US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Meds]

FACTS:

- 20 US States have filed a SCOTUS lawsuit calling on them to rule the Presidential Election illegal.

- Officials in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia illegally allowed mail-in voting after the deadline.

- 90% of the votes received after the deadline were for Biden.

- 50% of Americans believe the election was stolen.


Given those facts, if you were SCOTUS, what would you do.

Yeah, they're not FACTS until they hold up in court.

I'll go with NBC on this one. SCOTUS will probably not even hear the case or, at best, summarily dismiss it. It's a Hail Mary.

Just watch.

Or as I heard some talk show host say: ”some are calling this a Hail Mary, but it’s really more of a Heil Hitler...”

It's interesting that those backing the party accused of corruption are chiming in with a tongue-in-cheek Heil Hitler.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

You watch Per, this is the way things will go, and it will be led by the political parties who identify with "leftist leaning" policies preaching it as tolerance and individual rights.

[5thhorseman]

It's interesting that those backing the party accused of corruption are chiming in with a tongue-in-cheek Heil Hitler.

Yeah, because if there's anything that Hitler was known for, it was corruption, lol.

Yes, very interesting Mëds. By the way, you do know the Republicans have been accused of corruption too, dontcha?

[Meds]

It's interesting that those backing the party accused of corruption are chiming in with a tongue-in-cheek Heil Hitler.

Yeah, because if there's anything that Hitler was known for, it was corruption, lol.

Yes, very interesting Mëds. By the way, you do know the Republicans have been accused of corruption too, dontcha?

Yep. Sure do.

[Per]

FACTS:

- 20 US States have filed a SCOTUS lawsuit calling on them to rule the Presidential Election illegal.

- Officials in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia illegally allowed mail-in voting after the deadline.

- 90% of the votes received after the deadline were for Biden.

- 50% of Americans believe the election was stolen.


Given those facts, if you were SCOTUS, what would you do.

Yeah, they're not FACTS until they hold up in court.

I'll go with NBC on this one. SCOTUS will probably not even hear the case or, at best, summarily dismiss it. It's a Hail Mary.

Just watch.

Or as I heard some talk show host say: ”some are calling this a Hail Mary, but it’s really more of a Heil Hitler...”

It's interesting that those backing the party accused of corruption are chiming in with a tongue-in-cheek Heil Hitler.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

You watch Per, this is the way things will go, and it will be led by the political parties who identify with "leftist leaning" policies preaching it as tolerance and individual rights.

But at this point it is the republican party that wants to override the result of the election. They have not been able to present any evidence that there should have been any fraud, yet they still want the supreme court to ignore the constitution, violate state rights, and disqualify the confirmed result of the election in four states. So much for democracy.

Also note that only the first and last of Doc’s facts are facts.
The courts have looked at the evidence and found that election laws were not violated.
Thus no votes that came in after the actual deadline were counted.

[Meds]

Also note that only the first and last of Doc’s facts are facts.
The courts have looked at the evidence and found that election laws were not violated.
Thus no votes that came in after the actual deadline were counted.

Have they said that, or are you extrapolating that from the sentence above it?

[Per]

It's interesting that those backing the party accused of corruption are chiming in with a tongue-in-cheek Heil Hitler.

Yeah, because if there's anything that Hitler was known for, it was corruption, lol.

Yeah, he was more of a drain-the-swamp kind of guy.

[Per]

Also note that only the first and last of Doc’s facts are facts.
The courts have looked at the evidence and found that election laws were not violated.
Thus no votes that came in after the actual deadline were counted.

Have they said that, or are you extrapolating that from the sentence above it?

If they had been presented with evidence that votes that came in after the deadline were counted, they would not have dismissed the complaints. So, yeah, I’m extrapolating.

If X did not happen, you can not argue that 90% of X was Y.

[Per]

Also, about the votes after the deadline, I think it goes back to the deadline for when mail in votes could arrive and be counted was moved in Pennsylvania ahead of these elections since it was expected that the number would increase because of the pandemic and the Postmaster General had warned that they would have problems delivering.

