The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden.

[Lursa]

Yes, law making by EO is fundamentally unconstitutional. If that form of state government is desired then get rid of the state legislature (by constitutional amendment) and let the executive (and/or their assigns) make the laws.

If nothing else, it would make it very apparent who to hold personally responsible for any given problem. It might also make recall petitions and special elections become more common bringing us closer to a democracy.

Fine...right now many states I'm sure are examining this process and other election processes and procedures.

None of them are or should be retroactive. Again...the states all had the opportunity to file challenges BEFORE deadlines.

That is also a law...should that law be ignored as well? The WI conservative justice addressed it pretty well:, and the WI suit was exactly the same as the TX suit against WI:

Note the "conservative" WI supreme court justice's opinion:​

​

conservative swing Justice Brian Hagedorn who said three of Trump's four claims were filed too late and the other was without merit. The ruling ends Trump's legal challenges in state court.​

​

Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he should not have waited until his election loss was announced to raise his complaints.​

​

“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,” Hagedorn wrote. “The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”​

​

Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.​

​

“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,” Dallet and Karofksy said. “No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.”​

​

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul called the ruling “a repudiation of a sordid attempt to steal the authority to award our electoral votes away from the people of Wisconsin. The will of the people has prevailed."​

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state

abcnews.go.com

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh, is that what you think you're doing?

Repeatedly saying to everyone, "I don't care what you think" and "that's just your opinion" isn't much an argument.

Is it really that unreasonable to expect you to post an argument supported by facts?

you can expect whatever you want.

a) How does anyone rebut an argument you've never made?

You don't. There is nothing to rebut. Silly question.

b) If your intention is to frustrate people instead of engaging in an actual political discussion then you really aren't abiding by the terms of service of this website, are you?

All I'm doing is stating that you're insistence is not fact. If you choose to be frustrated because people don't accept your insistence as fact that's a you problem and thus no I'm not violating the terms of service. if you still think I am feel free to report me.

It's funny to frustrate people who can't prove the claims they make I would hope you would learn not to make it claims that you can't support I did. I'll offer you a little advice that helped me don't get frustrated get smarter.

 

[Lursa]

For me it's that I'm not pretty, never leave the house, and I spent over half my life with the right woman and no one will ever be able to fill the spot in my soul that died the day she did...

 

[Lursa]

Correct. This matter is not in the dominion of the SCOTUS. Trump filed just about every lawsuit he could have filed in the various states and lost just about every one. The matter of fraud in the election has been litigated. Trump failed to produce evidence that consequential fraud existed. Logically, we get to assume the election was a clean one, absent consequential fraud. The electors are voting. The electors is Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan as of this writing have voted for Biden. The 2020 election is in the books.

Feel free to take this fact-free fantasy about election being stolen from Trump down to conspiracy theories to be argued next to 911 Was an Inside Job......

I saw that, the bold, on CNN. Excellent news!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fine...right now many states I'm sure are examining this process and other election processes and procedures.

None of them are or should be retroactive. Again...the states all had the opportunity to file challenges BEFORE deadlines.

That is also a law...should that law be ignored as well? The WI conservative justice addressed it pretty well:, and the WI suit was exactly the same as the TX suit against WI:

Note the "conservative" WI supreme court justice's opinion:​

​

conservative swing Justice Brian Hagedorn who said three of Trump's four claims were filed too late and the other was without merit. The ruling ends Trump's legal challenges in state court.​

​

Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he should not have waited until his election loss was announced to raise his complaints.​

​

“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,” Hagedorn wrote. “The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”​

​

Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.​

​

“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,” Dallet and Karofksy said. “No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.”​

​

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul called the ruling “a repudiation of a sordid attempt to steal the authority to award our electoral votes away from the people of Wisconsin. The will of the people has prevailed."​

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state

abcnews.go.com

Hmm... saying that Trump filed too late (to make reasonable amends?) is not the same as saying that Trump lacked standing to file suit at all. If anything, the court was signaling that making executive or judicial changes to state election laws, rules or procedures is best done closer to election time.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It's funny to frustrate people who can't prove the claims they make I would hope you would learn not to make it claims that you can't support I did.

