It is duty of GOP state legislatures to send Trump electors when gas-lighting elections fail

[bripat9643]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

While 'King BriBri' may make perfect sense to you, not so much for the rest of us.

To the extent that democracy doesn't provide authoritarian conservatives with power, authoritarian conservatives will be hostile to democracy.

Unlike you, I don't want to rule over anyone, and I don't want anyone ruling over me. A groveling bootlicker like you can't understand that when I say I don't want the mob to rule, that doesn't mean I want someone else to rule. You just can't imagine not being ruled by someone and not licking someone's boots.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

It's about as "dirty" as mail-in voting.

Any thinking person knew mail in voting was going to be a disaster

What 'disaster'?

Remember, your imagination doesn't define the election results.

The current election, moron.

The most secure election in US history is a 'disaster'..... how?

How was this election "the most secure?" Mail-in voting is the kind most likely subject to fraud.

 

[Skylar]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

A court, by definition, cannot violate a law it rules on..as its ruling actually changes the law.

Yes, an appeal can change it back..but no lawbreaking occurred.

That's obviously not true because many judges were sentenced to death for their rulings during the Nuremberg trials

Only 11 people were executed for the crimes they were convicted of at the Numemberg Trials. And none of them by Germany, under German law.


Hermann Göring[a]
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Wilhelm Keitel
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Alfred Rosenberg
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Julius Streicher
Fritz Sauckel
Alfred Jodl
Arthur Seyss-Inquart

Which ones were the 'judges'?

 

[my2¢]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

Those ballots were permitted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and then a three-judge federal court panel, led by George W Bush appointee, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Brooks Smith. I totally disagree with both the state and federal judge's ruling but it seems far fetched to say operating under the courts' permission is breaking the law.

 

[Skylar]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

Then by all means....tell us who defines 'correct rules'.

Is it you citing yourself? Its you citing yourself, isn't it.

 

[Coyote]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

It's about as "dirty" as mail-in voting.

Any thinking person knew mail in voting was going to be a disaster

Yet despite your doom and gloom scenarios, baseless accusations of fraud, it wasn't.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

It's about as "dirty" as mail-in voting.

Any thinking person knew mail in voting was going to be a disaster

Yet despite your doom and gloom scenarios, baseless accusations of fraud, it wasn't.

And despite the lack of evidence to back their claims, they still believe they must be right.

You can't use evidence to convince folks that have no use for evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

A court, by definition, cannot violate a law it rules on..as its ruling actually changes the law.

Yes, an appeal can change it back..but no lawbreaking occurred.

That's obviously not true because many judges were sentenced to death for their rulings during the Nuremberg trials

Only 11 people were executed for the crimes they were convicted of at the Numemberg Trials. And none of them by Germany, under German law.


Hermann Göring[a]
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Wilhelm Keitel
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Alfred Rosenberg
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Julius Streicher
Fritz Sauckel
Alfred Jodl
Arthur Seyss-Inquart

Which ones were the 'judges'?

Judges' Trial - Wikipedia

The Judges' Trial (German: Juristenprozess; or, the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the 12 trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT).

Josef Altstötter	Chief of the civil law and procedure division of the Ministry of Justice
Paul Barnickel [de]	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court
Hermann Cuhorst [de]	Chief justice of the Special Court
Karl Engert [de]	Chief of the penal administrative division in the Ministry of Justice
Günther Joël [de]	Legal advisor and chief prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice
Herbert Klemm [de]	State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Ernst Lautz [de]	Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court
Wolfgang Mettgenberg [de]	Representative of the criminal legislation and administration division of the Ministry of Justice
Günther Nebelung [de]	Chief justice of the Fourth Senate, People's Court
Rudolf Oeschey [de]	Chief judge of the Special Court at Nuremberg
Hans Petersen [de]	Chief justice of the First Senate, People's Court
Oswald Rothaug	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court; Chief Justice of the Special Court
Curt Rothenberger	President of the Court of Appeals in Hamburg from 1935-1942, later became State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Franz Schlegelberger	State Secretary, later Acting Minister of Justice
Wilhelm von Ammon [de]	Counsellor of criminal legislation and administration division in the Ministry of Justice

 

[bripat9643]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

It's about as "dirty" as mail-in voting.

Any thinking person knew mail in voting was going to be a disaster

Yet despite your doom and gloom scenarios, baseless accusations of fraud, it wasn't.

And despite the lack of evidence to back their claims, they still believe they must be right.

You can't use evidence to convince folks that have no use for evidence.

