Republicans continue their assault on Democracy

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one area I have a problem with is the legislature being able to overturn the will of the people if they are unhappy with the result. That is not democracy it is autocracy.

The bill does not say that, only the lying MSM piece. The bill states that objections are to be sent to the court--not legislatures deciding to overturn an election.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Arizona legislature wants to limit mail-in ballots, votings days, election stations, etc. I don‘t care. Those changes will effect everyone, most likely the elderly, more than anyone else.

The one area I have a problem with is the legislature being able to overturn the will of the people if they are unhappy with the result. That is not democracy it is autocracy.

Republicans, and by Republicans I mean Trumpists, should grow up and take their loses as adults instead of like whiny little bitches.

"... take their loses as adults..."


Trump got 74.2 million votes.

Biden couldn't possibly have gotten close to that number.

Let's use you to prove it:

I can name dozens of Biden policies I voted against.....and Trump policies I voted for.

Let's see you name the Biden policies you voted for, or the Trump policies you voted against.

If.....when.....you can't, well.....then the only explanation is a stolen election.





Warning: if this is the first time you ever tried to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

 

[JLW]

"... take their loses as adults..."


Trump got 74.2 million votes.

Biden couldn't possibly have gotten close to that number.

Let's use you to prove it:

I can name dozens of Biden policies I voted against.....and Trump policies I voted for.

Let's see you name the Biden policies you voted for, or the Trump policies you voted against.

If.....when.....you can't, well.....then the only explanation is a stolen election.





Warning: if this is the first time you ever tried to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Lawsuits, investigations and recounts prove that election fraud is a lie. Take your loses as an adult and move on.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Jim Crow laws are here.

why don't you tell us who bans books? Like the communists.

So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws

"We're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

www.politico.com

He pretty much banned media.

No, its tech banning/censoring and receiving the govts blessing to do this.

 

[meaner gene]

It sure seems somebody is. Look at the quote above.

You said since every article didn't see the legislature being able to nullify the election, that the bill was 100% fine. That the good parts of the bill, would outweigh any possible negative aspects.

As I said, you looked at the sugar coating, and ignored the TURD inside the bill.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

No they don't. The USA is the ONLY country in the free world that is making it more difficult to vote, and forcing everyone to go to the polls the same day. Other countries are trying to get MORE people to vote and making it easier for them to do so.

You're also the ONLY country in the first world where citizens access to the polls depends on which party is in power in their state. Other first world countries have the elections run by same rules nation wide, in terms of hours, identification, and ways of voting.

You're also the only country in the first world which is bat shit crazy over fears of election fraud that isn't happening.

My God you got every method of cheating down to a science you people. You got everything from the post office to very shady poll workers

Even my uncle was canvassed and he died in 83. You cornered that market

You bat shit krazy libturds have screamed cheating in every fucking election you lost............Russia stole 16 member??.......lolol

Take a hike woman

 

[rightwinger]

God you public educated people. Read your own quote. It says it can go to court for litigation, not that electors can overturn the results. Try reading slower.

No Ray it does not go to court for litigation
It goes to court to request a new election

IF THE LEGISLATURE REJECTS THE ELECTION RESULTS, ANY QUALIFIED ELECTOR MAY FILE AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REQUEST THAT A NEW ELECTION BE HELD.


So Ray, do you support a State Legislature overturning election results without cause?

Easy yes or no
What is so hard?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said since every article didn't see the legislature being able to nullify the election, that the bill was 100% fine. That the good parts of the bill, would outweigh any possible negative aspects.

As I said, you looked at the sugar coating, and ignored the TURD inside the bill.

What I said is that other leftist sources didn't mention it. If it were true that the legislatures were able to overturn any election, it would have been all they wrote about.

So for the fourth or fifth time, the OP is a lie. It does not say that legislatures can overturn anything. What it says is that suspicious activity is to be decided on by the court where a judge can order a new election. That's all it says.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Wow!!!


Look who snuck under the velvet rope!!!!



D And D: Our Ingrate Aliens

1.These two posters from a second rate gas station masquerading as a nation, never miss an opportunity to insult this nation, generally, or Republicans, specifically.

One ‘D’ is a reptile, and here she is!!! and the other ‘D,’ a reprobate, devotee of communism and genocide….and these two escapees from the spearhead of Progressivism in North America, have the nerve to reproach the nation that maintains their survival.



2. The time has come to return the favor, quoting that very principality.

“Giving Up on Canada

There’s an old joke about the typical Canadian who is nudged off the sidewalk by a passerby and immediately apologizes, a humorously rueful sign of the national character.

Of course, such attitudes presume that we still have a national character, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes we do not, having told the New York Times that Canada has no “core identity” and is the world’s “first post-national state.” Trudeau may be right. We have become, apparently, citizens of the world, which means we are stakeholders in nothing tangibly visceral, that we have no civic identity, that we are political ciphers.



3. As Victor Davis Hanson writes, the concept of the citizen is dying. This is certainly the case in Canada, thanks to a moribund education system—Education Zero seems to be the aim—and a massive influx of immigrants from mainly impoverished, Third-World, and autocratic countries who have little interest in the usages, customs, and history of the nation they have come to settle in. Indeed, the city I live in is 40% from elsewhere. There is no longer a continuity of tradition here, merely a superposition of alien narratives: the “superior” culture of the native peoples, the pastoral nostalgia of landscape, the persistence of immigrant loyalties, the ethereal fantasy of a socialist utopia as championed by Trudeau père in Federalism and the French-Canadians.

