User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 12:57:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your disregard for the truth is showing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate.  Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 12:57:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Everyone agrees that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between states. That's just a constitutional fact. They dissented for the exact same reason they dissented in Arizona v. California (2020): they believe that all cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction must be heard. The two of them laid the argument out in more detail in that case; feel free to read it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They dissented just so they can argue that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction? I think they wanted to hear the case and were using whatever argument appealed to the majority. No. Everyone agrees that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between states. That's just a constitutional fact. They dissented for the exact same reason they dissented in Arizona v. California (2020): they believe that all cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction must be heard. The two of them laid the argument out in more detail in that case; feel free to read it. My point is that they disagreed with the lack of standing bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 12:58:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, then throws them under the bus when it goes wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The thing is, just go back and review some of the crazy shit Lin Wood and Lindsey Powell and even Giuliani have said over the last few months and produced zero, nothing, nada. I have never personally witnessed such over the top crazy legal incompetence, especially at this level. THIS. I cannot believe that he couldn't put together a competent legal team that could form a coherent plan and execute it. What a clown show that was. Trump surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, then throws them under the bus when it goes wrong. That's the essence of everything fucked up about Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:01:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My point is that they disagreed with the lack of standing bullshit. Your point is factually incorrect. Their dissent is two sentences. Either you haven't read them, or you don't understand them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:02:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate. Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:03:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think SCOTUS would have jumped at the chance IF there had been sufficient evidence. You don't think Kavanaugh or Barrett are up in arms about how they were treated? Even if they were in the minority, something would have leaked out. The fact that it's been deathly quiet says a lot. LOL, no. Ali to and Thomas wanted to take it. The others are cowards or compromised or leftists |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:04:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You ignore the fact that Trump played along every step of the way. If he had just acted like a grown-up once or twice along the way, we wouldn't be looking at sleepy Joe as the next POTUS. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I gotta hand to them in a sinister way.......they planned this throughout all of 2020 and those fucking communist pieces of shit actually pulled it off. And the result, the most moronic candidate in American history will be the next president. You ignore the fact that Trump played along every step of the way. If he had just acted like a grown-up once or twice along the way, we wouldn't be looking at sleepy Joe as the next POTUS. "But he makes liberals heads explode!!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:07:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your point is factually incorrect. Their dissent is two sentences. Either you haven't read them, or you don't understand them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My point is that they disagreed with the lack of standing bullshit. Your point is factually incorrect. Their dissent is two sentences. Either you haven't read them, or you don't understand them. "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S._ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” Nothing about standing. Read it and weep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:09:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how the right has adopted the postmodernistic narratives and "live experiences" over realty During Trump's term I observed BLM and Antifa being allowed to to millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of damage to both public and private property. It appeared to me that both groups received maximum allowances and that few suffered more than a slap on the wrist from the legal system. Then you have cases such as Ruby Ridge, where federal agents took a family that was just minding its business, actively tried to entrap them ended up slaughtering them. Am I a postmodernist for noticing the discrepancy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:10:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Obama, Hillary and other very powerful men and women were behind it all. Brit Hume says we are idiots for thinking this election was fraudulent. Just sayin' 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:10:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. Standing is a threshhold issue, and a person must have standing before the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) can decide the merits of the case. Without knowing the specific cases you are referring to, I am going to guess in those previous cases where standing was an issue, the Supreme Court ultimately found that there was standing or that the opinion issued by the court was limited to the question of standing. The Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions, it can only issue opinions on actual cases and controversies properly in front of them. Without proper standing, there