Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI

[bripat9643]

So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'

It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.

If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.

 

[postman]

It's still illegal, moron. That just makes it more difficult to prosecute.. In the case of the Pennsylvania primary, the plaintiffs would have all been Democrats,

Pennsylvania held republican primaries for the house of representatives, as well as the state legislature and others.

Just because Trump wasn't in the primary, doesn't mean there wasn't a primary.

 

[bripat9643]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?

Running a primary as well as running a general election does.

Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?

Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?

Let's look at one state, of the four in contention - Georgia. Each has it's own set of laws so we can't really talk about them all together nor do I (and I suspect most here) have much knowledge of individual state election laws and constitutions. But state AG's do.

Here's what this article quotes Georgia's AG as saying:

Texas suing 4 states over election | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to enact last-minute changes illegally to mail-in voting rules.

www.arkansasonline.com

Paxton "is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement.

According to Paxton, the U.S. Constitution only grants state legislatures the authority to make changes to election laws, and election officials, like secretaries of states, violated the law in doing so. The Texas suit also claims those states violated the equal protection clause by allowing Democratic-leaning counties to restrict Republican poll-watchers or accept ballots with minor errors.​

​

Courts nationwide have rejected these arguments, holding that state officials had a right to change rules for mail-in ballots to prevent spread of the virus in crowded polling places and protect the right to vote. Democratic state officials involved in other lawsuits with the president's campaign have accused Trump of trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections to hobble the president-elect as he takes office.​

The equal protection claim makes no sense because there was no "restriction" of partisan watchers, there are limits as to how many, applied to both parties. In addition - NO counties were prevented from following the same guidelines as the "Democrat leaning" counties - it was up to them as to whether or not they wanted to do it and the rules applied equally.

That has to be the dumbest argument I have seen this month.

 

[colfax_m]

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.

How were you disenfranchised by the "fraud" that occurred in another state?

You got to vote, correct? Your vote was counted, wasn't it?

 

[postman]

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

That's a TORT. Not a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.

How were you disenfranchised by the "fraud" that occurred in another state?

You got to vote, correct? Your vote was counted, wasn't it?

Every fraudulent vote in State 'A' disnefranchises someone in the other states. That's so simple that even you can understand it.

 

[iceberg]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'

Apples and Oranges.

If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.

In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.

True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.

well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.

 

[postman]

Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state. Not by the courts of another state.

Not true, moron.

One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.

The Supreme Court can.

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

 

[bripat9643]

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

That's a TORT. Not a crime.

This is also a tort, moron. The states are "suing." That means a tort.

 

[bripat9643]

Their constitution process is controlled by the courts of their state. Not by the courts of another state.

Not true, moron.

One state can't interpret the constitution of another state.

The Supreme Court can.

The supreme court gives great deference to the courts of the states. After all, who knows more about the legislative intent, than those that wrote it.

The Supreme Court over rules state laws all the time, moron.

 

[postman]

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.

You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.

You were wrong about that too.

 

[Pete7469]

Because every election has some individual fraud...NOT conspired fraud. My statement fits perfectly, with reality.

OK... Why would you even be comfortable with "some individual fraud"? You do realize that if it happens thousands of times in certain areas it can change the results and undermine "the will of the people" that you claim to care about.

I ignore 95% of the bed wetters on this forum, and of the 5% I even pay attention to, you represent one of the few who seem to at least have some cognitive reasoning capacity. I understand that you hate Trump, even though if he ran as a democrok and picked Oprah as his VP you would have gone down to the border and demanded a job building the wall, you loathe the man because he isn't running as a democrok, and he beat the sociopath hag in 2016.

Be honest with me here hon, because to be honest with you, I'm not worried about the biden admin. He works for the billionaires who maintain the bullshit fiat currency and he isn't going to do a damn thing different than the Bush regime did other than allowing a bit more liberal lunacy to become policy than the Bushes did.

 

[iceberg]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?

Running a primary as well as running a general election does.

Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?

Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?

Let's look at one state, of the four in contention - Georgia. Each has it's own set of laws so we can't really talk about them all together nor do I (and I suspect most here) have much knowledge of individual state election laws and constitutions. But state AG's do.

Here's what this article quotes Georgia's AG as saying:

Texas suing 4 states over election | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to enact last-minute changes illegally to mail-in voting rules.

www.arkansasonline.com

Paxton "is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, Chris Carr, said in a statement.

According to Paxton, the U.S. Constitution only grants state legislatures the authority to make changes to election laws, and election officials, like secretaries of states, violated the law in doing so. The Texas suit also claims those states violated the equal protection clause by allowing Democratic-leaning counties to restrict Republican poll-watchers or accept ballots with minor errors.​

​

Courts nationwide have rejected these arguments, holding that state officials had a right to change rules for mail-in ballots to prevent spread of the virus in crowded polling places and protect the right to vote. Democratic state officials involved in other lawsuits with the president's campaign have accused Trump of trying to undermine faith in U.S. elections to hobble the president-elect as he takes office.​

The equal protection claim makes no sense because there was no "restriction" of partisan watchers, there are limits as to how many, applied to both parties. In addition - NO counties were prevented from following the same guidelines as the "Democrat leaning" counties - it was up to them as to whether or not they wanted to do it and the rules applied equally.

and i would think on the surface these are valid counter arguments to the claim.

as for whether or not rules were applied equally, unfortunately that just depends on which website you read.

my main point is, i prefer going through the courts to settle disputes and sorting out the details. if trump loses, he loses. however i am not a lawyer and i don't think many in here are. we tend to mix and match as desired our feelings of a desired outcome with the legal process of getting there.

right or wrong, this is a valid way to address your concerns of our system. given other methods i've seen taking place, i far prefer the court method and am fine with allowing time w/o demonizing those pursuing this option we all have available to us.