4. … several “generations” of students and spoken with innumerable people in all walks of life, not a single one of whom knows anything about the British North America Act of 1867, which established the Canadian Confederation. No less alarming, they are entirely ignorant of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1981 and the Constitution Act of 1982 that entrenched the Charter. Nor do most people recognize how power has devolved from provincial First Ministers and the Federal Parliament to the vast bureaucratic apparatus presided over by the current prime minister. They do not see how democracy has eroded almost beyond any possibility of restoration, how the country is rapidly slipping away from them—and, what is even more distressing, many do not seem to care.” Giving Up on Canada



I bet you have seen the absurd, and blatantly jealous posts by these two D-named posters, hiding their enviousness behind slaps at this bastion of freedom and the party that most closely represents American values and heritage!

Shocking!!!

They should be shown the (digital) back of our hands!!

Look who snuck under the velvet rope.lololol...chuckle chuckle

 

[meaner gene]

God you public educated people. Read your own quote. It says it can go to court for litigation, not that electors can overturn the results. Try reading slower.

The call for election is a red herring. The courts have no power to call for a new presidential election, thus the suit at law will fail.

That leaves the state legislature to appoint electors by the deadline.

Grow a brain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No Ray it does not go to court for litigation
It goes to court to request a new election

IF THE LEGISLATURE REJECTS THE ELECTION RESULTS, ANY QUALIFIED ELECTOR MAY FILE AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REQUEST THAT A NEW ELECTION BE HELD.


So Ray, do you support a State Legislature overturning election results without cause?

Easy yes or no
What is so hard?

No I don't, and that's not in this bill either. No legislature can overturn an election in this law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The call for election is a red herring. The courts have no power to call for a new presidential election, thus the suit at law will fail.

That leaves the state legislature to appoint electors by the deadline.

Grow a brain.

You commies always think you can win a debate with lies. It never works but you keep doing it.

Where does it say that if a court won't hear a case the winner will be decided on by the legislature?

 

[meaner gene]

Correct. We are a first world country where our Constitution gives states the power on how to hold elections. If you don't like that, have the commies petition for a constitutional amendment.

The constitution also gives congress the power to "at any time" to make laws for how elections are to be held.

 

[meaner gene]

"... take their loses as adults..."


Trump got 74.2 million votes.

Biden couldn't possibly have gotten close to that number.

In a way you're right. Biden didn't get within 7 million of that number. He exceeded Trumps vote by OVER 7 million votes.

 

[rightwinger]

As I said, you looked at the sugar coating, and ignored the TURD inside the bill.

There are more turds in the bill making it more difficult to vote
It turns Arizona from a state with 100 percent absentee balloting to almost none. It makes it harder to request and file an absentee ballot.
It provides one day to cast your ballot regardless of your circumstances.
It allows three observers to harass prospective voters
It restricts voting locations

 

[rightwinger]

What I said is that other leftist sources didn't mention it. If it were true that the legislatures were able to overturn any election, it would have been all they wrote about.

So for the fourth or fifth time, the OP is a lie. It does not say that legislatures can overturn anything. What it says is that suspicious activity is to be decided on by the court where a judge can order a new election. That's all it says.

I posted the exact words for you Ray
You still deny it

Just like a true Trump supporter
If you find facts inconvenient, just deny them and create your own

 

[JLW]

There are more turds in the bill making it more difficult to vote
It turns Arizona from a state with 100 percent absentee balloting to almost none. It makes it harder to request and file an absentee ballot.
It provides one day to cast your ballot regardless of your circumstances.
It allows three observers to harass prospective voters
It restricts voting locations

This is the proverbial shooting yourself in the foot. 18% and growing of Arizona’s population is over 65 years of age. Most of them are retirees and Republican. It is now harder for them to vote. What a dumb ass move.

 

[meaner gene]

No Ray it does not go to court for litigation
It goes to court to request a new election

IF THE LEGISLATURE REJECTS THE ELECTION RESULTS, ANY QUALIFIED ELECTOR MAY FILE AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REQUEST THAT A NEW ELECTION BE HELD.


So Ray, do you support a State Legislature overturning election results without cause?

Easy yes or no
What is so hard?

As I posted, that clause to call for a new election, doesn't hold for a presidential general election. There are deadlines, and strict laws about when when an election can be held. So the courts would be powerless to order a new election, which of course could not be done within the statutory time limits for choosing electors.

Which would leave the state legislature's power to appoint electors, as the only legal franchise the state would have left.

In short. Legislature invalidates the election. Somebody goes to court, where the request for a new election is rejected as beyond the powers of the court. And then the legislature appoints it's own set of presidential electors.

QUID PRO QUO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I posted the exact words for you Ray
You still deny it

Just like a true Trump supporter
If you find facts inconvenient, just deny them and create your own

And the exact words are they can petition the court for another election, not that they can overturn anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As I posted, that clause to call for a new election, doesn't hold for a presidential general election. There are deadlines, and strict laws about when when an election can be held. So the courts would be powerless to order a new election, which of course could not be done within the statutory time limits for choosing electors.

Which would leave the state legislature's power to appoint electors, as the only legal franchise the state would have left.

In short. Legislature invalidates the election. Somebody goes to court, where the request for a new election is rejected as beyond the powers of the court. And then the legislature appoints it's own set of presidential electors.

QUID PRO QUO.

Wrong. If a court refuses to hear a case, then the original findings stand. It's just like when the SC refuses to hear a case already ruled on by the lower courts. If they don't want to hear the case, the last lower court ruling is law.