 where governments with long history of rule of law and god-given rights collectively have chosen to suspend such practices. Rights now are a joke in the west. And saying it the pandemic is insane as none such measures are targeted at those vulnerable groups but rather the general populous. Maybe for you it was another issue, "systemic racism" etc...

I just hope you understand, democracy is breathing her last breath. But individual politics is not the problem...governments no longer fear their people, we are a classed society, and without equality there can never be democracy.

Uh huh.

 

[bongsaway]

Considering the fact you guys have gone 1 for 58ish in court so far, either the evidence is not as strong as you claim or the Trump Squad hired the most incompetent lawyers in history. Which is it?

He still wants his 'day' in court even though there already have been over fifty 'days' in court and losses at every turn. Hid day in court, lol.

 

[Geoist]

It will historically be known as a stolen election.

And your same coo-coo crowd will forever know of 9/11 as an inside job. Doesn't make it reality.

 

[Conaeolos]

Considering the fact you guys have gone 1 for 58ish in court so far, either the evidence is not as strong as you claim or the Trump Squad hired the most incompetent lawyers in history. Which is it?

Well, if you're asking me more generally if Trump has great lawyers the answer is obviously not. We're talking about a guy who choose Cohen as his personal lawyer for years and now having lost trust in much of his associates is relaying on a longtime friend, who despite being a great guy and maybe great politician, is no election lawyer to say the least. Not that I am some superstar myself, merely stating as an outside observer for a current president the man has terrible lawyers.

That alone however is not why he's 1/58 or whatever your count.

"evidence is not as strong" is a laughable assertion. This evidence is many time stronger than most election disputes. It take all of 5 sec to verify that, just start comparing it. The problem is who wants the backlash of overturning this election. There a solid reason the courts, are using procedure to not hear these cases...and maybe Trump should lose on the merits, that's not really my point. I merely speaking the truth, the fair process argument went out the window weeks ago...not that I can blame them once talk fo foreign power and dominion machines stole the show from serious red flags around skipping signature check, absent observers and changing totals.

 

[Visbek]

Just so we can recap:

Here we go

1) A popular and well drafted lawsuit was denied to be heard on the merits because of a bogus standing claim (where it deserves to be heard)

lol... No, dude. It wasn't popular, it was poorly written, and it had no merit whatsoever.

"Standing" was not an excuse, it was a core part of Texas' claim. They were literally saying that Texas had the right to order other states how to manage their Presidential elections. Texas' claim was a blatant violation of the Constitution.

It completely and utterly violated long-standing Republican principles of federalism and originalism, which is why it failed.

2) The claims of voter fraud are extremely high...

No, it isn't. It's just BS to snow Trump's voters. And no, your website doesn't prove anything.

Let's put this another way. Either almost every single
FBI agent
NSA agent
Homeland Security staffer
DoJ staffer (including AG Barr)
federal prosecutor
the Attorney General of the United States
state election enforcement investigator
state election official
governor
state AG
state prosecutor
local law enforcement agent
ballot worker and contractor
postal worker and contractor
state judge
federal judge
at least half of all state legislators
roughly half of federal legislators
the entire Supreme Court of the US, including 6 conservatives, 3 appointed by Trump

are all in on it and faked millions of votes... while not bothering to fake down-ballot votes, or win North Carolina, or Florida -- without a SINGLE EMAIL, SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER with instructions on it, OR A SINGLE PERSON getting caught, letting the plan slip, or snitching;

or

Trump lost.

3) Absentee method being the decisive factor, there remains a statistically improbably low rejection rate, and all officials to date (from both parties) have refused meaningful independent signature audit as recommended in the bipartisan/international best practices.

Good grief. No, there's no evidence for this garbage either, and signatures were properly validated.

Make no mistake, 2020 will be historically recognized as a fraudulent vote.

Make no mistake, 2020 will be recognized as the year Republicans completely separated from reality.