 

[bripat9643]

Those states disenfranchised us with massive voter fraud which their laws facilitated.

You said the same thing about gay marriage somehow debasing heterosexual marriage.

You were wrong about that too.

I doubt I ever used the word "debased." I wasn't wrong about gay marriage. It's a joke.

 

[postman]

It means if you smoke pot in California and get away with it, that Georgia can't arrest you for smoking pot in California.

If you get a traffic ticket in CA, and then buy insurance in Wisconsin, that ticket will show on your record.

What does that have to do with breaking the law?

 

[Coyote]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

So if I rob liqour store 'A' and get away with it, that means they can't arrest me for robbing liqour store 'B?'

Apples and Oranges.

If Liquor store B gets robbed, and the owner waits 9 months to report it...good luck.

In Texas the statute of limitations gives you 5 years to file. So in 9 months he could still report it.

True, but you are still arguing apples and oranges here.

well if "good luck" meant good luck catching him, yea. a bit late. i'm just talking legal process, not desired outcome.

Ok, but I don't think the two are really comparable - for one, look at what the PA court (I think it was PA) said in regards to their attempting to claim illegal change of election rules. The judge made a point of telling them they ran primaries under the rules when it suited them and allowed the general election to proceed without dispute until AFTER. That would certainly imply they were fine with it when it suited them. And, as the judge pointed out, it would disenfranchise thousands of voters who voted in good faith by the rules they were provided. These aren't illegal voters or fraudulent votes. This is a case of people trying to use a relatively obscure legal challenge to knowingly and deliberately disenfranchise voters and that is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree?

 

[colfax_m]

Great.

Did the states bypass their own constitution and laws to change voting laws?

I don't think so. Do you have any examples from the lawsuit that you think are relevant?

 

[Billiejeens]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?

Think about it.

If they didn't understand - here is video showing fraud, here is the mathematical impossibility of what you say happened, happening, a conceptual idea of -
Laws were passed
Laws were not followed
Is not going to be understood.

 

[postman]

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

That's a TORT. Not a crime.

This is also a tort, moron. The states are "suing." That means a tort.

You said one state could force another state to follow it's own laws. As an example you bring up a tort and not a crime.

What's up with that?

 

[Billiejeens]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!...

Looks like those pansies have lost their freakin' minds... they have no standing... this is Safe Harbor Day... Rump will get laughed out of court... again.

My guess is this is political theatre and they know it...it makes them look good to the base but they are safe, if won't go anywhere.

RUSSIA.

sorry, that was the exact same thing but felt so justified.

give people the latitude you take for yourself and many problems will poof.

Well, and, no surprise I'm sure, I disagree. There was unanimous consent among our intelligence agencies that Russia was attempting to influence not only OUR election but that of other western countries. Take that and add in Trump & Co.'s numerous contacts with Russian entities (and lying about it) - an investigation was merited. Now was there political theatre from the Dems surrounding it? Of course. Nature of the beast (the bipartisan political beast).

In this case...few truly want to violate the sanctity of the electoral process and have a president APPOINTED. Imagine the results, and the precedent it would set, and the Constitutional questionability. But none of them want to anger Trump. Texas knows this isn't going to go anywhere...so it's red meat for the base who adores Trump.

How come its only the OTHER side doing the violations? Everything the left does you seem to be fine with and defend til death. Everything the right wants is treasonous bullshit.

Russia red meat for left. Wheeee

It's a very "binary" viewpoint offering no room for middle ground or compromise.

...oh not this again.

stop raging at others for what your side loves to do or yes, here we are.

your failure to do amything but attack the right and demonize them speaks volumes.

You just never stop.

Maybe not. But I'm not wrong either.

You non stop attack and demonize the left.

Look to your own.

I've hit on both sides. I try to find common ground to build on. I don't call people trumpians, NAZIS, racists or the like.

I said the left had 3 years to dig and you demanded the time. I have no idea how this will turn out but the right is, entitled to their day in court.

I encourage following our laws and processes. You attack them for trying yet excuse the rioters.

We are worlds apart. But feel as you will, that's fine. I'll do the same.

And, again, you just lie, or you are so into labels you don't actually read what is written. I'm on the left therefore I'm automatically x y z.

Done with attempting to discuss issues with you for now - you just veer off into this shit every single time someone on the left disagrees with you.

I unemotionally gave you my opinion on Russia investigation. I unemotionally gave you my opinion on election fraud. I disagreed with you. And you go apeshit. Every. single. time.

let me try this another way - and lets just stick to the issue. not the people and not how we feel about them, if possible.

did the 4 states Texas is taking to court follow their constitutional process in changing the voting process? if no, just say no they did not. if yes, please provide me some form of link i can read to understand your viewpoint.

i think we rush to the end and never establish baselines, so i'll try to do this again; establish a baseline.

IMO - yes. Challenges have been upheld. PA (I think) might not have BUT, the courts rightfully pointed out that PA ran a primary under those rules, without contention or legal action and to wait 9 months until AFTER the general election to file a suit is disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters.

Does running a primary constitute acceptance of circumventing their laws?

Ie, did the legislative branch validate the new laws or did another branch create them?

Running a primary as well as running a general election does.

Did the legislative branch create these changes and vote on them?

Is there a link that says they are valid if uncontested and used?

No.
No.
Some were contested, and used anyway.