was no controversy in front of them and the prohibition against advisory opinions prohibited them from weighing in on constitutional remedies for the elector selection process. It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. With just looking up the Massachusetts v. EPA case quickly on wikipedia, the question of standing was raised and the Supreme Court did find that the states had standing, which then allowed the court to move on and consider the other issues and assignments of error. The Texas case did not get past the standing issue, so the court did not weigh in on any other issues. You can call BS on the second paragraph about the Supreme Court not issuing advisory opinions but that has been the court's position since the very early years after the Constitution was adopted. For what it's worth (and I know this is an unpopular opinion), I think that the Supreme Court decided the question of standing correctly. It is a state's rights issue. The Constitution even specifies that the state legislators specify the manner in which electors are chosen. As others have pointed out in this thread and others, each state is free to choose whatever process they wish to choose their electors, and, if there is an issue with the process, it is the job of the citizens of that state to challenge it or get it changed. If the Constitution specified the manner in which the electors of each state are selected, then one state would potentially have standing to challenge another state's selection of electors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:11:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Q only hurt Trump. The media took it and ran. They successfully painted Q believers and Trump as conspiracy theory crackpots. I made that argument more than once. And it shows that at least to a certain part, the media was correct and the damage was done. The fight for fixing America doesn't begin with the left or the right...it begins with the independents, who watch the news with a healthy dose of criticism....but still watch. Q was rather minor as conspiracy theory goes. Russia Russia Russia was much more damaging. The thing about Q is it shows the ability of the left to set the narrative. Focus in like a laser on what they want to amplify while ignoring facts they don’t like |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:11:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S._ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” Nothing about standing. Read it and weep. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: My point is that they disagreed with the lack of standing bullshit. Your point is factually incorrect. Their dissent is two sentences. Either you haven't read them, or you don't understand them. "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S._ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” Nothing about standing. Read it and weep. Lol. I'm the one arguing that not one justice was willing to say they had standing. You're the one disagreeing with me on that. Did you forget? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:12:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boy, are you wrong...so wrong. Yep that’s nuts |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:17:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With just looking up the Massachusetts v. EPA case quickly on wikipedia, the question of standing was raised and the Supreme Court did find that the states had standing, which then allowed the court to move on and consider the other issues and assignments of error. The Texas case did not get past the standing issue, so the court did not weigh in on any other issues. You can call BS on the second paragraph about the Supreme Court not issuing advisory opinions but that has been the court's position since the very early years after the Constitution was adopted. For what it's worth (and I know this is an unpopular opinion), I think that the Supreme Court decided the question of standing correctly. It is a state's rights issue. The Constitution even specifies that the state legislators specify the manner in which electors are chosen. As others have pointed out in this thread and others, each state is free to choose whatever process they wish to choose their electors, and, if there is an issue with the process, it is the job of the citizens of that state to challenge it or get it changed. If the Constitution specified the manner in which the electors of each state are selected, then one state would potentially have standing to challenge another state's selection of electors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. Standing is a threshhold issue, and a person must have standing before the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) can decide the merits of the case. Without knowing the specific cases you are referring to, I am going to guess in those previous cases where standing was an issue, the Supreme Court ultimately found that there was standing or that the opinion issued by the court was limited to the question of standing. The Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions, it can only issue opinions on actual cases and controversies properly in front of them. Without proper standing, there was no controversy in front of them and the prohibition against advisory opinions prohibited them from weighing in on constitutional remedies for the elector selection process. It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. With just looking up the Massachusetts v. EPA case quickly on wikipedia, the question of standing was raised and the Supreme Court did find that the states had standing, which then allowed the court to move on and consider the other issues and assignments of error. The Texas case did not get past the standing issue, so the court did not weigh in on any other issues. You can call BS on the second paragraph about the Supreme Court not issuing advisory opinions but that has been the court's position since the very early years after the Constitution was adopted. For what it's worth (and I know this is an unpopular opinion), I think that the Supreme Court decided the question of standing correctly. It is a state's rights issue. The Constitution even specifies that the state