We will not let you, or your crybaby sore-loser candidate, dump the past 4 years down the Memory Hole.

The constitution, recognized this as a possibility (contested election) in any imperfect democratic society thus providing remedy. Demonizing that remedy is foolish.

The Constitution explicitly stipulates that each state decides its own method for selecting electors. The Texas lawsuit that you tout blatantly violates that core concept. Claiming otherwise is foolish.

A fair vote is not always realistic. A smart non-politicalized court would have heard the case, and perhaps they should well on the merits have denied it.

Please. You'd be saying the exact same things if the SCOTUS had heard the case.

So, please go ahead and cry from the rooftops that those who wanted their day in court were denied based on the merits, but you are lying.

Over 50 lawsuits filed. Many of them went before judges appointed not just by Republicans, but by Trump. Almost every single one tossed on the "merits."

Over half of US states have Republican governors and/or secretaries of state. Are you saying they are all too incompetent to have actually detected, let alone stopped, millions of "fraudulent" votes?

Make no mistake though, it is not Trump supporters who 'killed' democracy nor would it be Bidens in participating in a historically fraudulent vote.

Yaay, more projection! When we actually watch a narcissistic authoritarian goon try to shred our entire electoral system, of course you start blaming the injuries to democracy on your political rivals.

Our over-political supreme court choose not.

Hello? The over-political SCOTUS is 6-3 in favor of conservatives. And even they couldn't find a valid excuse to pretend that it was anything other than a deeply unserious filing.

Rights now are a joke in the west.

Good grief. Where do you think you are? North Korea?

Get a God Damned Grip.

 

[NWRatCon]

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” - David Frum

David Frum is an established conservative, but a principled one. I wish that could be said of the Republican party.

 

[Conaeolos]

And your same coo-coo crowd will forever know of 9/11 as an inside job. Doesn't make it reality.

That's 2016 and the Russian conspiracy nonsense...you'll note the government was confident enough it was not an inside job then to make reasonable efforts to investigate and shore confidence. Same as with the Russia non-sense. This you will not is being anything but 'officially' investigated.

I know people who think Trump is still secretly winning. Obviously some will always believe.
I am not talking about them in their echo chambers and secret insights. I am telling you, it will be plainly stated in the history books.

Non-investigation of reasonable suspicion is always historically considered confession. It's helpful to understand how that relevant to you.

 

[iguanaman]

You should read the statement. So what if some or even most legal experts guessed the supreme court would deny on standing. The point of the post is one deserves a day in court, by denying this popular, well drafted “Hail Mary” on standing verses the merits the supreme court participates in the erosion of faith in the "rule of law".


LOL, do you know the difference between a procedural dismissal and a ruling on the merits?

Now, think hard why might that be relevant to my point about erosion of faith in the law and how there is more importance in having one's day in court rather than a positive legal outcome...


I respect in this day and age you choose to vet information before wasting your time reading it.
That crowdsource platform however sources everything to a primary source with fair indication of the reliability from 'circumstantial claim' to 'requires serious explanation' . You're basically telling me, why are you citing a wikipedia article?

You're free to explore the link or not. The reality is fraud is very much suspected by a good number of people for a wide variety of reasons.My statement that historically this will be viewed as fraudulent is almost assured. There remains a lot of unanswered acquisitions and anomalies (such as outlined at the link and touch upon in my point 3). People in the positions to do so, are choosing not to investigate these. That is only ever interpreted one-way: confession of fraud.


We agree Biden will be president next year. So obviously there isn't proof to that level. Myself viewing him as having won by cheat and getting away with it and you having legitimately won are but two movies one screen. This idea though there is 'absolutely no proof whatsoever' is absurd. I told you clearly what I would need to agree, right there in my point. I am statistical person, so for me, when I see suspect voting patterns (similar demographic/geographic area with vastly different voting patterns) and frozen votes as some counties wait for others results(you should at minimum know how many votes are left); I take a closer look. What I find here, is in absentee voting, average rejection rate in key states where you'd expect 2-5% you instead find impossibility low <1% rates with margins of victory of averaging 0.28%. In other words, because this is so significant I'd expect independent signature match verification to be a given. You know the one check on fraud for absentee ballots. It's very common! It's bipartisan. It's best practice.
That's not what we saw. This at every turn has been prevented. And that to me and I guarantee you historically is why this is be considered confession of fraud.