There's tons of evidence, you witless buffoon.

 

[bripat9643]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

Those ballots were permitted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and then a three-judge federal court panel, led by George W Bush appointee, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Brooks Smith. I totally disagree with both the state and federal judge's ruling but it seems far fetched to say operating under the courts' permission is breaking the law.

The PA Supreme court had no authority to permit them, moron. Read the Constitution. Where does it say state courts can make election law?

 

[bripat9643]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

Then by all means....tell us who defines 'correct rules'.

Is it you citing yourself? Its you citing yourself, isn't it.

ROFL! Logic does. It's a long tedious process, but eventually more advanced societies make the right decision. Mob rule is not one of the correct rules. Want to see mob rule in action?

There's democracy for ya in its purest form.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

It's about as "dirty" as mail-in voting.

Any thinking person knew mail in voting was going to be a disaster

Yet despite your doom and gloom scenarios, baseless accusations of fraud, it wasn't.

And despite the lack of evidence to back their claims, they still believe they must be right.

You can't use evidence to convince folks that have no use for evidence.

There's tons of evidence, you witless buffoon.

As long as we don't ask to actually see it. Tucker Carlson learned that lesson just yesterday.

“We invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour,” Carlson said. “But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests, polite requests. Not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”
Carlson also noted: “She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”

Can I just say that I'm absolutely *shocked*. I personally feel that the chocolate pudding that dribbled down the side of Gulliani's face as he and Sidney made these accusations added an authority and gravitas that was simply undeniable.

 

[Coyote]

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

Claims the person supporting terrorist threats against children.

That is a flat out lie. That would be like my saying YOU support child abuse because you support Trump's immigration/family separation policies.

And by the way - did you see that that claim of threats against children was actually a lie? They cut off half the quote.

 

[Skylar]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

Then by all means....tell us who defines 'correct rules'.

Is it you citing yourself? Its you citing yourself, isn't it.

ROFL! Logic does. It's a long tedious process, but eventually more advanced societies make the right decision. Mob rule is not one of the correct rules. Want to see mob rule in action?

There's democracy for ya in its purest form.

Yawning....

Whose logic?

Is it you citing yourself again? Its you citing yourself, isn't it?

 

[westwall]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

While 'King BriBri' may make perfect sense to you, not so much for the rest of us.

To the extent that democracy doesn't provide authoritarian conservatives with power, authoritarian conservatives will be hostile to democracy.

Unlike you, I don't want to rule over anyone, and I don't want anyone ruling over me. A groveling bootlicker like you can't understand that when I say I don't want the mob to rule, that doesn't mean I want someone else to rule. You just can't imagine not being ruled by someone and not licking someone's boots.

Sure doesn't seem that way...not given how

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

Claims the person supporting terrorist threats against children.

That is a flat out lie. That would be like my saying YOU support child abuse because you support Trump's immigration/family separation policies.

No, it ain't. Remember sweetie, "silence is violence". You refused to condemn that democrat fucker who was threatening the children of the repub poll official. That is beyond despicable.

 

[Skylar]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

A court, by definition, cannot violate a law it rules on..as its ruling actually changes the law.

Yes, an appeal can change it back..but no lawbreaking occurred.

That's obviously not true because many judges were sentenced to death for their rulings during the Nuremberg trials

Only 11 people were executed for the crimes they were convicted of at the Numemberg Trials. And none of them by Germany, under German law.


Hermann Göring[a]
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Wilhelm Keitel
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Alfred Rosenberg
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Julius Streicher
Fritz Sauckel
Alfred Jodl
Arthur Seyss-Inquart

Which ones were the 'judges'?

Judges' Trial - Wikipedia

The Judges' Trial (German: Juristenprozess; or, the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the 12 trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT).

Josef Altstötter	Chief of the civil law and procedure division of the Ministry of Justice
Paul Barnickel [de]	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court
Hermann Cuhorst [de]	Chief justice of the Special Court
Karl Engert [de]	Chief of the penal administrative division in the Ministry of Justice
Günther Joël [de]	Legal advisor and chief prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice
Herbert Klemm [de]	State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Ernst Lautz [de]	Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court
Wolfgang Mettgenberg [de]	Representative of the criminal legislation and administration division of the Ministry of Justice
Günther Nebelung [de]	Chief justice of the Fourth Senate, People's Court
Rudolf Oeschey [de]	Chief judge of the Special Court at Nuremberg
Hans Petersen [de]	Chief justice of the First Senate, People's Court
Oswald Rothaug	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court; Chief Justice of the Special Court
Curt Rothenberger	President of the Court of Appeals in Hamburg from 1935-1942, later became State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Franz Schlegelberger	State Secretary, later Acting Minister of Justice
Wilhelm von Ammon [de]	Counsellor of criminal legislation and administration division in the Ministry of Justice

And who among these men were executed?