legislators specify the manner in which electors are chosen. As others have pointed out in this thread and others, each state is free to choose whatever process they wish to choose their electors, and, if there is an issue with the process, it is the job of the citizens of that state to challenge it or get it changed. If the Constitution specified the manner in which the electors of each state are selected, then one state would potentially have standing to challenge another state's selection of electors. I disagree on standing...we'll just have to leave that at that. It is not a state's right to choose electors however they wish. It is the state legislatures' right to choose electors however they wish. The 10th amendment does not apply to this issue. It is spelled out in the constitution. It does not get a pass by the federal government. You are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:17:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "When no one ever has standing, what good is a court system?" Louie Gohmert, R TX PA's legislators would've had standing. However, they would've had a hard time suing themselves for passing Act 77 in 2019, so their arguments would likely be limited to the actions taken by the executive branch such as notifying counties to allow ballot curing ahead of election day and trying to count late-arriving ballots postmarked by election day, neither of which was going to change PA's result. Gohmert also tried to sue Mike Pence to grant Mike Pence powers. That is such a basic standing issue it could be an example in a textbook. It's like if I want people to stop parking on the street in front of my neighbor's house, and I claim my neighbor has the right to stop them from doing that. My neighbor doesn't care whether people park there, never attempts to stop them from doing so, and tells me "it's not up to me anyway, it's a public street". I then sue my neighbor for not stopping the street parking. My suit is trying to argue that my neighbor has the right to stop them, but my neighbor is the defendant! Even if he has the right, he apparently doesn't wish to exercise it, or he would be the one bringing the suit (against the people parking there). So the suit is frivolous junk. Do I think Gohmert is stupid or doesn't understand the law? Nah, probably not, but he probably thinks some of his voters are and he can score points with them by grandstanding in a way that has zero consequences other than making him look like he's fighting hard for Trump. You might compare it to all the times Republicans totally tried to eliminate Obamacare while Obama was president and they were out of power, then lost most of their appetite for it when they actually could do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:19:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. I'm the one arguing that not one justice was willing to say they had standing. You're the one disagreeing with me on that. Did you forget? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My point is that they disagreed with the lack of standing bullshit. Your point is factually incorrect. Their dissent is two sentences. Either you haven't read them, or you don't understand them. "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S._ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” Nothing about standing. Read it and weep. Lol. I'm the one arguing that not one justice was willing to say they had standing. You're the one disagreeing with me on that. Did you forget? Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:20:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You ignore the fact that Trump played along every step of the way. If he had just acted like a grown-up once or twice along the way, we wouldn't be looking at sleepy Joe as the next POTUS. Well there might be some truth to that but enough to override the fraud.........I don't know about that. The cat was out of the bag when democrat executive branches in the state sidestepped their republican legislatures in creating voting procedures they knew were designed to gain more democrat voters and the ability to engage in fraud. That is just a plain fact and how much that could have been overcome by Trump if he acted a bit more controlled is anyone's guess IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:20:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how the right has adopted the postmodernistic narratives and "live experiences" over realty FBI lied four times to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump. Massive amounts of info came out on the deep state. Nothing postmodern about it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:22:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate. Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:24:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think SCOTUS would have jumped at the chance IF there had been sufficient evidence. You don't think Kavanaugh or Barrett are up in arms about how they were treated? Even if they were in the minority, something would have leaked out. The fact that it's been deathly quiet says a lot. I could not disagree more fundamentally. The left has a virtual stranglehold on the media while BLM and Antifa doxx, attack and intimidate anyone on the right who stands in their way. The freedom to dissent without fear of losing one's safety, livelihood or reputation is long gone. Dick Morris to Newsmax TV: Dems Preemptively 'Intimidated ... https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/court-packing-scotus-democrats-intimidation/2020/12/12/id/1001231/ All the campaign talk about packing the Supreme Court, if not term limits on justices, was by design in the Democrats' election playbook to "intimidate," according presidential strategist Dick Morris on Newsmax TV. "The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives - that's their institution and that's their duty." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:25:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Q was rather minor as conspiracy theory goes. Russia Russia Russia was much more damaging. The thing about Q is it shows the ability of the left to set the narrative. Focus in like a laser on what they want to amplify while ignoring facts they don’t like Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Q only hurt Trump. The media took it and ran. They successfully painted Q believers and Trump as conspiracy theory crackpots. I made that argument more than once. And it shows that at least to a certain part, the media was correct and the damage was done. The fight for fixing America doesn't begin with the left or the right...it begins with the independents, who watch the news with a healthy dose of criticism....but still watch. Q was rather minor as conspiracy theory goes. Russia Russia Russia was much more damaging. The thing about Q is it shows the ability of the left to set the narrative. Focus in like a laser on what they want to amplify while ignoring facts they don’t like I'm guessing you don't proofread your posts for irony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:27:51 PM EDT