Do you know how much more flimsy an un-investigated suspicion has turn an election to be known as fraudulent? Are you really so confident those signatures will never be matched (with the real rejection rate revealed) even once Biden is president?


There is almost no chance. It will historically be known as a stolen election. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of conflicting-views of history and how these conclusions are derived.


Actually agreed, the blame will most certainly be on the Republican Party. You can't predict election fraud (as was the case here) then do nothing meaningful to prevent it and come up smelling of roses.

But the one term mistake DID predict election fraud when he told you that if he lost the election it would be because it was fraudulent. You might as well face it, that statement was the only reason you think there was cheating. Mr. One and done never lies right? There is no other reason and that is the truth. When our appointed experts tell you that it was the most secure election in our history you can take that to the bank. Trump was CRUSHED by Biden, he won the largest % of the vote since FDR.

 

[Geoist]

That's 2016 and the Russian conspiracy nonsense...

Hardly nonsense when Trump literally begged Russia on camera to hack his political opponents (and they did that day). If the GOP had any dignity they could've dropped Trump like a hot potato.

I know people who think Trump is still secretly winning. Obviously some will always believe.
I am not talking about them in their echo chambers and secret insights. I am telling you, it will be plainly stated in the history books.

What will be plainly stated in the history books was the MAGA movement was a cult and their cult leader attempted to overthrow democracy in 2020..

 

[Conaeolos]

No, dude. It wasn't popular, it was poorly written, and it had no merit whatsoever.

Why lie to yourself? It's obviously popular. You think AGs jump onto every Sidney Powell/Lin Wood lawsuit....

"Standing" was not an excuse, it was a core part of Texas' claim. They were literally saying that Texas had the right to order other states how to manage their Presidential elections. Texas' claim was a blatant violation of the Constitution.

No, it doesn't. Where do you get your legal analysis...

No, it isn't. It's just BS to snow Trump's voters. And no, your website doesn't prove anything.

Dude, seriously you should be embarrassed. Read any election case from anywhere in the last two years and compare and contrast the 'reasonable suspicion' evidence to what exists here.

And agreed my website doesn't prove anything. It's essentially a wikipedia to primary sourced suspicions claims.
The point of reference is to show the high degree of issues to resolve and why courts should be hearing these cases.

...are all in on it and faked millions of votes...

??? Did you even read my post at all? That's not my claim in the slightest. Absolutely none of those people had to be 'in' on it.
Do you think stolen elections are uncommon? They happen and have a nature, which have particular red flags.
2020 had all the red flags.
Does that mean 2020 was fraudulent? No.
If institutions however ignore those red flags, the election will be regarded as such in the long term? Most certainly.

while not bothering to fake down-ballot votes, or win North Carolina, or Florida

LOL, if yo bother to educate yourself on historic election fraud you'd find out that skipping the down ballot is actually a red flag for fraud. It's not a very usual pattern to vote only for a candidate but not anyone/anything else.

-- without a SINGLE EMAIL, SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER with instructions on it, OR A SINGLE PERSON getting caught, letting the plan slip, or snitching;

LOL, oh that's good.... who told you that?

 

[Conaeolos]

Trump lost.

If you bother to read, you'd know I agree. You can win by cheating. It's not unheard of...

Good grief. No, there's no evidence for this garbage either, and signatures were properly validated.

That's claimed. Of course, what never happen was an independent signature audit as is common and best practice. What we know is the current rejection rate is extremely improbable, perhaps even impossible. You can just lie if you want though....you seem to like your pleasant fictions.