 

[bripat9643]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

While 'King BriBri' may make perfect sense to you, not so much for the rest of us.

To the extent that democracy doesn't provide authoritarian conservatives with power, authoritarian conservatives will be hostile to democracy.

Unlike you, I don't want to rule over anyone, and I don't want anyone ruling over me. A groveling bootlicker like you can't understand that when I say I don't want the mob to rule, that doesn't mean I want someone else to rule. You just can't imagine not being ruled by someone and not licking someone's boots.

Sure doesn't seem that way...not given how

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

Claims the person supporting terrorist threats against children.

That is a flat out lie. That would be like my saying YOU support child abuse because you support Trump's immigration/family separation policies.

"Given how" what?

You defended the mob threatening those Republican Michigan election officials.

 

[bripat9643]

Biden is "president elect." No he is not. No one is until the Electoral College meets. Media loses all credibility from that point on. "No evidence of fraud." Thousands of affidavits and witnesses like USPS workers on record is not evidence? It takes, and should take, a high bar for state legislators to exercise their perfectly legal right to send whatever electors it wants to the Electoral College (more gas-lighting, media now saying dubious legality, it is not.)

If ever this bar has been met in US history, it is now. Even Gore-Bush in 2000 was only over one state, Florida.

This is the Constitutional remedy enshrined by the Founders for when elections fail and there is no consensus over the process. it forces states to eventually get the process right. The Founders were geniuses.


GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors

Articles and videos about GOP leaders in 4 states reject President Trump bid on electors on FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

www.fox4news.com

LOOKS LIKE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS NEED A WAKE UP CALL. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on citizens of Michigan and PA to call their state legislators to exercise their Constitutional right to send Trump electors to the Electoral College, when the election system has failed miserably.

Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis floats faithless elector plan for Michigan, Pennsylvania

And of course, the state legislatures of pretty much all the states in question have already confirmed that they're not doing that.

But thank you for demonstrating how eager you are to wipe your ass with the will of the people.

...and our democratic institutions.

And here's the elephant in the living room......conservatives don't particularly care for democratic processes or the will of the people. They only respect conservatives have to either is to the extent that they provide them with power.

When they don't, conservatives start to babble about secession, or bypassing the votes of the people and merely assigning electors to their candidates, or throwing out millions of cast ballots, or overthrowing the government.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly authoritarians. They use democracy if it provides them with power. If not, they'll gladly wipe their ass with it.

Naw..you don't see it as they do. They believe that all who believe in what they believe constitute the people who should run this country. Thus, the will of the people..who matter..is their version of consensus. The people..are viewed as rabble. Thus the irony of the poor white Trump supporter.

Our processes are still robust as regards how we govern. In a few short months...this BS will be done with...the only revolution that we are going to see on the metaphorical battlegrounds of the internet.

It isn't who rules. It's what are the correct rules. 99% could vote for a set of rules, and they can still be invalid and unjust. You believe in mob rule - that whatever the mob wants it deserves to get, even if it means your neck being stretched by a rope.

You're an idiot, of course.

With the 'correct' rules being whatever you say it is.....even if the people disagree.

I stand by my point.

See? You believe whatever the mob wants it should get. There are no correct rules, as far as you are concerned.

You're a mob master and scumbag.

And who defines your 'correct rules'. You do. Citing yourself.

I haen't said, jackass, but one thing we know is that your conception of what's right is utter horseshit.

While 'King BriBri' may make perfect sense to you, not so much for the rest of us.

To the extent that democracy doesn't provide authoritarian conservatives with power, authoritarian conservatives will be hostile to democracy.

Unlike you, I don't want to rule over anyone, and I don't want anyone ruling over me. A groveling bootlicker like you can't understand that when I say I don't want the mob to rule, that doesn't mean I want someone else to rule. You just can't imagine not being ruled by someone and not licking someone's boots.

Sure doesn't seem that way...not given how

Wow. Just when you think the Republicans can’t get any dirtier...

Claims the person supporting terrorist threats against children.

That is a flat out lie. That would be like my saying YOU support child abuse because you support Trump's immigration/family separation policies.

No, it ain't. Remember sweetie, "silence is violence". You refused to condemn that democrat fucker who was threatening the children of the repub poll official. That is beyond despicable.

