martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,181
- 34,430
- 2,300
I don't know. I'll take your word for it. I don't care.They want desperately to equate the two.yup. She conceded and spent the next three years blaming us deplorables for a stolen election.You mean the Presidential Candidate that conceded on Election Night, 2016?we call them Hillary ClintonWhat do we call those who whine about losing and then pretend that it was a swindled election with no evidence.....(see all those court losses). A sucker? Seditious? A cultist?Anyone who "get's over" a swindled election is a scumbag.The Hillary supporters got the fuck over it, like adultsI bet they would care if the tables were turned.Uh...excuse me. I never said that. States get to make their own laws. Always. Governors and judges do not have the right to change those laws according to the constitution. Only LAW MAKERS do.Oh. I see. A state voted legally, and their electoral college votes are offset by a state that votes against the constitution. Got it.I laugh at those that attempt to debate and say things that are not factually correct. Its like "Rachel Maddow said this so I can regirgitate itSo you have no idea about how multiple state issues are resolved. It goes directly to the supreme court. Always. Always. Always.I'm not going to bothering reading the thread ... looks like the same vomit from yesterday ...
Anyone dared comment on the merits of the case yet? ... the OP is crazy wrong ... if we let Texas dictate how Michigan interprets their own laws ... pfffft ... worst, allow Texas to go straight to SCOTUS ... well ... then ... er ...
What's to stop California from telling Mississippi how to run their education system? ... and going straight to SCOTUS with the complaint ...
No ... I didn';t think anyone wanted to discuss this matter honestly ... sorry for interrupting ...
This is what annoys me the worst. I know this is a Hail Mary and it has no chance of overturning the election, but the fact that Texas even had a path to take this directly to the SC with 1) no successful lower court rulings, and 2) Able to file a lawsuit that essentially is looking to interfere in another states' affairs....is a complete travesty.
You are not worthy of adding to this conversation as you are naive as to how a republic works.
FYI....we are a republic.
There IS no issue, snowflake. That's the point. This is frivolous. Texas has NO standing to question another state's process. They suffered no harm.
So do me a favor and stow your upturned nose. I don't give a shit.
Good for you.
So what you're really trying to say here is that state's DON'T have the right to make their own laws. Again, selective interpretation. So much for that yellowed scrap of paper.
Texas wasn't harmed therefore has no standing to bring the suit...unless you are postulating that because Texas voted for Trump, these other states have to as well.
Know your stuff before you debate.
No chanceYes. All states certified the results. I expected that. The question is, should states have their electoral college numbers offset by states that had non law makers change their election laws? And 18 governors and AG's are protecting their state citizens from having their vote offset.This really isn't going to happen.
You guys really need to calm down. Go out and get some air. Spend the day in a forest with no cell phone.
Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.Cheating?Yep, just let the cheating happen, after all Progs know what's best for us because we don't.
All 50 governors have certified their election results.
Analogy.....
During a football game, there were 3 calls turned over by instant replay review. The last play of the game, where a player scored the winning touchdown, there was question whether or not his foot stepped on the sideline. It was an SEC team vs. an ACC game. You are an ACC fan. It was an SEC player that scored the apparent touchdown. The head ref decides to amend the rules and claims "we will not review the last play of a game"......would you not question what the hell and be upset about the mid game change of rules??
Now...that is a lousy football game. What about the election of a President of the United States?
They literally do not care
They are psychopaths -
But you run with that attitude. It fits you well.
Also she didn't concede until the following morning.
But she still conceded the next morning...which I don't think Trump has done yet.
Obama offered Trump a smooth transition. Trump so far has offered Biden next to squat.
I could care less what Clinton parroted after Trump was inaugurated. That's your hangup. Not mine.
Both of you need to get some new talking points.
LOL. Obama offered the front of a smooth transition and everyone knew that all the civil servants were going to do everything they could to gum the gears, i.e. the resistance.
It's easy to play nice when you know your inside people are going to do your dirty work for you.
What a naïve moron you are.
Which they didn't. So nice try at bullshit.
What happened after the inauguration was Trump's fault.
Note the date
View attachment 428214
![]()
Four Years Later, a Look Back at Obama and Trump's First White House Meeting
It's unclear if or when Trump, who refuses to concede the election, will meet with President-elect Bidenpeople.com
After they spend YEARS celebrating how unique Trump is.
Which is just great comedy.
Denying "the resistance" when it all but called itself out to be just that is idiotic.
Are most federal civil servants democrats or repbublicans?
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.