[#23]
[Deleted]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:29:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. Standing didn't cross their mind in a case where 7 justices found no standing? Lol. You are just completely out of your depth, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:33:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PA's legislators would've had standing. However, they would've had a hard time suing themselves for passing Act 77 in 2019, so their arguments would likely be limited to the actions taken by the executive branch such as notifying counties to allow ballot curing ahead of election day and trying to count late-arriving ballots postmarked by election day, neither of which was going to change PA's result. Gohmert also tried to sue Mike Pence to grant Mike Pence powers. That is such a basic standing issue it could be an example in a textbook. It's like if I want people to stop parking on the street in front of my neighbor's house, and I claim my neighbor has the right to stop them from doing that. My neighbor doesn't care whether people park there, never attempts to stop them from doing so, and tells me "it's not up to me anyway, it's a public street". I then sue my neighbor for not stopping the street parking. My suit is trying to argue that my neighbor has the right to stop them, but my neighbor is the defendant! Even if he has the right, he apparently doesn't wish to exercise it, or he would be the one bringing the suit (against the people parking there). So the suit is frivolous junk. Do I think Gohmert is stupid or doesn't understand the law? Nah, probably not, but he probably thinks some of his voters are and he can score points with them by grandstanding in a way that has zero consequences other than making him look like he's fighting hard for Trump. You might compare it to all the times Republicans totally tried to eliminate Obamacare while Obama was president and they were out of power, then lost most of their appetite for it when they actually could do that. Dirty elections affect us all. Counting illegal votes affect the outcome of national elections. But the left claims that if certain states knowingly count illegal votes, it's nobody's business. This is the true postmodernism. The left has won the argument. We are a banana republic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:34:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't follow Q and I support the capitol storm, not the murders. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate. Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. I don't follow Q and I support the capitol storm, not the murders. Are we at a point where we get to pick and choose which events happen as it pertains to outcomes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:46:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm just working on you nevertrumpers' patience and you all are just trying to poke holes in arguments that are much better than yours. Isn't this a definition of trolling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:56:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Q ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 1:58:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boy, are you wrong...so wrong. Take your Q blinders off.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:00:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:02:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:05:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are we at a point where we get to pick and choose which events happen as it pertains to outcomes? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate. Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. I don't follow Q and I support the capitol storm, not the murders. Are we at a point where we get to pick and choose which events happen as it pertains to outcomes? Events happen that are outside of our control that shouldn't be the focus of what transpired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:19:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:20:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Events happen that are outside of our control that shouldn't be the focus of what transpired. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate. Factor in ego and recalculate. You got Trump all wrong bucko. His ego is where it needs to be to deal with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacal tyrants in the government. Bit harder to deal with them without securing the bully pulpit, isn't it? You CANNOT disavow your strongest most devoted supporters for the *HOPE AND DREAM of getting moderates. Besides, thats just another way of betraying EVERYONE that voted for you because of who you really are and not some fake phoney sell out. Did you borrow that platform from the 2nd Amendment Coalition? Your disregard for the truth is showing. The hard lesson is that Trump lied when it suited his need just like any other politician. That aside, I won’t be lectured on the nature of the truth by anyone supporting “disinformation is necessary”. You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. I don't follow Q and I support the capitol storm, not the murders. Are we at a point where we get to pick and choose which events happen as it pertains to outcomes? Events happen that are outside of our control that shouldn't be the focus of what