Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Michael T. Griffith]

Well, well, 17 states have now joined Texas's lawsuit against the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17-states-file-brief-backing-texas-election-lawsuit-against-ga-mi-pa-wi

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, well, 17 states have now joined Texas's lawsuit against the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17-states-file-brief-backing-texas-election-lawsuit-against-ga-mi-pa-wi

And they are all Republican controlled (what a surprise) and they will all be disappointed when SCOTUS rules against them.

There is no way SCOTUS is going to throw out all the votes in four States on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. If they do, there will for sure be riots in the streets. But there's a more important reason why SCOTUS will not intervene; if they do we can do away with elections all together because of the precedent they will be setting as it means that from now on every election, and thus the selection of a President, will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.

[Colin Crow]

And they are all Republican controlled (what a surprise) and they will all be disappointed when SCOTUS rules against them.

There is no way SCOTUS is going to throw out all the votes in four States on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. If they do, there will for sure be riots in the streets. But there's a more important reason why SCOTUS will not intervene; if they do we can do away with elections all together because of the precedent they will be setting as it means that from now on every election, and thus the selection of a President, will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.

The only riots are those of laughter.....still pushing the lame duck coup. Supposed to be chickens in a coup I thought. LOL.

[Michael T. Griffith]

And they are all Republican controlled (what a surprise) and they will all be disappointed when SCOTUS rules against them.

There is no way SCOTUS is going to throw out all the votes in four States on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. If they do, there will for sure be riots in the streets. But there's a more important reason why SCOTUS will not intervene; if they do we can do away with elections all together because of the precedent they will be setting as it means that from now on every election, and thus the selection of a President, will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.

You are still clueless. What those 18 states are suing for is to have done what should have been done from the outset: (1) to have the signatures on all mail-in ballots verified by standard/valid criteria and with bipartisan observers present, (2) to have all the ballots that were received after the legal deadlines disqualified, and (3) to have an independent forensic analysis done on the Dominion machines and software in conjunction with a forensic analysis of the tabulations done by those machines and software.

Yeah, I bet that if the Supreme Court followed the law and ordered those four states to take these reasonable actions, you would have left-wing thugs rioting in the streets because they don't care about honest elections and following the law.

I keep asking this, and I'll ask it again: How in the world do you explain the fact that in numerous key counties in those states, the mail-in ballot rejection rate was three, four, and as much as 12 times lower than the historical average, even though, for obvious reasons, we had far, far more mail-in ballots than in any previous election? As many data experts have pointed out, if the mail-in ballots in PA, MI, WI, and GA had been rejected at the average historical rate, Trump would have won. Give me a break.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are still clueless. What those 18 states are suing for is to have done what should have been done from the outset: (1) to have the signatures on all mail-in ballots verified by standard/valid criteria and with bipartisan observers present, (2) to have all the ballots that were received after the legal deadlines disqualified, and (3) to have an independent forensic analysis done on the Dominion machines and software in conjunction with a forensic analysis of the tabulations done by those machines and software.

And you call me clueless? Those states can not interfere in the way another state conducts it's business. If they had a problem with procedures or the use of Dominion machines they should have complained prior to the election and not after. Don't even try to pretend this is to protect honest elections and the law, because if Trump had won those states none of these complaints would have been made.

Also, if SCOTUS would throw out all the votes in those four states, they would be throwing out perfectly legally votes because of a procedural matter. There is no way that's going to happen. Even less so, as on those same ballots are also all sorts of other election votes which would be invalidated as well, for no apparent reason.

Yeah, I bet that if the Supreme Court followed the law and ordered those four states to take these reasonable actions, you would have left-wing thugs rioting in the streets because they don't care about honest elections and following the law.

BS.. If SCOTUS grants the motion, many people would rightfully feel that their vote was stolen from them.

I keep asking this, and I'll ask it again: How in the world do you explain the fact that in numerous key counties in those states, the mail-in ballot rejection rate was three, four, and as much as 12 times lower than the historical average, even though, for obvious reasons, we had far, far more mail-in ballots than in any previous election? As many data experts have pointed out, if the mail-in ballots in PA, MI, WI, and GA had been rejected at the average historical rate, Trump would have won. Give me a break.

I'm not going to explain something that the courts have already dismissed time after time.

Bottom line is that we had a fair election and that Trump and his ilk can not prove otherwise, which means that the only reason Trumps wants votes thrown out is to steal the election.

[Michael T. Griffith]

And you call me clueless? Those states can not interfere in the way another state conducts it's business. If they had a problem with procedures or the use of Dominion machines they should have complained prior to the election and not after. Don't even try to pretend this is to protect honest elections and the law, because if Trump had won those states none of these complaints would have been made.

In other words, never mind that those four states broke the law, counted illegal votes, illegally extended deadlines, illegally ignored legal procedural requirements, counted thousands of ballots multiple times, etc., etc. Nay, who needs honest elections, as long as your guy "wins," right?

Also, if SCOTUS would throw out all the votes in those four states, they would be throwing out perfectly legally votes because of a procedural matter. There is no way that's going to happen. Even less so, as on those same ballots are also all sorts of other election votes which would be invalidated as well, for no apparent reason.

