You're a born leader of men. (Except that you refuse to follow your own advice!)
Perry
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
And I enjoy the fact that each time I"m proven correct, like with the 60 cases thrown out, Rudy's admission that his cases weren't about fraud and the SC dismissal, you just dig deeper.
You are the flat earther of the board, S.
Each dismissal is an admission that you lost the debate about 30 pages ago, yet here you are still pretending that fraud will be proven in one or two years.
Each S is another shovel of dirt deeper.
How many cases have I been right on?
60
How many cases have you backed that have been dismissed as a joke?
60
How long did you back James Fields before you had to switch from bud plug to dutch oven?
Article agrees with me. There is no process set down. Any such process would be blazing a new path, since the original conception didn't account for excessive partisanship.
There are may reasons running a patched up version of the second draft of a modern democratic republic has serious problems.
Don't think the GOP haven't noticed this. The threat to representative democracy is real.
True. Remember Trump was doing EXTRA legal things throughout, like calling electors, secretaries of state, other reps asking them to change the vote or slate of electors. USA needs a lot of patches right now.
I don't think anyone would go for it. At best you would get "wait until the next election" after an impeachment.
That the US has no ability to call an election for President with a vote of non-confidence (or its equivalent) is a serious flaw.
If there was enough public outrage, impeachment and removal might work. If it all gets gridlocked, there is probably no solution other than violence unless the various sides go out of their way to come up with a compromise.
Think about it, there is no provision in the Constitution to rerun an election with problems as it happens let alone if it is discovered later. If there is doubt in the election, the electors get challenged and/or the vote gets thrown to the House. The founders had an idea about what to do if the election seemed compromised and it didn't involve running an election do-over. That might not have been a smart choice, but it was a choice.
Who would remove the President? In either of your cases, who has the power to do that?
As written, the Constitution has one function that allows that, and it is impeachment and removal.
We have pretty good evidence from this year that no, there is no reason to believe any amount of evidence would force both parties to do that. There is no way to FORCE the issue.
What allegations? There have been no allegations of fraud submitted in court as far as I know. There have been people complaining they didn't like the outcome. We don't know how the court would react to serious allegations of fraud.
There seems little reason to believe the litigation will proceed. I'm not sure under what claim any of it would. Legislative investigation can absolutely proceed and I expect it will. It will probably result in a report
The GOP and Trump has made the system too partisan for impeachment to work anymore.
Nixon had the decency to resign, Clinton's impeachment was closer to what the GOP now calls a witch hunt.
Trump's impeachment was legit and should have had him turfed from power.
Now no party will ever allow their leader to be impeached again, it can't happen as the EC and senate won't give any party control over the senate with enough votes to turf someone.
That's more serious than all of bud's whining about losing. The electoral system is divided between too many states with too many different rules and systems to be easily totally messed with.
Even with the SC favouring rule changes for the GOP its not nearly enough to sway the vote.
Here is a report released by Peter Navarro providing an overview of election irregularities:
Holy shit is that ever S.
I clicked on the first link that 'proves' there was bribery, accusing Biden of buying votes.
Pro-Biden effort offered Native Americans $25-$500 Visa gift cards and jewelry to vote - Washington Examiner
Key Native American leaders working with the Biden campaign offered tribal members and associates Visa gift cards, jewelry, and other “swag” to vote in the presidential election, according to several videos being used by the Trump campaign’s effort to challenge Nevada’s vote.In one long video...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
You can't call it bribery if you just reward people for voting and they weren't paid by who they voted for.
All you're doing is encouraging voting in general.
Bud, I know you'll call this S, but this is the story of all your claims.
If you look even slightly close at them they are all bullshit.
S
"Bannon's War Room"?!...... Now that's a guarantee of high quality, unbiased, professional reporting!
The issue isn't whether various right wing characters will not simply invent horseshit and lie through their ass, if they can get some advantage therefrom. THAT'S been proven multiple times.
The issue is whether their lawyers will risk disbarment by repeating the same lies in a courtroom and so far, they haven't dared to do that.
So you can produce numerous lying shitweasels on various far right websites saying all kinds of shit. That's proof of nothing except these folks are liars.
SHoly shit is that ever S.
I clicked on the first link that 'proves' there was bribery, accusing Biden of buying votes.
The story does no such thing, it says that Biden offered gifts to those who could prove they voted, but nowhere in that article does it say that they were bribed based on WHO they voted for.Pro-Biden effort offered Native Americans $25-$500 Visa gift cards and jewelry to vote - Washington Examiner
Key Native American leaders working with the Biden campaign offered tribal members and associates Visa gift cards, jewelry, and other “swag” to vote in the presidential election, according to several videos being used by the Trump campaign’s effort to challenge Nevada’s vote.In one long video...
You can't call it bribery if you just reward people for voting and they weren't paid by who they voted for.
All you're doing is encouraging voting in general.
Bud, I know you'll call this S, but this is the story of all your claims.
If you look even slightly close at them they are all bullshit.
S
So.... in other words Frank is always wrong and you are always right?
False dichotomy.
There may be reasonable counterarguments to the points I make (when, in fact, I am actually expressing an opinion), but Frank's posts NEVER advance such reasonable positions. His posts suffer from all the flaws I listed, and more. They are tiresome to respond to.
And yet the courts have argued with me 60 times and not once for you.
You're stuck trying to claim you are more reasonable than 60 courts and the supreme court.
I just noticed something else about you. Any reason you sign your posts "Perry" when your name is already shown in the sidebar? Just making sure everyone knows it's really you? LOL! Or is it that you believe you really are Perry Mason! Either way, kinda funny.
Perry