transpired. What transpired was a demonstration that turned into a riot that turned into the murder of a Capitol police officer all with Q zealots visibly at the vanguard. I’m sure you would like to sweep that under the rug and pretend it didn’t actually happen but that’s not something you get to do whilst adulting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:21:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. Lol god damn man. You’re just fucking trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:26:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:27:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. Tit for tat... The media and democrats create spurious accusations and allegations based on hearsay and rumor, why can't we? "Because we're better than that"...No, we're more righteous than they are. They have the moral obligation to speak the truth but they don't. We have the moral obligation to fight fire with fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:32:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They’re not to that level of defeat yet. My buddy is still telling me to “trust the plan” and “any day now, you’ll see”. I just got into a big ass argument last night with him because he’s got his head in the sand, instead of moving forward and getting prepared. Any question regarding the shit they come up with us met with hostility and calling me a fake patriot. Same here and I feel a bit bad about it. Got into it briefly during the KSA cleanse and started sending my buddy links. After nothing planned out, I was out. He's still sending me texts about how "It's just around the corner." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:36:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tit for tat... The media and democrats create spurious accusations and allegations based on hearsay and rumor, why can't we? "Because we're better than that"...No, we're more righteous than they are. They have the moral obligation to speak the truth but they don't. We have the moral obligation to fight fire with fire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. Tit for tat... The media and democrats create spurious accusations and allegations based on hearsay and rumor, why can't we? "Because we're better than that"...No, we're more righteous than they are. They have the moral obligation to speak the truth but they don't. We have the moral obligation to fight fire with fire. So what's your end game? Because for now your strategy is failing in spectacular fashion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:36:17 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I disagree on standing...we'll just have to leave that at that. It is not a state's right to choose electors however they wish. It is the state legislatures' right to choose electors however they wish. The 10th amendment does not apply to this issue. It is spelled out in the constitution. It does not get a pass by the federal government. You are wrong. State "A" has no business getting involved in anything election related that State "B" does period. That is why it was unanimous...If I had been on the court, I would have ruled the same way....Nobody in Texas has any standing to sue another state over their election procedures. Basic constitution 101. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:43:06 PM EDT
[#42]
I've never really followed Q stuff. Seen some years ago.
Seen more recently. Most people who whine about Q don't know anything about it. Just 'intellectuals' lining up like sharks who think they smell low hanging fruit in the water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:47:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what's your end game? Because for now your strategy is failing in spectacular fashion. Speaking of which... https://www.foxnews.com/us/law-enforcement-bulletin-feds-violent-extremism-terror-threat Now you can make a claim that it's all overblown and that January 6th was a rare exception - but it doesn't really matter as far as the general public and lawmakers are concerned. RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS THREATENING TO BE VIOLENT AGAINST PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING OMG!!!! is all that they see/hear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:48:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: State "A" has no business getting involved in anything election related that State "B" does period. That is why it was unanimous...If I had been on the court, I would have ruled the same way....Nobody in Texas has any standing to sue another state over their election procedures. Basic constitution 101. Suppose 50 teams are playing in a tournament. Some play for the red franchise, some for the blue. Whichever franchise wins a majority of the contests gets to levy legal and financial penalties on the loser. Team Red follows the rules. Team Blue breaks the rules. Team Blue wins the tournament. The SC says it's none of Team Red's business that Team Blue cheated. Shut up and bend over. And the leftists love it. The way Pennsylvania and the other four states conducted the election for president of the United States affected all fifty states because Pennsylvania and the other three states conducted the election for president in an unconstitutional manner. This diluted the votes in states like Texas that followed the Constitution. Texas filed suit because it is a presidential election. By stating "the manner in which another State conducts its elections" (emphasis added), the Court seems to believe that the way Pennsylvania conducts elections affects only Pennsylvania, as if the election in Pennsylvania involved only local elections https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/how_the_supreme_court_committed_an_egregious_dodge_on_the_2020_election.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:48:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol god damn man. You’re just fucking trolling. