trump might stand a chance with this texas law suit

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 186
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
trump is trying to over turn the election, but invalidating millions of votes and win on a technicality. that is, the legislatures of the battleground states that were sued, set the election laws. but according to the suit, the governors of these states subverted the state laws, in allowing so many people to vote by mail. this is my understanding anyway, and i dont know all the details. 

this sounds like it stands a chance, which i didn't think trump had a chance. it could work, if trump and his minions and the court dont mind invalidating millions of votes and letting trump win on a technicality. 

who thinks trump stands no chance, and why do you think this? 

who thinks trump must win this texas suit? 
Topic's author
#2
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
my understanding is that there may have been unlawful actions by governors and faulty votes. but, a state can elect its electors however it wants. so even if the election was still invalid, the states are still free to get their electors for the college however it wants, even if it's based on a faulty election. so, trump should lose his technicality, due to another technicality. 
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
seems like one state suing another over that state's management of its own election is a non-starter.  My perception is that the vote in Texas is more corrupt than in most states- I would think Texas would have more to lose than to win in a world where states can sue other states over how they constitutionally they run their vote.  Even the AP seems fairly comfortable reporting that the lawsuit's most charitable interpretation is a promotional stunt for a Paxton pardon.  I assume this move stands no chance.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,489
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
Isn't that clutching at straws? 


Attempting to coerce right wing law makers into making right wing decisions.....That's U.S. modern style democracy I suppose?


And I would suggest, that sensible people chose to vote by post because of the global pandemic.  Or is that an outrageous suggestion Mr Giuliani?
#5
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
Just more frivolous post election litigation from the losing side. It will fail like the other cases.
#6
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,594
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Hopefully he wins
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hopefully he wins
if he did, it would probably be critical damage to democracy. Basically the argument is that Texas doesn't like how other states voted, so they want the courts to overturn the results. If that works, then no election is really decided by the people. The election ceases to matter because the courts can just overturn the results on a whim. That isn't democracy any more. 

Basically, republicans want to end democracy to protect a tyrant. 

#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
So, by definition, a tyrant is anyone who disagrees with you? Big crowd. Shame on us.
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. An attempt to teach lawmakers of the state that they, not the governor of the state, and/or not the secretary of state of the state, legislate election law. Simple argument; simple solution. Keep you own panties on and don't try to get in somebody else's panties.

Not to mention that a state cannot treat its own citizens with disrespect, let alone the citizens of other states when all the citizens can expect that they equally have the equal protection of the law, including election law, regardless in which state they reside. 
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
So, by definition, a tyrant is anyone who disagrees with you? Big crowd. Shame on us.
no. there are lots of things that are tyrannical. But in this specific instance it is that trump lost and is now trying to steal the election using legally trickery. Trying to steal power after losing a democratic election is tyranny. 

And honestly, what is going on might actually be worse than that. Virtually all the republicans (the elected officials not necesarily the republican voters) know that trump lost. They know there wasn't widespread fraud. They are just too afraid of Trump's crazy ass bass to say so. The people who actually carried out the voting process in the contested states (many of whom are republicans) who dare to admit reality are having their lives threatened by right wing nutjobs who honestly believe that trump won, even though all available evidence says that is a lie. 

Even trump knows these are lies, but he can't admit it. Both because his fragile ego demands it, but also because he wants to profit off the fanatical support of his base. He plans to spend years milking these people of every dollar he can and using their support to milk rich political donors too. Trump is actively working to damage democracy for his own personal profit. It is disgusting. 
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,489
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Sounds like your still miffed.

And panties?....You're better than that.
Topic's author
#12
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i dont know how the states were improper in letting people vote by mail. my impression is that they violated a state law, but i have a feeling that the only thing they did, was allow for the potential for fraud. as the law suit argues, it's not so much specific examples of fraud, it's that the current system allows for the possibility of loads of undetectable fraud. of course, it's it's all theoretical possibiities, cause there was no wide spread fraud, as even trump's attorney general concluded. so my best bet is that this is a load of garbage and will be duly kicked out of court, like all the other joke of law suits. 
#13
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Lol, no this suit doesn't "stand a chance." Supreme court will most likely not even hear it.
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
as the law suit argues, it's not so much specific examples of fraud, it's that the current system allows for the possibility of loads of undetectable fraud.
basically the suit is that since there was fraud (even though dozens of lawsuits have been thrown out because fraud didn't happen) the results of the election in those states should be thrown out and handed to the republicans. But those cases of "fraud" have already been litigated and thrown out. So the odds the Supreme court even take the case are extremely low. They already refused to take a case where the republicans wanted the results in PA to be thrown out. 

