Best Case Scenario

[Care4all]

Simple explanation of the TX lawsuit:

The Texas case is strictly about the Constitution. The states being sued violated the Constitution with rule changes not being legislated into law. Since Texas ( and the joining states) did follow the Constitution, then the voters in these states were disenfranchised, by the states who did not follow the Constitution

I think it will be nixed. i

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

You can always hope. Gore/Bush was a prime example of what the SC can do.

Except Bush v Gore was about the inclusion of a small number of contested votes in one state. Not the systematic discarding of millions of legitimate ballots over six states...designed to change the outcome of the election.

The Texas case is strictly about the Constitution. The states being sued violated the Constitution with rule changes not being legislated into law. Since Texas ( and the joining states) did follow the Constitution, then the voters in these states were disenfranchised, by the states who did not follow the Constitution

Pretty cut and dried there buddy.
[/QUOTE]
their state supreme courts, claim they did not.

Texas has no standing because they were not harmed.

 

[hadit]

Best case scenario

Republicans boycott the Georgia Senate elections because they think voting is corrupt.
Dems take the two seats giving them 50 with Kamala Harris the deciding vote.
Dems abandon the filibuster and reign terror on Republicans

"Best case" for partisan idiots, horrible for the country.

 

[candycorn]

Amazing. If you want to know look it up yourself. Its on another thread on the board. Lazy ass.

Its amazing that your sorry ass reflexively agrees with whatever someone says when you don't have any idea what they are talking about. If you had any sense of self worth, you wouldn't be such a lap dog.

 

[candycorn]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

 

[bendog]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

 

[candycorn]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

Well, unless he changes his tune, Trump is not going to attract new supporters. And he repelled enough of his soft supporters to lose five states that he won in 2016. So....I have no worry about Trump running if Joe takes care of business. I have major worries that he will take care of business.

So far, his cabinet appointments seem to be same-old; same-old. John Kerry? Really? What is he...80?

 

[bendog]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

Well, unless he changes his tune, Trump is not going to attract new supporters. And he repelled enough of his soft supporters to lose five states that he won in 2016. So....I have no worry about Trump running if Joe takes care of business. I have major worries that he will take care of business.

So far, his cabinet appointments seem to be same-old; same-old. John Kerry? Really? What is he...80?

It does seem Trump's gambit is pretty much zerosum. He's a known entity now. It's not like people will just say "what the hell, let's give Reagan a try …. he seems nuts but who knows." LOL

I don't know about the cabinet. Does it give clues about which way Biden leans? Maybe it's just that I'm getting old, and hoping my kid is getting settled, but the antipathy between citizens really does remind me of the Nixon years. Both Ford and Carter worked at … civility. But we spent over 3 TRILLION invading Iraq and probably another THREE Trillion on overseeing their civil war. We've lost or maimed probably 10000 Marines and GI's in Afghan.

And Analog Joe's initial leaning was for michele flournoy for Dod. She championed Hillary's advice to go into Afghan, which was NOT what Biden advised Obama to do. Now the progressives are mad Analog Joe picks an apolitical general. I understand we want civilian control over the military, but it seems to me the civilians haven't been too concerned with the military personnel over the past 20 years. Austin actually seems less dangerous than Flournoy, but I don't really know much of either. It's just that I really don't trust the progressives in the dem party.

 

[candycorn]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

Well, unless he changes his tune, Trump is not going to attract new supporters. And he repelled enough of his soft supporters to lose five states that he won in 2016. So....I have no worry about Trump running if Joe takes care of business. I have major worries that he will take care of business.

So far, his cabinet appointments seem to be same-old; same-old. John Kerry? Really? What is he...80?

It does seem Trump's gambit is pretty much zerosum. He's a known entity now. It's not like people will just say "what the hell, let's give Reagan a try …. he seems nuts but who knows." LOL

I don't know about the cabinet. Does it give clues about which way Biden leans? Maybe it's just that I'm getting old, and hoping my kid is getting settled, but the antipathy between citizens really does remind me of the Nixon years. Both Ford and Carter worked at … civility. But we spent over 3 TRILLION invading Iraq and probably another THREE Trillion on overseeing their civil war. We've lost or maimed probably 10000 Marines and GI's in Afghan.