1. Can you support your claims that the election was rigged?

2. If you can, why haven't you?

3. Why do you think it is everyone else's obligation to disprove your claims? Why do you think you have no obligation to support your arguments with supporting evidence or references of some kind?

you can expect whatever you want.

So, my question to you is this: is it unreasonable for me or anyone else to expect you to support your argument?

All I'm doing is stating that you're insistence is not fact.

This is not true. You put forward the argument that the election was rigged.

You did this multiple times and then you refused to back up your claim with any supporting reference or citations to any evidence, and then you demanded in various ways that everyone else is obligated to disprove your ideas. If your goal is to persuade others that your argument is correct you failed. It's not anyone else's problem that you are too lazy to support your argument. That's your problem. However, if your goal is to be annoying, well, congrats you succeeded at being very annoying.

Here are some of the times in this thread you put forward the argument that the election was rigged:

Are you denying that Pennsylvania Wisconsin and Michigan had mail in ballots? That as far as judges rejecting cases, they can be biased even if they were appointed by Trump. You people were screaming about that when kavanaugh and Barrett were nominated? Did you forget that?

And then this:

Oh so you think Supreme Court justices are infallible? I would disagree.

And then this:

You can pretend that this rigged election was fair I simply don't share that fantasy.

And then this:

Fake majorities.

And then this:

Calling for a rigged election to be overturned.

And then this:

Why do you think the only way to rig an election is fraud? If you guys didn't just focus on such a specific thing to the exclusion of all of their possibilities you wouldn't be so discredited.

This is the quote that I find most curious. It seems that you are insisting that the election was rigged somehow, but not necessarily through the use of fraud.

You refused to elaborate.

It seems like the only things you are willing to discuss involve telling everyone else they are idiots for not disproving ideas you have unsuccessfully explained. That seems like a really strange way to frame a discussion. I suppose it's an easy to win every argument, but what have you won except for everyone's irritation? You have succeeded in nothing except being annoying.

 

[CLAX1911]

1. Can you support your claims that the election was rigged?

If you want to dismiss it be my guest.

2. If you can, why haven't you?

I don't play that game.

3. Why do you think it is everyone else's obligation to disprove your claims?

I don't, I actually just told you you can dismiss it if you wish.

Why do you think you have no obligation to support your arguments with supporting evidence or references of some kind?

because I'm not obligated to. If I am come arrest me.

So, my question to you is this: is it unreasonable for me or anyone else to expect you to support your argument?

you or anybody else can expect anything you want. I'm not obliged to acquiesce to your expectations.

This is not true. You put forward the argument that the election was rigged.

you have to make up your mind is it a claim or is it an argument?

You did this multiple times and then you refused to back up your claim with any supporting reference or citations to any evidence, and then you demanded in various ways that everyone else is obligated to disprove your ideas.

I've been doing online debates for about a decade. I started with arguing with Christians. The only reason they were so persistent to get what I used to support my position was so they could try and debunk it. See there isn't room for beliefs that you disagree with.

This discussion and you are no different.

If your goal is to persuade others that your argument is correct you failed.

the effort and skill it takes to persuade others that aren't already among your persuasion are extremely Keen, and they take years to develop. And often times the people you wish to persuade simply will not be persuaded.

So my purpose here is never to persuade anybody I don't practice that particular brand of evangelism it's a fool's errand.

It's not anyone else's problem that you are too lazy to support your argument.

this is bait and it doesn't work on me. I don't play the game the same way you do.

That's your problem. However, if your goal is to be annoying, well, congrats you succeeded at being very annoying.

I can't possibly be annoying without you choosing to be annoyed. Thanks for giving me control over your mood.

Here are some of the times in this thread you put forward the argument that the election was rigged:



And then this:



And then this:



And then this:




And then this:



And then this:

And that just sticks right in your craw doesn't it?

This is the quote that I find most curious. It seems that you are insisting that the election was rigged somehow, but not necessarily through the use of fraud.

There are ways to rig an election without defrauding it. If you don't think so I'm sorry you're so narrow minded

You refused to elaborate.

I shouldn't need to.

It seems like the only things you are willing to discuss involve telling everyone else they are idiots for not disproving ideas you have unsuccessfully explained.

