Trump 2024 ???

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN
    Perhaps an INGO lawyer will weigh in, but I don't think a plaintiff has standing if not a resident of a state in which the rule changes were made or existing rules were violated, unless and until he can show that such changes resulted in some demonstrable harm - which could only be after the vote was counted and certified. Democrats have recognized and deliberately exploited the fact that there is insufficient time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to take any meaningful legal action

    Whether would have been the Trump Campaign or the state GOP, they certainly could have, but did not.

    That election laws, such as those purporting to guarantee access to observers from all parties, have no penalties or remedies enshrined in their text allows them to be violated with impunity and leads to endless arguing about what should be done rather than anything actually being done. It is a recipe to get to box four sooner or later, even jamil claims to have limits, although he has detailed nothing about what comes next when, in extremis, even his presumably squishy lines are crossed

    Are you talking about the 20 foot/6 foot and 60 observers rule? Again, I think you're taking Trump "literally" when it's literally not true.


    He just reads like JamilAnon - stay home, don't worry, things will sort themselves out, it will be alright
    Nope, I took Trump's allegations seriously, but when I looked for the facts, he was either outright lying or exaggerating hugely. In this case it was how many and how close, not whether or not observers were allowed... they were.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    27,899
    149
    Columbus, OH
    There's clearly such a thing as true enough. The enough part is determined by the importance of the thing as well as other factors. Not having enough of the truth makes you say stupid **** like we need to install Trump because he says he was cheated. Sorry. That's an area where that's not true enough. We don't install presidents because one side makes a claim about another. People who win through the electoral college are installed as president. Or when a president must leave office, another is installed in the line of succession.
    I will grant you the courtesy of assuming that the highlighted use is the generalized 'you' and not the specific. You (specific) and I both know that I have never said Trump should be 'installed' as anything. Even if Pence had had the balls to try the stratagem of challenging the certification, it would simply have thrown the issue to the courts in a way they could not have refused to entertain. To so vigorously overstate your case is to reveal the weakness of it
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    19,478
    149
    The way I see it, some people will continue to gaze at that coin, ruminating on the known unknowns, as a practical alternative to ever having to make a decision one way or the other. It doesn't even have to be a coin, it could just as well be your navel

    Concluding that one finally knows what the truth is years after any effective actions are possible would seem to be exactly what progressives might like

    The tell, which a person can only know about themselves, is whether one is looking for a reason to take action (and what might be effective action) or a reason not to
    I think it's up to each individual to decide if they want to invest in a certain coin upon their appraisal and if in their estimation whichever they decided to choose it would result in what they determine to be the best chance of a return for their investment.
     
    Last edited:

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN
    You don't need to end mail in voting entirely, just in enough states to make up a comfortable majority of electoral votes in the electoral college
    Just to be clear, are you advocating:

    1. Ending all mail-in voting?
    2. Or, ending the sending of unsolicited applications for a mail-in ballot.
    3. Or, ending the sending of unsolicited mail-in ballots to the entire bloated registry list?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    27,899
    149
    Columbus, OH
    In this case it was how many and how close, not whether or not observers were allowed... they were.
    orcnvY6HG6EFP3Mm.jpg-large.jpeg

    Yass, queen. If observers were allowed, should they not be allowed to observe? And what exactly are the remedies or punishments encoded in such laws to prevent just such behavior, which is my point. Election law is toothless, feel-good fiction
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    27,899
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Just to be clear, are you advocating:

    1. Ending all mail-in voting?
    2. Or, ending the sending of unsolicited applications for a mail-in ballot.
    3. Or, ending the sending of unsolicited mail-in ballots to the entire bloated registry list?
    #1, with the caveat of only seeking to do so in enough states that it forms a comfortable majority of EC votes. I think most are in agreement that in person voting with positive ID, and paper ballots rather than machine generated counts, are the most secure system. It would still be up to a candidate to win enough of the states that have free and fair elections. the states where people like their chains will have to come to their senses on their own. I thought lockdown would have done it, now I'm not sure what will

    Maybe start flooding California with immigrants fleeing communism who recognize the warning signs
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    18,963
    113
    North Central
    All of them I looked at boiled down to challenging the rules of the election after the fact and asking that the results be thrown out, a do-over, when he didn't go to court and challenge them before the election when the rules were announced.
    But it was, and it went to SCOTUS and Alito said bring it back after the election when there is actual harm, then after they used standing as the reasoning not to hear it.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN
    View attachment 240738

    Yass, queen. If observers were allowed, should they not be allowed to observe? And what exactly are the remedies or punishments encoded in such laws to prevent just such behavior, which is my point. Election law is toothless, feel-good fiction
    134 observers WERE allowed, ONE for each counting table, the rest were not. The ejected challengers were filming the counting, which is against the law (for whatever reason) in Michigan, hence the card board.