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You believed disinformation... That Q is detrimental to Trump and a negative for his reelection. That is a leftist contrived narrative. "Midterms are safe" proves you wrong.... It doesn't prove me wrong. Q had no effect on those losses...we added seats in the senate. Lol god damn man. You’re just fucking trolling. Par for the course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:49:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: All evidence to the contrary. Trump is facing an impeachment stemming from a situation which spawned from the Qverse. Whether or not Antifa "helped" is immaterial. Oh, I don't know about that........maybe a minor contributory factor but not the major factor IMHO. Do you think it likely that the crowd would have been as large or as angry if they hadn’t spent the past two months being pumped with stolen election “facts” that Sidney Powell pulled directly out of her Qass and spoon fed to Rudy to lend an air of legitimacy? I’m not sure I do. Oooof |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 2:55:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. Quote HistoryQuoted: Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. What Alito wrote and Thomas joined with: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. Saying "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint" doesn't mean "the plaintiff has standing". It means they would have let the case proceed further as a matter of principle before dismissing it (most likely for the same reason of standing cited by the other justices). Why do I say "before dismissing it"? Because Alito went out of his way to clarify "but would not grant other relief". While he doesn't explicitly say why he would not grant relief, the standing problem noted by the other 7 justices it is by far the most plausible reason. If it was for another reason than standing, he likely would have noted it in his dissent -- or even more likely, simply declined to say whether he would have granted relief or not. Standing is one of the few reasons that Alito could have told you right out of the gate, without hearing arguments, that he wouldn't grant relief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 3:24:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think SCOTUS would have jumped at the chance IF there had been sufficient evidence. You don't think Kavanaugh or Barrett are up in arms about how they were treated? Even if they were in the minority, something would have leaked out. The fact that it's been deathly quiet says a lot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. I think SCOTUS would have jumped at the chance IF there had been sufficient evidence. You don't think Kavanaugh or Barrett are up in arms about how they were treated? Even if they were in the minority, something would have leaked out. The fact that it's been deathly quiet says a lot. There were reports of the justices screaming at each other behind closed doors and Roberts refusing to take the case because of how fractious it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 3:26:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What Alito wrote and Thomas joined with: Saying "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint" doesn't mean "the plaintiff has standing". It means they would have let the case proceed further as a matter of principle before dismissing it (most likely for the same reason of standing cited by the other justices). Why do I say "before dismissing it"? Because Alito went out of his way to clarify "but would not grant other relief". While he doesn't explicitly say why he would not grant relief, the standing problem noted by the other 7 justices it is by far the most plausible reason. If it was for another reason than standing, he likely would have noted it in his dissent -- or even more likely, simply declined to say whether he would have granted relief or not. Standing is one of the few reasons that Alito could have told you right out of the gate, without hearing arguments, that he wouldn't grant relief. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. What Alito wrote and Thomas joined with: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. Saying "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint" doesn't mean "the plaintiff has standing". It means they would have let the case proceed further as a matter of principle before dismissing it (most likely for the same reason of standing cited by the other justices). Why do I say "before dismissing it"? Because Alito went out of his way to clarify "but would not grant other relief". While he doesn't explicitly say why he would not grant relief, the standing problem noted by the other 7 justices it is by far the most plausible reason. If it was for another reason than standing, he likely would have noted it in his dissent -- or even more likely, simply declined to say whether he would have granted relief or not. Standing is one of the few reasons that Alito could have told you right out of the gate, without hearing arguments, that he wouldn't grant relief. You're inferring your belief of standing onto Thomas and Alito. They didnt mention it. Its not there. Stop reading more into it. If they wanted to dismiss it because of standing, they would have voted with the majority. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 3:27:58 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: State "A" has no business getting involved in anything election related that State "B" does period. That is why it was unanimous...If I had been on the court, I would have ruled the same way....Nobody in Texas has any standing to sue another state over their election procedures. Basic constitution 101. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I disagree on standing...we'll just have to leave that at that. It is not a state's right to choose electors however they wish. It is the state legislatures' right to choose electors however they wish. The 10th amendment does not apply to this issue. It is spelled out in the constitution. It does not get a pass by the federal government. You are wrong. State "A" has no business getting involved in anything election related that State "B" does period. That is why it was unanimous...If I had been on the court, I would have ruled the same way....Nobody in Texas has any standing to sue another state over their election procedures. Basic constitution 101. Lol...the union don't mean shit to you, does it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