#15
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
+ 1 Just more frivolous post election litigation from the losing side. It will fail like the other cases. 

+ Supreme court will not even hear it.

Fun fact is the lawyer who filed on behalf of Trump is the one who wrote the op ed in Newsweek saying Kamala wasn't eligible to be VP cuz of citizenship concerns that they had to apologize for. Their whole campaign is such a pathetic and sad shit show.
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Kamala? Really? She changes her stand so frequently because she's usually not standing to get ahead. I'm from California. I know Kammie Harris. Spent most of her time under Willie Brown, or she'd still be a struggling ambulance chaser.. And I do mean under, yeah?
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
no. there are lots of things that are tyrannical.
Yeah, and that does not change the fact that most you call tyrannical are only so because you oppose them. It's getting old.
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
still miffed
Still? Nope. Not miffed. And, yeah, panties. It fits. Many who complain use a common theme: lol. It means frightened little girl.
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah, and that does not change the fact that most you call tyrannical are only so because you oppose them. It's getting old.
I would oppose anyone who tried to overturn a democratic election. Trump is trying to throw out the votes of millions of americans in 4 states. That is undemocratic, unamerican and, in my opinion at least, downright treasonous. The fact that the spineless republican party is going along with this obvious nonsense just highlights how all their talk about wanting to protect the constitution is self serving bullshit. Because now they have a man obviously stomping on it and they are just playing along to protect their own careers. 
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,477
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would oppose anyone who tried to overturn a democratic election.

#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
-_-

Are we ignoring
A) Trump even winning legitimately is debatable at best
B) Justly impeaching a president is literally carrying out democracy
C) Going to the courts with no evidence is not equivalent to having a hearing with the literal transcript of guilt.
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,477
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm just saying, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections started 4 years ago, not nov 2020
#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes... and unlike Trump, they had a more valid reason than, "I'm losing!"
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your opinion does not understand what treason is. Are dead people allowed to vote? Are people allowed to vote more than once? Are people allowed to vote in more than one state? How do you count more votes than there are registered voters? How do states change their election rules without the benefit of their legislators doing it?  How are votes on ballots changed? 

But, none of that happened, did it? And Punter Biden did nothing, and neither did his fawning father, did they? But, DJ Jr? He did it all, didn't he?
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,477
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
A) Trump even winning legitimately is debatable at best

Thank you for conceding the arguement. That was very gracious of you.


Yes... and unlike Trump, they had a more valid reason than, "I'm losing!"

#26
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
A) Trump even winning legitimately is debatable at best
Thank you for conceding the arguement. That was very gracious of you.
Not how concession works, "at best" implies that at worst he frankly cheated. Also, which argument? I'm legitimately curious which one you're talking about.


How is this relavent? Hilary was never even involved
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,489
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
LOL...Over here it just means panties or feminine underwear.....Not wishing to stereotype gender of course.

Nonetheless, the above response is also suggestive of miffedness.....It lacks your usual erudite confidence.
#28
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
That utterly pathetic and  sexist low blow has nothing to do with what I said about the article. Not sure why you bothered responding. 
#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I would oppose anyone who tried to overturn a democratic election.
impeaching a president for abusing the power of his office is not overturning an election. It is protecting the country. And since power would not actually go to the party (it would have been pence) it isn't overturning an election at all. 

Trump is just outright trying to get the courts to say he is president even though the people voted for biden. That is treason in my book. 
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Are dead people allowed to vote? Are people allowed to vote more than once?
no, but since they didn't your question is irrelevant. 

How do you count more votes than there are registered voters? 
people are human and errors happen. They happen in literally every election that has ever taken place. That is no reason to overturn the results of the election.

How do states change their election rules without the benefit of their legislators doing it? 
states have the absolute right to determine how their elections are run. If they didn't have the right to do that, then lawsuits would have prevented them doing it. 

How are votes on ballots changed? 
more conspiracy theory nonsense. 

But, none of that happened, did it?
that is correct. Or at the very least, there is no evidence that any of it happened. If someone can prove these things happened then that would be a very different question. But dozens of lawsuits have been filed and no one has been able to provide evidence of fraud. 

And Punter Biden did nothing, and neither did his fawning father, did they?
Hunter has been banking on his father's name for years. Do I think it is corrupt? absolutely. Is it illegal? So far no one has been able to show that it is. There are lots of loopholes built in to allow the families of elected officials to cash in. Don't think the families of republicans aren't doing exactly the same thing. Trump's family sure as hell is. 

But, DJ Jr? He did it all, didn't he?
DJ JR is idiot. He is definitely corrupt. Whether or not he has committed crimes remains to be seen.  But I'd say Ivanka and Kushner are worse.