    Truly egregious was Cox’s dishonesty. At the time of her tweet, several hundred of her party’s poll challengers, attorneys and representatives were already inside the TCF Center monitoring the count. By law, Republicans were allowed to have 134 challengers in the room, one for each tabulation table. In reality, the GOP had far more than that, according to sworn testimony from nonpartisan poll watchers inside the TCF Center. Because of the overflow, election officials ultimately decided to lock down the complex, starting with the glass-encased canvassing room where the tabulation work was being done. This left dozens and dozens of Republicans trapped behind the glass—in addition to the hundreds of others locked outside with Cox. Some began to bang hard on the inside windows; others began to film workers handling the ballots, a violation of state law. To protect the workers, TCF officials covered some of the windows with cardboard—a decision Thomas said he was not consulted on, but absolutely agreed with.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    18,963
    113
    North Central
    Cases are thrown out for no standing often enough. Did the brief they filed show clear evidence of harm caused by the states they were suing? Probably the John Robert's court did not want to get SCOTUS into that mess. I'm sure there was some bias there anyway. IANAL but I would think it would be an exceptionally high bar to make a case that those states harmed those other states. It's easy for you to talk about it and think it's clear as day. It's another thing to cross the t's and dot the i's.
    If state A is following the constitution on votes and states B is not is there not a disenfranchisement of state A’s voters, a specific harm?
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN
    The only one I know of before the election was the PA Supreme Court extending absentee ballots to all postmarked by election day.

    Again, if I'm missing something, please let me know.

    But it was, and it went to SCOTUS and Alito said bring it back after the election when there is actual harm, then after they used standing as the reasoning not to hear it.
    You omitted the part of my post that referred to this, so I included it above.

    And, Alito said the exact opposite.

    He, Thomas and Gorsuch (Barrett had not been seated) issued a dissent from the denial of the Writ stating that the court SHOULD take up the case before the election.

     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN

    Politico, and unsupported assertions by Tim Alberta, who is hardly an unbiased observer

    I can see why you declined to cite the source of your quote
    Nor did you... a no context picture asserting no observers were allowed.

    Were any observers allowed in? Were 134 observers allowed in?

    What proof do you have that your assertion is true?

    What level of proof would be acceptable to prove it false, if that is the case?
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    18,963
    113
    North Central
    You omitted the part of my post that referred to this, so I included it above.

    And, Alito said the exact opposite.

    He, Thomas and Gorsuch (Barrett had not been seated) issued a dissent from the denial of the Writ stating that the court SHOULD take up the case before the election.

    Not a lot of difference in my memory and the actual events, he said he would like it to be decided but there was not time enough to and he ad,Ed the disputed ballots be kept separate which if I recall were not. Nonetheless they rendered no decision, just kicked the can, although part of that was Barrett not being there.
     

    bwframe

    Grayish Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    89   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    34,347
    113
    Monroe County
    If the libs want us to believe that the "swing state" election results, all determined after election day, were legit, all they have to do is have all of the counters come forward to testify.

    Same deal with the states who put out the ballot mail boxes. Plenty of video of those things being stuffed, 100's and hundreds of "votes" at a time.

    Show us the signatures, matched with the voter...

    How many of the states that took sooooooo long to count their votes swung to the republican candidate?


    .
     
    Last edited:

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    36,576
    113
    Uranus
    "Water pipe is broken. Everybody out." Excuse us while we unload ballots from underneath tables and repeatedly run through the machine.

    Weird right?

    Like when the "machine errors" constantly and consistently change votes to the other party.
    What's REALLY WEIRD is that when that happens it's ALWAYS Republican votes getting changed to a vote for demoncrats.
    I guess the machines just revert to alphabetical order since D is before R or something.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    4,330
    113
    SW IN
    Not a lot of difference in my memory and the actual events, he said he would like it to be decided but there was not time enough to and he ad,Ed the disputed ballots be kept separate which if I recall were not. Nonetheless they rendered no decision, just kicked the can, although part of that was Barrett not being there.
    I re-read it... I had forgotten that there were TWO attempts to get Supreme Court review. The first one was 4-4 (****ing Roberts!). The link I posted was the second one less than a week before the election.

    The PA Supreme Court definitely imposed its own rules over what the legislature had written. But this wasn't their most egregious "tipping of the scales"... that would have been making sure there wasn't another episode like "Hillary losing because of the Green Party":

     

    LeftyGunner

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 10, 2022
    173
    43
    Indianapolis
    If state A is following the constitution on votes and states B is not is there not a disenfranchisement of state A’s voters, a specific harm?

    A1S4C1 of the Constitution, commonly called the “Elections Clause” reads as follows…in its entirety:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    So…yeah, it doesn’t go into great detail.

    I am no lawyer, but it looks like “following the constitution“ is a fairly ambiguous task in this example…as long as the states are happy with the results of their elections, so is the Constitution.

    It doesn’t look like election fraud was high on the founder’s minds, for better or for worse, and now we have to figure out how to deal with the fallout.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    507,863
    Messages
    9,353,842
    Members
    50,594
    Latest member
    Dlink1268
    Top Bottom