NB: the ballots still had to be postmarked no later than on election day, it was just the delivery that was allowed to be a few days later than previous elections.

Now, this was decided several months prior to the election, yet the GOP waited till after the election to take the change of deadline to court, after they knew the result of the election. They argued that moving the deadline was in violation of the state constitution. The court listened to the argument, and then dismissed it, stating that if they had truly been concerned they should have raised this issue before the elections were held. Changing the rules of the election after the fact would cause much more damage to fairness and democracy than the change of the deadline could possibly have done.

They then wanted to take this same argument to the Supreme Court, and the SCOTUS unanimously denied them a hearing as they had no case. Thus the earlier ruling stands.

So, the deadline for mail in ballots arriving was like three days later iirc than in previous elections, and the GOP is arguing that this deadline was not valid, but they already had their day in court and they lost. They should have challenged it before the election, not after. Get over it. Effing snowflakes.

Also, we have already passed Safe Harbo(u)r Day, when all electors must have been named and no changes can be made.
This alone should be reason enough for the SCOTUS to dismiss the current complaints that also are a gross violation of state rights. One state cannot inflict its election laws on another state. Thus Texas should have no say in the election process of any other state.

[Meds]

Also note that only the first and last of Doc’s facts are facts.
The courts have looked at the evidence and found that election laws were not violated.
Thus no votes that came in after the actual deadline were counted.

Have they said that, or are you extrapolating that from the sentence above it?

If they had been presented with evidence that votes that came in after the deadline were counted, they would not have dismissed the complaints. So, yeah, I’m extrapolating.

If X did not happen, you can not argue that 90% of X was Y.

So you are presenting as evidence something that is not 100% unequivocally proven?

I see now why Doc so vexes you. You argue the same way he does by taking the majority and calling it the total.

I mean, 99 pennies can't be spent as a whole dollar.....

[Strangelove]

they already had their day in court and they lost.

Right, they are taking it to the Supreme Court because the lower courts got it wrong....

They should have challenged it before the election, not after.

They can legally challenge it whenever they choose prior to Dec 14th.

Recall me saying weeks ago "the closer to Dec 14th, the better."

One state cannot inflict its election laws on another state. Thus Texas should have no say in the election process of any other state.

Texas is not trying to inflict its own laws on other states.

Texas is saying those other states broke their own laws to the detriment of America.

Listen Per, your post is so fraught with errors I don't even know where to begin...

[Per]

Also note that only the first and last of Doc’s facts are facts.
The courts have looked at the evidence and found that election laws were not violated.
Thus no votes that came in after the actual deadline were counted.

Have they said that, or are you extrapolating that from the sentence above it?

If they had been presented with evidence that votes that came in after the deadline were counted, they would not have dismissed the complaints. So, yeah, I’m extrapolating.

If X did not happen, you can not argue that 90% of X was Y.

So you are presenting as evidence something that is not 100% unequivocally proven?

I see now why Doc so vexes you. You argue the same way he does by taking the majority and calling it the total.

I mean, 99 pennies can't be spent as a whole dollar.....

The authorities in charge of the election found no signs of fraud.
The authorities supervising them found no signs of fraud.
The authority in charge of cyber security found no signs of fraud.
The election observers from the OAS saw no signs of fraud.
The election observers from the OSCE saw no signs of
The 50 or so court cases that Trump and his minions have brought have resulted in the courts not finding any proof of fraud.

It’s just a sore loser whining and blaming the refs rather than accepting that he was beaten fair and square.

Sadly, all the wild accusations are undermining the trust in democracy in the USA, as Doc has given us some proof of.
It’s sad for all proponents of western democracy, but a cause for celebration in Russia.

[Per]

Listen Per, your post is so fraught with errors I don't even know where to begin...

You can begin by confirming the bet is on.

[Meds]

Listen Per, your post is so fraught with errors I don't even know where to begin...

Meh, nothing new there Doc. It's per par for the course.

[Strangelove]

[Strangelove]