Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch Cherry Bomb!Who we said we fantasied about with the other 7th grade dudes at school.....
vs who we really fantasized about.....lol
View attachment 321300
Well, according to SD4L, (I dunno if he's propaganda or not ) They brought Eastman in to determine next steps for how one might go about implementing this legal theory. I haven't vetted that and I'm not sure the story is interesting enough to vet.Maybe Eastman came to them with the idea.
That you can see the plain language of the second but not the plain language that spells out that only the legislature can direct the manner electors are chosen is hypocrisy at its finest likely fueled by normalcy bias that gets people sick to their stomach when confronted with the reality that the left has taken over and those that believe this stuff are just like the RINO’s many of them criticize for not doing anything, while not doing anything themselves...I think the only provable situation was the rule changes. But that's probably dead end. I think first they'd have to get a ruling that emergency powers do not extend to making mail-in ballots the way most people vote. I suspect they'll lose on that. And without a favorable ruling on that question, I don't see how they can claim any of those elections were unconstitutional.
Whatever went down it appeared to be an ill-advised hail Mary facilitated by Trump's hand chosen legal enablers.I think all I need to know is that Eastman does not seem to be any kind of actual top subject matter expert. And then whatever can be most reasonably inferred from that. Best case for Trump would be he got duped by his lawyers. No surprise from a guy like Rudy. Worst case, he knew he lost and solicited ways to stay in office from shady lawyers.
Don't think we can know his mind. So opinions all around.
So, if they did, then they would need to "throw out" a lot of Trump's electors as well. Most states altered existing mail-in/absentee voting to allow for COVID... some did it by legislation... most did not. One of the handful of notable exceptions was Florida, lol!I think that using these cases at most proves that Trump was delusional about the election. I think the only provable situation was the rule changes. But that's probably dead end. I think first they'd have to get a ruling that emergency powers do not extend to making mail-in ballots the way most people vote.
I suspect you are right in addition to you have to right the rules BEFORE the election... not after.I suspect they'll lose on that. And without a favorable ruling on that question, I don't see how they can claim any of those elections were unconstitutional.
You keep raising state of mind... I thought that only applied to criminal codes that use the term "knowingly did such and such"... and that they didn't have to know it was illegal, just that they knew what they were doing. I.e. it wasn't inadvertent.So I don't think you can use the cases that Trump took to court proves his state of mind.
I would flip that... he had competent people tell him over and over again that his "stolen election" rants on social media were simply untrue... that dead people, out of staters, etc simply did not vote in more than single digits. AG Barr, Gov Kemp, SoS Raffensberger, etc and that added up to he lost. He could not countenance that, so call in the "kracken" squad.It's just as feasible that his lawyers, which you already admit were incompetent, sold an already ego-bruised lame duck President on legal battles he couldn't win.
Then they are unconstitutional too…So, if they did, then they would need to "throw out" a lot of Trump's electors as well. Most states altered existing mail-in/absentee voting to allow for COVID... some did it by legislation... most did not.
Two words. Emergency Orders. You may not like it. I don't like it. But the courts have sided with them. There was the case in Texas against Abbot. State SCOTUS, you know that far left liberal institution, threw it out.That you can see the plain language of the second but not the plain language that spells out that only the legislature can direct the manner electors are chosen is hypocrisy at its finest likely fueled by normalcy bias that gets people sick to their stomach when confronted with the reality that the left has taken over and those that believe this stuff are just like the RINO’s many of them criticize for not doing anything, while not doing anything themselves...
By all means evaluate this post through your vaunted neutral prism…
Never said it. That's something that you and Bug invented.By all means evaluate this post through your vaunted neutral prism…
Moore v Harper torpedoed this by 6-3. BUT EVEN IF IT HADN'T, the PA extended deadline votes would not have even came close to changing the PA results... Biden would have still won, IIRC, by 70,000 votes instead of 80,000 votes, ASSUMING all of the extended deadline votes were for Biden... I'm sure that they added to his lead, but doubt they were 100% Biden votes.That you can see the plain language of the second but not the plain language that spells out that only the legislature can direct the manner electors are chosen is hypocrisy at its finest likely fueled by normalcy bias that gets people sick to their stomach when confronted with the reality that the left has taken over and those that believe this stuff are just like the RINO’s many of them criticize for not doing anything, while not doing anything themselves...
By all means evaluate this post through your vaunted neutral prism…
Then they are unconstitutional too…
According to Eastman... who is after all, a pre-iminent constitutional scholar!Well, according to SD4L, (I dunno if he's propaganda or not ) They brought Eastman in to determine next steps for how one might go about implementing this legal theory. I haven't vetted that and I'm not sure the story is interesting enough to vet.
Yup on both counts.Eastman swears he didn't. Could be CYA though.
I've read enough articles on Eastman's involvement, might as well take your pick on what you want to believe. It's an open field.According to Eastman... who is after all, a pre-iminent constitutional scholar!
Yup on both counts.
Those you name are compromised RINO’s. And the truth that conservatives are losing is in posts of the like of you and @jamil. What you two and a few others here take as a badge of superiority I find pathetic.I would flip that... he had competent people tell him over and over again that his "stolen election" rants on social media were simply untrue... that dead people, out of staters, etc simply did not vote in more than single digits. AG Barr, Gov Kemp, SoS Raffensberger, etc and that added up to he lost. He could not countenance that, so call in the "kracken" squad.
He knew that he failed on all (save 270 votes in PA) counts in the state/federal courts and on all counts in the state legislatures and SoS's. He knew that by the certified votes and electors, he lost... and the only way to stay in power was to alter the elector count on Jan 6th.
Not sure whether he "metaphysically" believed he lost or not is relevant. Someone may "metaphysically believe" that a bank or some other institution stole money or property from them, but if they rob the bank, they are a bank robber regardless of whether they were delusioned in that belief or not.
IIRC, I thought that they did, but only after the election... things like letting old folks in COVID quarantined nursing homes vote absentee/mail-in when they did not meet the letter of the existing law for absentee/mail-in.Two words. Emergency Orders. You may not like it. I don't like it. But the courts have sided with them. There was the case in Texas against Abbot. State SCOTUS, you know that far left liberal institution, threw it out.
The question is, under the cover of emergency orders, can the state modify the election process like a few states did? That's not been adjudicated at the federal level as far as I know. Did Trump bring that case to court? If not. Why not? And don't just say "standing". That's been a standing excuse for not answering relevant questions.
You are an exceptional human being and an example for all of us.If one complains that much about their spouse they need to get away from that torment or, as is equally likely, quit tormenting their spouse.
I never say bad things about my spouse…