I never told anybody they were idiots I never even implied that.

You're frustration is of your own making.

That seems like a really strange way to frame a discussion.

you keep trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I absolutely will not play the role you want me to. So if you want to have an amicable discussion you have to stop trying to dominate me I will not allow it.

I think that's why you're frustrated so if you want to approach the discussion as though we're too people having a mutual discussion to mutual benefit I will give you a chance in fact I will give you infinite chances. But if you want me to lay things out for you so that you can then just deny them and say I'm crazy for believing them I'm not going to give you the time of day.

I suppose it's an easy to win every argument,

I don't try to win arguments I don't care about winning arguments they don't even know what winning an argument means. is though it's some sort of mildly more sophisticated game of tic-tac-toe I grew out of that shit in my teens. If you want to play that game go find someone else.

but what have you won except for everyone's irritation? You have succeeded in nothing except being annoying.

Again if you choose to be annoyed but it's not something I did you need to look in the mirror.

If you find me really annoying you don't have to read my posts or respond to me.

 

[devildavid]

And did nothing at all to keep it

No, daddy bailed him out when he failed. And the rest is nothing but lying and cheating and multiple bankruptcies.

 

[devildavid]

He doesn't forget who he is where he is and what year it is.

Who does that?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I don't play that game.

I think it's obvious by now that you refuse to do any work to support your argument with facts, references, citations, etc.

I don't, I actually just told you you can dismiss it if you wish. because I'm not obligated to. If I am come arrest me.

you or anybody else can expect anything you want. I'm not obliged to acquiesce to your expectations.

It all depends on what you want to accomplish, but if you want to persuade others that your opinion should be adopted then you will have to change your strategy.

I've been doing online debates for about a decade.

Hrmm. Really? I find that hard to believe. It sort of seems like you started yesterday.

So my purpose here is never to persuade anybody

That is pretty clear at this point.

this is bait and it doesn't work on me. I don't play the game the same way you do.

I can see that. And let's be clear what that means. You don't want to do the work to support your arguments.

You're frustration is of your own making

And that just sticks right in your craw doesn't it?

Not really, but yes, I admit your behavior is annoying. At the same time, I recognize it's perfectly normal to feel a little irritated when someone else acts in an irritating fashion. My reaction to your abnormal behavior is perfectly normal.

There are ways to rig an election without defrauding it. If you don't think so I'm sorry you're so narrow minded I shouldn't need to. I never told anybody they were idiots I never even implied that.

Okay, so now this is where the rubber meets the road. What in the hell are you talking about? Why do you want to interact with this thread without actually contributing to it? What is your argument? I have no idea what you're trying to write here. Why do you think it's everyone else's job to guess?

If you have something to say why don't you want to say it?

What do you mean by rigging an election without fraud? Be specific. What do you think happened? And why do you still refuse to acknowledge Biden will be your next President?

you keep trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I absolutely will not play the role you want me to. So if you want to have an amicable discussion you have to stop trying to dominate me I will not allow it.

I am not trying to dominate you. Asking you to do the bare minimum on a discussion forum, where the main activity is to debate other people, is not trying to dominate you, it's just asking you to participate in a debate on a political discussion forum. And if you don't want to do that. Why are you here?

I don't know why we have to argue about arguing before we argue. Just spit it out. What's your argument? What facts support your argument?

I think that's why you're frustrated so if you want to approach the discussion as though we're too people having a mutual discussion to mutual benefit I will give you a chance in fact I will give you infinite chances. But if you want me to lay things out for you so that you can then just deny them and say I'm crazy for believing them I'm not going to give you the time of day.

I'm just asking you to describe your argument, and then support it with facts and evidence. It's not more complicated than that.

And, no, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. That's your choice. But if you don't, why are you responding to this thread?

I don't try to win arguments I don't care about winning arguments they don't even know what winning an argument means. is though it's some sort of mildly more sophisticated game of tic-tac-toe I grew out of that shit in my teens. If you want to play that game go find someone else.

Oh, really? It sort of looks like you still put your feet on the table.

