Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have to start believing in conspiracy theories. The court not interested in the Constitution.See if you can figure this out, I have my own definition.
Trumps lawyers in court their is no evidence of fraud ag barr their is no evidence of fraud dhs no evidence of fraud so in order for the scous to make any kind of ruling their has to be clear convincing evidence and their wasnt so they wouldn't hear the case.
No you didn't....find it on youtube?you saw the illegalities right before your eyes on tv in Philly and Atlanta.......the cameras don’t lie.......it was the narration that went with it that lied.
Fox....they never lie.Well, that's the difference between a court of law and social media:
You actually have to have credible evidence to have your case heard and ruled upon in the highest court of the land.
You don't just get to share Facebook memes and yell, "It was rigged!" and have your way in the Court.
See if you can figure this out, I have my own definition.
He’s referring to footage that has already been explained by the people in the footage itself. There is no evidence of fraud that he can link. You won’t see anything posted on here, guaranteed.No you didn't....find it on youtube?
No you didn't....find it on youtube?
Y'all lost by 3 million votes in 2016
And y'all lost by 7 million votes in 2020.
And now you think you can just ask judges to give you free votes
even after you clearly lost the cause.
Y'all are the ultimate snowflakes
And honesty doesn't really play a role in your life.
You have no shame and your pride is misplaced.
you saw the illegalities right before your eyes on tv in Philly and Atlanta.......the cameras don’t lie.......it was the narration that went with it that lied.
Even they said this was a farce. At least the actual news people did.Fox....they never lie.
Yeah. I mean who wants people to actually vote.I guess honesty played a huge role in the changing of election laws and methods just to insure a victory. Yeah. Thats honesty for you
This didn’t set the precedent. There is no central set of election rules in the US and one state can’t try to force another one do what they do. The process has always been each state makes their own rules and you can’t try to change that post election because you don’t like the outcome.I heard a good compilation of the facts on the radio, and I won't do it justice. But the guy listed out the provable, factual issues. Judges in some states ruling that ballots were to be accepted beyond dates set down by law, judges in some states setting aside signature matching, which is required by law, and one set of poll watchers being sent home before counting started back up, where the law requires both parties to be present. ( the list was longer, but I dont recall the rest)
But I agree that it was pretty much expected that the supreme court would just say texas had no standing or grounds to bring the suit. It's the easy way out. States are supposed to run their own elections.
This decision sets a precedent though, that one state can do whatever they want and call it fair, and the other states have to accept it. The other option is the federal govt running elections. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse....
Even they said this was a farce. At least the actual news people did.
Yeah. I mean who wants people to actually vote.
This didn’t set the precedent. There is no central set of election rules in the US and one state can’t try to force another one do what they do. The process has always been each state makes their own rules and you can’t try to change that post election because you don’t like the outcome.
Do you have a link because if it’s provable and factual it should hold up in courtI heard a good compilation of the facts on the radio, and I won't do it justice. But the guy listed out the provable, factual issues. Judges in some states ruling that ballots were to be accepted beyond dates set down by law, judges in some states setting aside signature matching, which is required by law, and one set of poll watchers being sent home before counting started back up, where the law requires both parties to be present. ( the list was longer, but I dont recall the rest)
But I agree that it was pretty much expected that the supreme court would just say texas had no standing or grounds to bring the suit. It's the easy way out. States are supposed to run their own elections.
This decision sets a precedent though, that one state can do whatever they want and call it fair, and the other states have to accept it. The other option is the federal govt running elections. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse....
This didn’t set the precedent. There is no central set of election rules in the US and one state can’t try to force another one do what they do. The process has always been each state makes their own rules and you can’t try to change that post election because you don’t like the outcome.
States are sovereign. They can make their own election rules. Does Texas want New York to tell them what they should do. Does South Carolina want California to tell how to do their business. Of course not.
Do you have a link because if it’s provable and factual it should hold up in court
They have NO standing to make that argument. Texas can show no harm for the manner in which Georgia or any other state decided to hold their elections....NONE.But again, texas wasnt saying these states had to do what texas does. Texas was trying to get these states to follow their own laws, which they made.
Not if you simply say the plaintiff has no standing to bring the suit.
They have NO standing to make that argument. Texas can show no harm for the manner in which Georgia or any other state decided to hold their elections....NONE.
He doesn't want to lose his license to practice....yet. The Pennsylvania state judge that reminded the attorney that he practiced in front of the court before he asked the question whether observers were allowed in was funny as hell.Fraud is what you hear when crazy rudy is outside Four Seasons Landscaping. When they actually get into court and are directly & specifically asked if they are alleging fraud the answer is no.
No, they were not. You need to read on standing and harm from a Constitutional standpoint.Actually the citizens of Texas and every other state that went red was harmed by these four states actions as it conceivably put a president in the white house by fraud. The president is the president of all the states including Texas.
Get it now?
How did they “cheat”?They reported that the scotus ruled that Texas had no say in the way other states handled their elections. They didnt say the allegations were a farce.
Read into it what you want i suppose.
The dem knew from the get go that they would win if they cheated and if they got caught, they would win in the courts.
They didnt care and still dont. Its a power grab without regard for the constitution or the citizens of this country.
I am no Trump soldier. If this entire scenario doesnt concern everyone no matter which party they support, we have some ignorant sheep out there.
They have NO standing to make that argument. Texas can show no harm for the manner in which Georgia or any other state decided to hold their elections....NONE.