Make no mistake, 2020 will be recognized as the year Republicans completely separated from reality.

Or the trigger of its collapse....Republicans didn't get wronged in 2020. Trump and the 'deplorables' were the target for disenfranchisement. I don't know if you missed the last 5 years, but Trump's MAGA is popular with a lot of non-republicans.Republicans and trump have an uneasy alliance. The political establishment still despises the man and his base.

We will not let you, or your crybaby sore-loser candidate, dump the past 4 years down the Memory Hole.

LOL, I wonder will you at least admit to yourself without mass mail-in voting, Trumpism would have won another 4 years without any question?

So call it cheating, call it divine intervention, but make no mistake Trumpism ain't going in the memory hole for anyone.

The Constitution explicitly stipulates that each state decides its own method for selecting electors. The Texas lawsuit that you tout blatantly violates that core concept. Claiming otherwise is foolish.

Ignoring of course, it also explicitly states a legal manner of which those states almost certainly violated.
I am sure though it's no issue to you, that a state can violate the Constitution and no other state have fair remedy.

Please.

You'd be saying the exact same things if the SCOTUS had heard the case.

You mean I would still say it was a bad ruling? Maybe. That's called an opinion.
But, again different damages. This is worst choice by far.

Are you saying they are all too incompetent to have actually detected, let alone stopped, millions of "fraudulent" votes?

I'd say compromised not incompetent. I'll be honest though, this has hurt my faith in the process. And sorry, but such things shouldn't be so shocking to you. Stolen elections are not a new concept. It just sad, we've become so complacent as to address the underlying issues here. And at this point let's be fair. Those alone can be one only real hope in a silver linning.

Yaay, more projection! When we actually watch a narcissistic authoritarian goon try to shred our entire electoral system, of course you start blaming the injuries to democracy on your political rivals.

Going to court and screaming on twitter is your 'narcissistic authoritarian goon'. LOL

Oh dear, what modern day orthodox liberalism has become...

Hello? The over-political SCOTUS is 6-3 in favor of conservatives. And even they couldn't find a valid excuse to pretend that it was anything other than a deeply unserious filing.

I love how you're so deep in your own fiction you've retorted with a breakdown of the very politicalization I indite.

Good grief. Where do you think you are? North Korea?

Yes, it's no big deal. Foundational ideas like a god-given rights to peacefully assemble are being legally taken away in the majority of western democracies because a flu-like scary virus, but nothing to fear. Elections have more and more characteristics of tin pot dictatorships where observers are ejected and blocked, millions of votes appear in the middle of the night, counting stops & independent audits are blocked, but nothing to fear. The president family openly collects millions of dollar from foreign interests for overtly political reasons.

You're right though, America is better than Canada which is better than North Korea. So yay me I am not in the worse country. Democracy may well be dying, but Biden is not Hitler. In fact I wish him well and have hope in some of his policies. [/QUOTE]

 

[Conaeolos]

Hardly nonsense when Trump literally begged Russia on camera to hack his political opponents (and they did that day). If the GOP had any dignity they could've dropped Trump like a hot potato.

And my proof is Biden is on camera admitting to fraud.
Why didn't you start with you still believe that crazy Russia non-sense!

God, I still can't even understand how you guys get past the smell test.

How did Russia steal votes?
The facebook posts...(check the Facebook posts)...ummmmmm
The CIA wrote a paper on the influence of RT....(checks coverage by RT)...ummmmmm
The muller investigation....(checks facts, with all relevant fact discovered now dismissed)...ummmmm

What will be plainly stated in the history books was the MAGA movement was a cult and their cult leader attempted to overthrow democracy in 2020..

People have said that about almost every populist for years. It never ages well, but you'd need to read some contrasting accounts of history to know that. My bet, Trump is the Marius and you my silly little friend backed the faction that inspires Caesar.