 

[devildavid]

Exercising rights is acting like Hitler? I guess all Americans are Nazis.

No, undermining the democratic process without good cause is doing that. Blind Trump followers are like Nazis.

 

[devildavid]

I think it's obvious by now that you refuse to do any work to support your argument with facts, references, citations, etc.





It all depends on what you want to accomplish, but if you want to persuade others that your opinion should be adopted then you will have to change your strategy.



Hrmm. Really? I find that hard to believe. It sort of seems like you started yesterday.



That is pretty clear at this point.



I can see that. And let's be clear what that means. You don't want to do the work to support your arguments.





Not really, but yes, I admit your behavior is annoying. At the same time, I recognize it's perfectly normal to feel a little irritated when someone else acts in an irritating fashion. My reaction to your abnormal behavior is perfectly normal.



Okay, so now this is where the rubber meets the road. What in the hell are you talking about? Why do you want to interact with this thread without actually contributing to it? What is your argument? I have no idea what you're trying to write here. Why do you think it's everyone else's job to guess?

If you have something to say why don't you want to say it?

What do you mean by rigging an election without fraud? Be specific. What do you think happened? And why do you still refuse to acknowledge Biden will be your next President?



I am not trying to dominate you. Asking you to do the bare minimum is not trying to dominate you, it's just asking you to participate in a debate on a political discussion forum. And if you don't want to do that. Why are you here? I am just trying to convince you that if you want to have a good, amicable discussion -- as you've just indicated is a worthwhile goal -- you're going to need to describe your argument, and then you're going to need to support your argument. It's not more complicated than that. And I don't know why we have to argue about arguing before we argue. Just spit it out. What's your argument? What facts support your argument?



I'm just asking you to describe your argument, and then support it with facts and evidence. It's not more complicated than that.

And, no, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. That's your choice. But if you don't, why are you responding to this thread?



Oh, really? It sort of looks like you still put your feet on the table.

I have asked him the same question with no good answer except that he is allowed to post here without actually engaging in debate. Go figure. Some people live to annoy.

 

[devildavid]

If I did you wouldn't accept it. You can see it for yourself.

So you can't. You don't even know what cognitive dissonance means, do you?

 

[CLAX1911]

No, daddy bailed him out when he failed. And the rest is nothing but lying and cheating and multiple bankruptcies.

How many bankruptcies have you survived and then went on to be elected president?

 

[CLAX1911]

So you can't. You don't even know what cognitive dissonance means, do you?

yes I know you're cognitive dissonances you're saying what I said was cognitive dissonance then you don't know what it means.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, undermining the democratic process without good cause is doing that. Blind Trump followers are like Nazis.

Rigging an election is undermining the Democratic process. Blind mainstream media followers are like sheep.

 

[devildavid]

yes I know you're cognitive dissonances you're saying what I said was cognitive dissonance then you don't know what it means.

Can you rephrase that coherently, please? And tell me what cognitive dissonance means.

 

[devildavid]

Rigging an election is undermining the Democratic process. Blind mainstream media followers are like sheep.

The election was not rigged. So there's that.

 

[devildavid]

How many bankruptcies have you survived and then went on to be elected president?

What does that have to do with Trump's failures as a businessman and inability to make money without help from daddy?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Rigging an election is undermining the Democratic process.

Have you joined Trumps legal team to prove it if you're so sure?

He could certainly use a hand considering he lost every single case and had no evidence.

Neither do you.

I don't know why you guys are so compelled to lie for him, but it's really pathetic at this point.

 

[pamak]

So, the conservative Trump Wee Wee sucking court rage that liberals exhibited a month ago is all gone now?

Nothing is gone!

The fact that they resisted Trump's call to overthrow a legitimate election does not make the judges more "liberal." if this is how you see it, it shows that you equate conservatism with dictactorship.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think it's obvious by now that you refuse to do any work to support your argument with facts, references, citations, etc.

I don't know why it doesn't sink in. I've told you multiple times I do not play that game if you want to play that game go find someone else.

It all depends on what you want to accomplish, but if you want to persuade others that your opinion should be adopted then you will have to change your strategy.

again with this. I have already told you I do not post here to persuade others. most people who post here already know what they think and can't be persuaded you argue for ego's sake. Again I've been doing this for about a decade. I've seen most things.

