Jump to content

An update on the Fraudulent Election.


Realville

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Big girl said:

Do you mean the voter suppression bill that GOP is saying is a voter integrity bill?

Just curious... what part of it suppresses anybody's right or ability to vote?

EVERYBODY that's a US citizen should be able to vote once.  People who aren't US citizens or are otherwise ineligible to vote shouldn't be casting ballots in our elections.  And NOBODY should be casting multiple ballots.  That's all that the proposed legislation that I've seen is trying to curb.

If the vote really was precious, then Democrats would join in and make sure that nobody's vote is cancelled out by a fraudulent one.  But Democrat's are literally rebranding attempts to curb voter fraud as "voter suppression" and the parrots all repeat it when they don't even understand the basics. 

Is your argument that blacks are too stupid to show up with an ID at the polls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Start thinking for yourself

Amazing - the crowd incapable of next level thinking (due to peanut brains) telling other people to think for themselves 

 

requiring an ID to vote, by itself, is clearly not racist or whatever people want to call it. It’s what happens after that, ie closing DPS locations, closing polling stations, removing or limiting early voting periods, bogging down USPS, etc that is very obviously voter suppression..

 

but most of you guys are old boomer dinosaurs leeching off social security with all the free time in the world so it doesn’t affect you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Amazing - the crowd incapable of next level thinking (due to peanut brains) telling other people to think for themselves 

 

requiring an ID to vote, by itself, is clearly not racist or whatever people want to call it. It’s what happens after that, ie closing DPS locations, closing polling stations, removing or limiting early voting periods, bogging down USPS, etc that is very obviously voter suppression..

 

but most of you guys are old boomer dinosaurs leeching off social security with all the free time in the world so it doesn’t affect you 

Racist?  

Has it got to the point that anything one doesn't like is now deemed racist?  Appears that way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Are you retarded? I said voter suppression, not racist 

Voter suppression, racist, to your side it's the same thing.  Anyway, one can only vote one time.  Make a plan to vote regardless what the rules state.  Or, do you think there shouldn't be any rules/laws concerning this?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Are you retarded? I said voter suppression, not racist 

Oh, BTW -- nothing you've stated suppresses my vote in any way.  I find out when I can go vote and I do.  Unless you are trying to disguise it as racism?!  Nobody's vote gets suppressed as long as the rules/laws are followed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Oh, BTW -- nothing you've stated suppresses my vote in any way.  I find out when I can go vote and I do.  Unless you are trying to disguise it as racism?!  Nobody's vote gets suppressed as long as the rules/laws are followed!

What gets me is the Russians can’t meddle in our election, but it’s ok for illegal Hispanics to vote. What a two-faced crowd of pea brains we are dealing with. On top of that, does anyone really think the Russians would have wanted Trump as President? Can anyone else see the irony here or is it just me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 4:54 PM, baddog said:

What gets me is the Russians can’t meddle in our election, but it’s ok for illegal Hispanics to vote. What a two-faced crowd of pea brains we are dealing with. On top of that, does anyone really think the Russians would have wanted Trump as President? Can anyone else see the irony here or is it just me?

Hell no they didn’t want Trump.  They absolutely know that biden is clueless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was, and the other side knew it,  that there wasn't enough time for the lawsuits to run it's normal course.  I personally thought that it could have been done within the frame work of the election time tables.  But, apparently, that's not the way it works.  The mere fact that the other side is in panic mode about these audits says volumes!!

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:  "The COVD-19 pandemic gave numerous state election officials an excuse to implement far-reaching changes to our election processes.  Those changes obviously made our systems vulnerable to fraud.  States implemented massive mail-in balloting at the same time they relaxed ballot security and voter identification.  They even extended the voting periods — to give the criminals more time to commit their fraudAll these changes were unconstitutional.  The Constitution clearly gives the various state legislatures the authority to define how their elections will be conducted — not state election officials.  Election officials are only empowered to conduct elections within the rules set forth by their respective legislatures — except, apparently, during a pandemic.  There must be a pandemic emanation hidden in a penumbra of the Constitution we didn’t know about."

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...