‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just so that you know how to follow this case:
  1. Follow this link to the Docket: Search - Supreme Court of the United States
  2. Look to see if there is an “Order” issued by the court. It will say something like: “Above report received and order filed. Motion for leave to intervene GRANTED,” if SCOTUS will hear the case.
Up to now, the docket is just the filings of TX. SCOTUS hasn’t even reviewed them yet.

Edit: it’s also worth noting that the man who typically argues on behalf of TX in front of SCOTUS (the state Solicitor General) is not involved with this case. I take it that he didn’t want to risk his reputation.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
Which of you do I believe?
The one telling me there is no fraud or the one telling me there is?
Click to expand...
The one claiming fraud must convince you. The results are presumed accurate until you find them not to be so.
 
vz71 said:
Doesn’t particularly matter to me if a court agrees.
Click to expand...
I mean, it should. That’s how we settle disputes in a civilized society. It’s not with competing YouTube videos.
 
Nepperhan said:
The one claiming fraud must convince you. The results are presumed accurate until you find them not to be so.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I would go one step further. In this case (these cases), the results have been certified as accurate by competent authority, so the presumption of accuracy is that much higher. In other words, it is not merely that they must show fraud over against no evidence of correctness. They must show fraud over against the certification.
 
I’m wondering if, with the Supreme Court demonstrating its disinterest in these challenges, our resident true believer @HarryStotle is still anticipating an 11th hour Trump victory.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
I’m wondering if, with the Supreme Court demonstrating its disinterest in these challenges, our resident true believer @HarryStotle is still anticipating an 11th hour Trump victory.
Click to expand...
If Trump loses in court, some will suspect that the fix was in.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
I’m wondering if, with the Supreme Court demonstrating its disinterest in these challenges, our resident true believer @HarryStotle is still anticipating an 11th hour Trump victory.
Click to expand...
Nepperhan said:
If Trump loses in court, some will suspect that the fix was in.
Click to expand...
Twist ending!! Turns out that Alito is a Manchurian Justice who merely pretended to be conservative his entire life to be in place to move Trump’s PA appeal response ahead of the safe harbor date and convince his fellow Justices to unanimously deny it.
 
Nepperhan said:
If Trump loses in court, some will suspect that the fix was in.
Click to expand...
Of course. Some people will go to their graves denying Trump’s loss. But a hallmark of the denialist argument has been “just you wait till the Supreme Court takes this; they’re going to deliver a second Trump term.”

I’m wondering if this news has any of our stalwart “never say die” types wavering or if they still think Trump is gonna be inaugurated in January.
 
Well, I was 'way out in the country this weekend and someone should tell Trump that his supporters think he’s being silly in not admitting the obvious.
 
vz71 said:
48.png
billsherman:
There is a big difference between fraud, and fraud that changes the result.

There is no evidence of fraud that changed the outcome. I’m not aware of there being any evidence of fraud on a smaller scale either
Click to expand...
You are willing to believe smaller fraud, that there is no evidence for.
But unwilling to believe larger fraud, that there is evidence for?

How odd.
Click to expand...
Not odd at all. An isolated case of someone voting in the wrong precinct, or filling out an absentee ballot for someone else might easily exist without the evidence being detected. But fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election would leave behind much more evidence that would be almost impossible to escape the audits and safeguards in place. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. One vote out of 200 million cast incorrectly is not an extraordinary claim, so it does not need extraordinary proofs. 6 million votes across several states all cast illegally is an extraordinary claim, so you know what it requires.
My take…if there is fraud at all, it needs to be investigated thoroughly…
Click to expand...
You may have that take, but ensuring 100.00000000% accuracy is just not practical. 99.99999% is good enough.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That’s just another way of saying the nation is more polarized in 2020 than it was in 2016. Nothing surprising about that.
Click to expand...
The press and the party of minority grievance are doing exemplary work trying to stoke division.

Fortunately, Trump’s share of minority voters has increased beyond any Rep candidate since Reagan. Another four years and he will continue to prove the empty pandering and promising that Pelosi & Co promote are platitudes more than substance.
 
It’s really simple! Get those illegal votes thrown out! Not the legal ones!
 
I really appreciate the patience and reasoning in your replies! Thanks for finding the words that always escape me!
 
Nepperhan said:
Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.
Click to expand...
There are others who disagree and make an even better case that Texas has standing.
To those arguing states have no “standing” & cannot sue other states for violating the Electors Clause, what is the point of the states agreeing to the Electors Clause if no state can seek remedy when another state violates it? A right without a remedy is no right at all.
Click to expand...
By definition, a suit between the states cannot be resolved in any other forum because the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the ONLY court that can decide suits between the states.
Click to expand...
This is like asking “how does the party to a contract injured by the other party’s breach of that contract even have standing to sue for breach of that contract in the very court the parties contractually agreed would resolve their contractual disputes?” Yes, Texas has standing.
Click to expand...
People tend to forget the Constitution is really just a contract between states, where the states contractually agreed how they would pick a President, where they could sue if a dispute arises between them, and even the remedy if contested electors denies any candidate a majority.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1336454142148059136
 
You should talk to some people who have actually met with him and talked to him ! You might come away with a different opinion! I’ve heard plenty of people who felt like you who had their minds changed!
 
Which is how many of the MSM said that Bill Clinton won … that women voted for him based upon looks … and I suppose that explains why women and feminist women in particular dont care and didnt care about any of this …


It is said that radio listeners thought Nixon won the 1960 presidential debate against Kennedy … but those that watched the first ever televised debate thought the younger handsome Kennedy won … Kennedy was young and considered good looking [and a womanizer though the media covered for him too - like they did for Clinton] while Nixon was older, underweight and had recently been hospitalized.

Obama was considered very good looking as well which did not hurt him with the women of America it seems …

Lots of sociologists write papers and news articles about how what is considered good looks works - in politics and in business …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top