And Analog Joe's initial leaning was for michele flournoy for Dod. She championed Hillary's advice to go into Afghan, which was NOT what Biden advised Obama to do. Now the progressives are mad Analog Joe picks an apolitical general. I understand we want civilian control over the military, but it seems to me the civilians haven't been too concerned with the military personnel over the past 20 years. Austin actually seems less dangerous than Flournoy, but I don't really know much of either. It's just that I really don't trust the progressives in the dem party.

Cabinet selections are not always a great indicator of much except for, I think, philosophies. Not in every area but in education, we need to essentially drop an A-Bomb on the entire system. I"m not sure who Joe's nominee will be but they will probably have 25+ years of doing it the old way. Very competent, very stable....and it will yield the same results we've had for 25 years.

 

[bendog]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

Well, unless he changes his tune, Trump is not going to attract new supporters. And he repelled enough of his soft supporters to lose five states that he won in 2016. So....I have no worry about Trump running if Joe takes care of business. I have major worries that he will take care of business.

So far, his cabinet appointments seem to be same-old; same-old. John Kerry? Really? What is he...80?

It does seem Trump's gambit is pretty much zerosum. He's a known entity now. It's not like people will just say "what the hell, let's give Reagan a try …. he seems nuts but who knows." LOL

I don't know about the cabinet. Does it give clues about which way Biden leans? Maybe it's just that I'm getting old, and hoping my kid is getting settled, but the antipathy between citizens really does remind me of the Nixon years. Both Ford and Carter worked at … civility. But we spent over 3 TRILLION invading Iraq and probably another THREE Trillion on overseeing their civil war. We've lost or maimed probably 10000 Marines and GI's in Afghan.

And Analog Joe's initial leaning was for michele flournoy for Dod. She championed Hillary's advice to go into Afghan, which was NOT what Biden advised Obama to do. Now the progressives are mad Analog Joe picks an apolitical general. I understand we want civilian control over the military, but it seems to me the civilians haven't been too concerned with the military personnel over the past 20 years. Austin actually seems less dangerous than Flournoy, but I don't really know much of either. It's just that I really don't trust the progressives in the dem party.

Cabinet selections are not always a great indicator of much except for, I think, philosophies. Not in every area but in education, we need to essentially drop an A-Bomb on the entire system. I"m not sure who Joe's nominee will be but they will probably have 25+ years of doing it the old way. Very competent, very stable....and it will yield the same results we've had for 25 years.

I'd settle for a little more of Slick than Obama on for policy and war as an adventure, and a little more than Obama could muster for actual economic populism, rather than Trump's embracing Moscow Mitch's tax cuts for the top .1%.

It seems to me that the Biden's picks on for policy are near and dear to his heart. Newly found conservatives who used to be neocons tend to "lie" about his record. He was no more wrong about Iraq than most dems, and he was right about Afghan. Yellen is solid on money. Biden's picks for more domestic positions seem more cosmetic. Aimed at satisfying democrats.

 

[22lcidw]

They're alleging that the states they are suing changed voting laws. Its exactly what Texas did. Which makes it so hilarious.

Even if they did change the laws, the remedy they are seeking......Invalidate all votes and throw it to the State Legislatures

Is an extreme reaction that the courts would NEVER endorse

Clearly. And the losers who keep bringing it up as if there was some sort of "Ah-HA!" moment know it too.

Trying to give the Very Stable Genius the benefit of every doubt, I remember Bannon early sold the not-a-student-of-history on the comparison between him and Andrew Jackson. And their are some, like being a racist sociopath, but Jackson basically raised himself after his family was killed and became a self-made man, and multi-millionaire by today's standards. But the sense of an election "being stolen." Jackson was denied a first term because the House picked JQAdams despite Jackson winning a plurality. The sense of grievance fueled the class warfare Jackson ran on and that defined Jackson's two terms.

But I don't see how this ignoring of facts really wins and election in 24. If Biden's term is a disaster, history shows the opposition party could run a fence post, or Romney, and win. But 40% at most might buy into Trump's "alternative facts" while the rest look on in some mixture of horror and disbelief at seeing the Republic abandon common sense.