She didn't just refuse to condemn them. She defended them.

 

[bripat9643]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

A court, by definition, cannot violate a law it rules on..as its ruling actually changes the law.

Yes, an appeal can change it back..but no lawbreaking occurred.

That's obviously not true because many judges were sentenced to death for their rulings during the Nuremberg trials

Only 11 people were executed for the crimes they were convicted of at the Numemberg Trials. And none of them by Germany, under German law.


Hermann Göring[a]
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Wilhelm Keitel
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Alfred Rosenberg
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Julius Streicher
Fritz Sauckel
Alfred Jodl
Arthur Seyss-Inquart

Which ones were the 'judges'?

Judges' Trial - Wikipedia

The Judges' Trial (German: Juristenprozess; or, the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the 12 trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT).

Josef Altstötter	Chief of the civil law and procedure division of the Ministry of Justice
Paul Barnickel [de]	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court
Hermann Cuhorst [de]	Chief justice of the Special Court
Karl Engert [de]	Chief of the penal administrative division in the Ministry of Justice
Günther Joël [de]	Legal advisor and chief prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice
Herbert Klemm [de]	State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Ernst Lautz [de]	Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court
Wolfgang Mettgenberg [de]	Representative of the criminal legislation and administration division of the Ministry of Justice
Günther Nebelung [de]	Chief justice of the Fourth Senate, People's Court
Rudolf Oeschey [de]	Chief judge of the Special Court at Nuremberg
Hans Petersen [de]	Chief justice of the First Senate, People's Court
Oswald Rothaug	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court; Chief Justice of the Special Court
Curt Rothenberger	President of the Court of Appeals in Hamburg from 1935-1942, later became State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Franz Schlegelberger	State Secretary, later Acting Minister of Justice
Wilhelm von Ammon [de]	Counsellor of criminal legislation and administration division in the Ministry of Justice

And who among these men were executed?

Actually, none, but what do you believe that proves, that judges can never break the law?

 

[Skylar]

In the months leading to the election and the weeks afterward, the only ones I've heard advocate breaking election laws are Trump and his backers.

Here is an example of Dems breaking election laws. Pennsylvania state law states that the deadline for votes to be cast in Pennsylvania is 8:00 PM on election day. That includes the reception of mail-in votes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated that law by extending the time to receive mail-in votes.

A court, by definition, cannot violate a law it rules on..as its ruling actually changes the law.

Yes, an appeal can change it back..but no lawbreaking occurred.

That's obviously not true because many judges were sentenced to death for their rulings during the Nuremberg trials

Only 11 people were executed for the crimes they were convicted of at the Numemberg Trials. And none of them by Germany, under German law.


Hermann Göring[a]
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Wilhelm Keitel
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Alfred Rosenberg
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Julius Streicher
Fritz Sauckel
Alfred Jodl
Arthur Seyss-Inquart

Which ones were the 'judges'?

Judges' Trial - Wikipedia

The Judges' Trial (German: Juristenprozess; or, the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the 12 trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT).

Josef Altstötter	Chief of the civil law and procedure division of the Ministry of Justice
Paul Barnickel [de]	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court
Hermann Cuhorst [de]	Chief justice of the Special Court
Karl Engert [de]	Chief of the penal administrative division in the Ministry of Justice
Günther Joël [de]	Legal advisor and chief prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice
Herbert Klemm [de]	State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Ernst Lautz [de]	Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court
Wolfgang Mettgenberg [de]	Representative of the criminal legislation and administration division of the Ministry of Justice
Günther Nebelung [de]	Chief justice of the Fourth Senate, People's Court
Rudolf Oeschey [de]	Chief judge of the Special Court at Nuremberg
Hans Petersen [de]	Chief justice of the First Senate, People's Court
Oswald Rothaug	Senior public prosecutor of the People's Court; Chief Justice of the Special Court
Curt Rothenberger	President of the Court of Appeals in Hamburg from 1935-1942, later became State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice
Franz Schlegelberger	State Secretary, later Acting Minister of Justice
Wilhelm von Ammon [de]	Counsellor of criminal legislation and administration division in the Ministry of Justice

And who among these men were executed?

Actually, none, but what do you believe that proves, that judges can never break the law?

You're the one that says they were sentenced to death. That doesn't seem to be the case.

But kudos on factually backing at least part of your claim. If I'm going to condemn your routine citation of yourself as evidence, I have to tip my hat when you do actually back them.

I concede the point.