Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Largo

Well-known member
No, your post, and your point, was literally about race.

You brought race into this one. You just accused the right of only caring About state rights if it's the right to abuse brown people. Or if you want to pick hairs, you insinuated as much without directly claiming. Either way, it was you who played the race card, don't act surprised when people respond to it.
The point was about state's rights, but you'd rather jump on the race card because this lets you avoid talking about state's rights and how this lawsuit is a massive violation of the ideal. Which as I noted, bolsters the claims made by the left that conservatives don't actually give a shit about state's rights even if they claim to.

If I had said "the right doesn't actually give a shit about state's rights unless it's being used to fatten the pockets of the wealthy," it would have been the same argument. The Left however generally makes the charge that the conservative obsession with state's right is a secret tool for racial oppression as opposed to helping the rich.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
The point was about state's rights, but you'd rather jump on the race card because this lets you avoid talking about state's rights and how this lawsuit is a massive violation of the ideal. Which as I noted, bolsters the claims made by the left that conservatives don't actually give a shit about state's rights even if they claim to.

If I had said "the right doesn't actually give a shit about state's rights unless it's being used to fatten the pockets of the wealthy," it would have been the same argument. The Left however generally makes the charge that the conservative obsession with state's right is a secret tool for racial oppression as opposed to helping the rich.
Yes, the left claims "state rights" is a secret tool for racial oppression.

You just said that the people you were talking to make it hard to argue against that, when they weren't even previously talking about race.

That is claiming that they only care about state rights as a tool for racial oppression.

You just went way off subject, and out of no where, called them racists instead of addressing THEIR points. Then you have the audacity to whinge and bleat about them ignoring your point when they call you out on it. Oh please. What did you expect was going to happen?

The intent behind your post was to insult people. We all can read, we all have the context.

Perhaps apologies for calling them racists are in order?
 

Vaermina

Well-known member
Under the established precedents, the federal government might have a viable case for standing (even that is not guaranteed); other state governments do not, regardless of whether it was legislative action or executive action within the defendant state. States do not answer to each other under pretty much any circumstances other than equal faith and credit.
Actually the Texas suite explains how and why they have standing here.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Actually the Texas suite explains how and why they have standing here.

The Texas suit offers their argument for standing; that does not mean SCOTUS will accept their logic, especially since Delaware used pretty much the exact same argument in 1966 when it tried to seek SCOTUS intervention against other states adopting "winner takes all" electoral voting, and SCOTUS no-sold it.
 

Vaermina

Well-known member
The Texas suit offers their argument for standing; that does not mean SCOTUS will accept their logic, especially since Delaware used pretty much the exact same argument in 1966 when it tried to seek SCOTUS intervention against other states adopting "winner takes all" electoral voting, and SCOTUS no-sold it.
The Bush case used as justification didn't exist in 1966.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
The Bush case used as justification didn't exist in 1966.

That makes the argument somewhat stronger, true, but it still means that success is by no means guaranteed. SCOTUS is very, very strict on original jurisdiction cases, except for the one-man minority of Clarence Thomas who has previously declared that he believes that SCOTUS is constitutionally required to accept every original jurisdiction case with no discretion whatsoever.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member


We've got 106 House members in favor of the Texas Lawsuit, among other things.

The size of the cheer leading team does not, and should not be any kind of factor in a court case. There was other more explicit posts made before, that the cheerleading squad size does matter because public opinion can pressure courts to take a case and "seriously consider" it. It sounds like the kind of revolutionary drivel that presaged Robespierre.

When the "law & order" party believes courts should be governed by the will of the people rather than law, when the "states rights" party are celebrating state on state legal action to reduce those rights, when the "freedom of expression" crowd is baying for blood over politicians making statements that could uncharitable be interpreted as calls for violence or persecution whilst ignoring very similar messaging from their favourite president...

Well, actions speak louder than words, and the actions don't line up with the high minded ideals their words support. Sad.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
So, Megadeath, what should happen when several states violate the Constitution? Disregard what it says to do as they wish? The Constitution states a state's legislature is final authority on how an election shall be held but this was not the case in at least four states. Judges and governors gave orders which is against the Constitution. So what should happen?
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
The size of the cheer leading team does not, and should not be any kind of factor in a court case. There was other more explicit posts made before, that the cheerleading squad size does matter because public opinion can pressure courts to take a case and "seriously consider" it. It sounds like the kind of revolutionary drivel that presaged Robespierre.

When the "law & order" party believes courts should be governed by the will of the people rather than law, when the "states rights" party are celebrating state on state legal action to reduce those rights, when the "freedom of expression" crowd is baying for blood over politicians making statements that could uncharitable be interpreted as calls for violence or persecution whilst ignoring very similar messaging from their favourite president...

Well, actions speak louder than words, and the actions don't line up with the high minded ideals their words support. Sad.

You are quite clearly projecting, sad. It is perfectly in character for a law and order party to wish to overturn a potentially unlawful election. And really, this obviously isn't anything you said. And all you show is your hypocrisy, you try to nail us on supposed behavior that your side is 100% guilty of. As I said, projection, very obvious, much sad.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
So, Megadeath, what should happen when several states violate the Constitution? Disregard what it says to do as they wish? The Constitution states a state's legislature is final authority on how an election shall be held but this was not the case in at least four states. Judges and governors gave orders which is against the Constitution. So what should happen?
If there was a belief that a change violated the constitution, it should have been acted on immediately. If the state executive has usurped power reserved for the state legislature, then it should be that state legislature taking that action. The remedial action taken should never be such that millions of voters are disenfranchised, in violation of that states own law.

You are quite clearly projecting, sad. It is perfectly in character for a law and order party to wish to overturn a potentially unlawful election. And really, this obviously isn't anything you said. And all you show is your hypocrisy, you try to nail us on supposed behavior that your side is 100% guilty of. As I said, projection, very obvious, much sad.
Uh huh, except once again, talk of "your side" is misguided. I'm not a Democrat or even an American. Nor do people have such simplistic views that some kind of two side split is meaningful. There's plenty of people on the left I object to and disagree with, and though I probably do swing slightly more left on more of the hot topic domestic issues, there's others where I swing far to the right.

Regardless, if your only response to criticism of an issue is ad hominem deflection it makes it look like either you have nothing valid and useful to say, or you're more interested in garnering imaginary points for "your side."
 

Greengrass

Well-known member
As I expected, the Supreme Court denied the Texas case due to lack of standing.

image.png


Thomas and Alito, as usual, would have granted leave to file because they basically always say that they think the Supreme Court has to take any cases that claim to be state-to-state, but don't say anything about the merits or mootness (though the "would not grant other relief" suggests they also agree the claimed "facts" of the case are nonsense)
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
I'm genuinely curious if they find enough fraud to show that the election for these states were stolen. Like, will other states be obliged to check their records? Will they refuse?

If the accusation that the Maricopa county's officials deleted the election database, is that grounds enough to look further into it? Can they be arrested for that? Aren't election results supposed to be retained just in case? Everything about this is hilariously more suspicious by the moment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top