Hrmm. Really? I find that hard to believe. It sort of seems like you started yesterday.

Because I refuse to play your game?

That is pretty clear at this point.

Imagine that, after I tell you something it becomes clear. You aren't here to be persuaded. You're here to prove that you're right.

Again I've been doing this a long time and I've come across people exactly like you hundreds of times.

I can see that. And let's be clear what that means. You don't want to do the work to support your arguments.

With you, I can't you've already made up your mind. I don't waste my time and effort trying to persuade the unpersuadable.

Not really, but yes, I admit your behavior is annoying. At the same time, I recognize it's perfectly normal to feel a little irritated when someone else acts in an irritating fashion. My reaction to your abnormal behavior is perfectly normal.

Again you are blaming me for your emotions.

If you're irritated because I have told you multiple times I absolutely will not play your game with you, you have only yourself to blame for insisting that I must. I will not.

Okay, so now this is where the rubber meets the road. What in the hell are you talking about? Why do you want to interact with this thread without actually contributing to it?

Why do you want to interact with me if I'm so very annoying and irritating to you?

Wait I'm going to guess, the idea that the election was rigged causes you some existential angst and you desperately want to know why I think that it was so you can deny it.

Did I guess correctly? No need to answer I already know.

What is your argument? I have no idea what you're trying to write here. Why do you think it's everyone else's job to guess?

I don't think it is anybody else's job to guess. You responded to me. You took on the job. You can quit any time

If you have something to say why don't you want to say it?

I already have, I'll say it again right now.

The election was rigged, Biden isn't a legitimate president and he never will be.

What do you mean by rigging an election without fraud? Be specific.

No.

What do you think happened? And why do you still refuse to acknowledge Biden will be your next President?

The election was rigged, I recognize that Biden might be the next president he's just illegitimate.

I am not trying to dominate you.

Right, you're trying to dominate the topic. That's why you are so desperate to get me to support my views.

I've been through this enough times to know better.

Asking you to do the bare minimum on a discussion forum, where the main activity is to debate other people, is not trying to dominate you, it's just asking you to participate in a debate on a political discussion forum. And if you don't want to do that. Why are you here?

I am participating in debate I'm just not playing by the rules you think I should.

Think of it like tic tac toe.

I don't know why we have to argue about arguing before we argue. Just spit it out. What's your argument? What facts support your argument?

I've restated my argument above. You should know it by now. Facts that I'm not interested in divulging, I'm not interested in hearing your explaination of why they don't mean what they mean.

I'm just asking you to describe your argument, and then support it with facts and evidence. It's not more complicated than that.

Not complicated at all, I have described my argument, and I'm not interested in supporting it.

And, no, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. That's your choice. But if you don't, why are you responding to this thread?

I've got my reasons.

Oh, really? It sort of looks like you still put your feet on the table.

Well in all fairness I was 17 in that picture. That was 20 years ago

 

[CLAX1911]

Have you joined Trumps legal team to prove it if you're so sure?

He could certainly use a hand considering he lost every single case and had no evidence.

Neither do you.

I don't know why you guys are so compelled to lie for him, but it's really pathetic at this point.

I don't know why you're compelled to think that everything you don't like is a lie kind of a culty thing to do.

But the election was rigged you know what I know it everyone knows it we were just lying to yourself.

Biting will never be a little legitimate president your victory is hollow that's what it really is isn't it that we're not giving you the satisfaction.

 

[CLAX1911]

Can you rephrase that coherently, please? And tell me what cognitive dissonance means.

I apologize that was a bit poorly worded.

Yes I know it cognitive dissonance is if you need to be told what it means I suggest you look in the dictionary that's a good place to start

 

[Jetboogieman]

I don't know why you're compelled to think that everything you don't like is a lie kind of a culty thing to do.

But the election was rigged you know what I know it everyone knows it we were just lying to yourself.

Biting will never be a little legitimate president your victory is hollow that's what it really is isn't it that we're not giving you the satisfaction.

Petulant, juvenile lies from a bizarro, self deluded, fictional world you have created for yourself.