Well, unless he changes his tune, Trump is not going to attract new supporters. And he repelled enough of his soft supporters to lose five states that he won in 2016. So....I have no worry about Trump running if Joe takes care of business. I have major worries that he will take care of business.

So far, his cabinet appointments seem to be same-old; same-old. John Kerry? Really? What is he...80?

It does seem Trump's gambit is pretty much zerosum. He's a known entity now. It's not like people will just say "what the hell, let's give Reagan a try …. he seems nuts but who knows." LOL

I don't know about the cabinet. Does it give clues about which way Biden leans? Maybe it's just that I'm getting old, and hoping my kid is getting settled, but the antipathy between citizens really does remind me of the Nixon years. Both Ford and Carter worked at … civility. But we spent over 3 TRILLION invading Iraq and probably another THREE Trillion on overseeing their civil war. We've lost or maimed probably 10000 Marines and GI's in Afghan.

And Analog Joe's initial leaning was for michele flournoy for Dod. She championed Hillary's advice to go into Afghan, which was NOT what Biden advised Obama to do. Now the progressives are mad Analog Joe picks an apolitical general. I understand we want civilian control over the military, but it seems to me the civilians haven't been too concerned with the military personnel over the past 20 years. Austin actually seems less dangerous than Flournoy, but I don't really know much of either. It's just that I really don't trust the progressives in the dem party.

Cabinet selections are not always a great indicator of much except for, I think, philosophies. Not in every area but in education, we need to essentially drop an A-Bomb on the entire system. I"m not sure who Joe's nominee will be but they will probably have 25+ years of doing it the old way. Very competent, very stable....and it will yield the same results we've had for 25 years.

I'd settle for a little more of Slick than Obama on for policy and war as an adventure, and a little more than Obama could muster for actual economic populism, rather than Trump's embracing Moscow Mitch's tax cuts for the top .1%.

It seems to me that the Biden's picks on for policy are near and dear to his heart. Newly found conservatives who used to be neocons tend to "lie" about his record. He was no more wrong about Iraq than most dems, and he was right about Afghan. Yellen is solid on money. Biden's picks for more domestic positions seem more cosmetic. Aimed at satisfying democrats.

You cheated....Cities must be destroyed. Vaporized...scorched earth.. You are the pestilence of human history. Locusts that live off the ants. Your shit does not stink as you are so self important. At least more people are aware now domestically. And you have outside force in China who is gunning for top gun.

 

[dblack]

The USSC rules that the 5 states broke the law.(which they did)
Those states have to revote with total supervision.
No mail-in ballots.
No counting in secrecy.
No late ballots.
No date changing.
No ballot real ballots thrown out.
No fake ballots counted.
Voter ID required.
Every ballot must have a real person who only voting once.

Uh..you are aware that the PA case was just kicked to the curb and today is Safe Harbor day...so, none of the above??

Trump lost. Biden won. Deal with it. No do overs.

Do you really think the SC can't reverse it's own ruling when they hear the Texas lawsuit? It's been done many times.

The Texas lawsuit will go nowhere
It is a publicity stunt.

But it will raise a lot of money for Trump. He has a lot of debts.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The USSC rules that the 5 states broke the law.(which they did)
Those states have to revote with total supervision.
No mail-in ballots.
No counting in secrecy.
No late ballots.
No date changing.
No ballot real ballots thrown out.
No fake ballots counted.
Voter ID required.
Every ballot must have a real person who only voting once.

Uh..you are aware that the PA case was just kicked to the curb and today is Safe Harbor day...so, none of the above??

Trump lost. Biden won. Deal with it. No do overs.

Do you really think the SC can't reverse it's own ruling when they hear the Texas lawsuit? It's been done many times.

The Texas lawsuit will go nowhere
It is a publicity stunt.

You wish. Texas has a damned good case. Those states disenfranchised the entire election.

The Supreme Court just sent Trump packing due to shoddy evidence.
The Texas case is laughably bad.

Texas case if very good. The SC is looking at it now.

65 lower court cases and 2 Supreme Court cases...dismissed. For lack of evidence...oh wait, this last SC case by Texas was dismissed for lack of "standing". Wonder how that's gonna work out for the AG of Texas?