What utter hogwash. Sheesh, have you read a single page of the evidence of voter fraud? "Procedural matters"!!! Yeah, like not scanning thousands of ballot multiple times, like not accepting mail-in ballots with no postmark, like not accepting mail-in ballots that were mailed after the lawfully established deadline, like not doing legally required signature verification on mail-in ballots, etc., etc. And this is not to mention the documented tabulation irregularities in the Dominion voting machines' tabulations.

BS.. If SCOTUS grants the motion, many people would rightfully feel that their vote was stolen from them.

Then that would make those people idiots and/or crooks. No one has a "right" to have their ballot counted 10 times. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if they couldn't manage to mail it in the legally established four-week period. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if the signatures on the envelope and the ballot clearly do not match or if there's no signature at all on the envelope.

I'm not going to explain something that the courts have already dismissed time after time.

In other words, you can't explain it, so you fall back on the summary, superficial rulings of corrupt or spineless judges, none of which made any effort to explain the suspiciously low mail-in ballot rejection rates.

Bottom line is that we had a fair election and that Trump and his ilk can not prove otherwise, which means that the only reason Trumps wants votes thrown out is to steal the election.

What idiocy. No, we did not have a "fair" election, and so far you have punted every time I've asked you to explain the clear evidence of voter fraud. Just because Democratic judges have summarily dismissed valid, fact-based lawsuits does not mean the voter-fraud evidence can be wished away.

[Martin Weidmann]

In other words, never mind that those four states broke the law, counted illegal votes, illegally extended deadlines, illegally ignored legal procedural requirements, counted thousands of ballots multiple times, etc., etc. Nay, who needs honest elections, as long as your guy "wins," right?

No, never mind that the losing side makes those claims without backing it up with persuasive evidence.

What utter hogwash. Sheesh, have you read a single page of the evidence of voter fraud? "Procedural matters"!!! Yeah, like not scanning thousands of ballot multiple times, like not accepting mail-in ballots with no postmark, like not accepting mail-in ballots that were mailed after the lawfully established deadline, like not doing legally required signature verification on mail-in ballots, etc., etc. And this is not to mention the documented tabulation irregularities in the Dominion voting machines' tabulations.

Utter hogwash? Is that some sort of legal term I have not yet heard of? 

What is it going to take for you to understand that the right has already lost 46 court cases and one SCOTUS petition because their so far unproven claims of fraud have no merit. And in case you haven't noticed, "legal eagle", Texas is not alleging fraud, because that would be a criminal offence, but is instead saying that the four states did not follow proper procedure resulting in things happening that Texas doesn't like.

Then that would make those people idiots and/or crooks. No one has a "right" to have their ballot counted 10 times. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if they couldn't manage to mail it in the legally established four-week period. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if the signatures on the envelope and the ballot clearly do not match or if there's no signature at all on the envelope.

There you go again. There is not a shred of evidence that ballots were counted 10 times, nor is there any evidence for the other allegations. That's all they are; allegations made by the sore loser who lost the election.

In other words, you can't explain it, so you fall back on the summary, superficial rulings of corrupt or spineless judges, none of which made any effort to explain the suspiciously low mail-in ballot rejection rates.

There is no "in other words". I don't explain it because there is no need to explain it. The mere fact that you accuse "corrupt and spineless" judges to be in on the fraud says enough about what your true position really is. For you Trump won the election and anybody who says otherwise and disagrees is either stupid, corrupt, spineless and in on the fraud. It's an argument a 5 year would make. It's truly pathetic.

What idiocy. No, we did not have a "fair" election, and so far you have punted every time I've asked you to explain the clear evidence of voter fraud. Just because Democratic judges have summarily dismissed valid, fact-based lawsuits does not mean the voter-fraud evidence can be wished away.

Talk about dishonesty. Trump's claims have been denied by Democratic and Republican judges, some of them even appointed by Trump. Just because Trump and his ilk, which includes you, claim there was voter fraud doesn't mean there actually was fraud. And there is no "clear evidence" for voter fraud because if there was, Guiliani would have passed it on to the DOJ for investigation and would have presented it in court. He hasn't done either. It's one thing to make absurd claims in the public domain, it's quite another to repeat those baseless claims in court if - as in this instance - you can't prove them.

Let me try to explain something to you. It will probably be a waste of time, but I'll try anyway. First of all, under the present system there is no national election for President. If there was, the popular vote would prevail, but it doesn't because each individual state holds an election, under their own rules and guidelines, to elect Electors to represent the State in the election of the President in the Electoral College. Those Electors are chosen by popular vote. He who gets the most votes wins.

Texas has no business telling another state how they should conduct their election of Electors nor does it have any say in which Electors are chosen by cerfication in that state. Texas has it's own Electors and they can vote the way they want in the Electoral College, but it has no right to tell another state how their Electors should vote. That's why the case brought by Texas to the SCOTUS has no merit and standing.

The intervention by Trump, which is not yet (and probably won't be) granted, has even less standing because he, as a candidate for the Presidency, has no standing in the election of the Electors. In other words, despite being a candidate he has no part in the process of chosing and certifying the Electors. His interests only come into play in the Electoral College. In 2016 Trump took advantage of this system by getting the most Electoral College votes, whilst losing the election on the popular vote. This time he lost the popular vote again, but now he's trying to get the states to send Electors that will vote for him, despite his loss in the popular vote. It is pathetic and it will not happen.