Liberal Forum

maineman » 24 Jan 2023, 7:30 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2023, 7:30 pm

not with the intention of overthrowing the government.

Prove it.

FJB » 24 Jan 2023, 7:53 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2023, 7:53 pm

Prove it.

disprove it

slideman » 24 Jan 2023, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2023, 5:57 pm

Come on man there are 61 court cases or so that prove different. There was no widespread fraud that affected the outcome of the election the proposal that there was is preposterous.
That has been demonstrated over and over again in court.
It is still being demonstrated in the Dominion lawsuit against Fox which is going on right now.
No widespread fraud.

Secretaries of state changed the rules.  Lack of signatures were ignored.  Deadlines were changed.  This has been acknowledged by everyone.     

maineman » 24 Jan 2023, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2023, 6:19 pm

no democrat has acknowledged cheating.  And we didn't need to cheat.  We just needed to change our procedures to maximize the use of mail in ballots by our base....which We did.  The GOP chose to eschew early voting by mail and, instead, urged their base to vote on election day.  The numbers don't lie... the increase in mail in ballots were HUGE and they were overwhelmingly for Biden... because that's how the democratic party targeted their GOTV efforts.

Secretaries of states casually changed deadlines.  They ignored protocols like signatures.  They bent the rules.  

LincolnNebraska » 26 Jan 2023, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 8:39 am

Secretaries of states casually changed deadlines.  They ignored protocols like signatures.  They bent the rules.

did any of the revised rules  - which were revised in order to cope with a national election in the midst of a deadly global pandemic - apply to only democrats and not republicans?  Y/N?

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:20 am

did any of the revised rules  - which were revised in order to cope with a national election in the midst of a deadly global pandemic - apply to only democrats and not republicans?  Y/N?

it happened in democrat-controlled states. 

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:20 am

did any of the revised rules  - which were revised in order to cope with a national election in the midst of a deadly global pandemic - apply to only democrats and not republicans?  Y/N?

The argument is the revised rules in many states were not done by the state legislature.  It was AGs or governors.  
Section 4 Congress

• Clause 1 Elections Clause
  • 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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... 20Senators.

Article II Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

https://constitution.congress.gov/const ... article-2/

 
 

Huey » 26 Jan 2023, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:32 am

The argument is the revised rules in many states were not done by the state legislature.  It was AGs or governors.  
Section 4 Congress

• Clause 1 Elections Clause
  • 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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... 20Senators.

Article II Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

https://constitution.congress.gov/const ... article-2/

again... did any of the new rules exclude one party or did they apply equally to all voters?
 

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:37 am

again... did any of the new rules exclude one party or did they apply equally to all voters?

Doesn't matter.  The argument is they were not legally revised.  

Huey » 26 Jan 2023, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:42 am

Doesn't matter.  The argument is they were not legally revised.

and courts across the land acknowledge that...and have universally determined that the remedy for that mistake is to rewrite the rules to conform to the legislative intent going forward.

Anything else to discuss here?

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:44 am

and courts across the land acknowledge that...and have universally determined that the remedy for that mistake is to rewrite the rules to conform to the legislative intent going forward.

Anything else to discuss here?

too late they committed fraud

FJB » 26 Jan 2023, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:45 am

too late they committed fraud

sorry.    No fraud.

the courts have ruled that voters who followed the rules and cast their ballots according to those rules should have their votes counted... and that the states need to adjust their procedures going forward to make sure they are in accordance with the legislature and state constitutions...  which they have now done.

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:44 am

and courts across the land acknowledge that...and have universally determined that the remedy for that mistake is to rewrite the rules to conform to the legislative intent going forward.

Anything else to discuss here?

Actually, the Supreme Court is contemplating taking that case. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/22/11430866 ... e-v-harper

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:48 am

sorry.    No fraud.

the courts have ruled that voters who followed the rules and cast their ballots according to those rules should have their votes counted... and that the states need to adjust their procedures going forward to make sure they are in accordance with the legislature and state constitutions...  which they have now done.

they changed the rules during the election cycle. FRAUD

Huey » 26 Jan 2023, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:53 am

Actually, the Supreme Court is contemplating taking that case. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/22/11430866 ... e-v-harper

irrelevant in the argument about 2020.

FJB » 26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am

they changed the rules during the election cycle. FRAUD

You need to go back to your dictionary and learn the definitions of the words you use... and make yourself a promise to only use words whose meanings you KNOW first.

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am

irrelevant in the argument about 2020.

I wouldn't say irrelevant because the actions of the states are why there is a lawsuit to begin with. 

FJB » 26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:55 am

they changed the rules during the election cycle. FRAUD

fraud is wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

1.  There may have been a wrongful an overstepping of authority, but no DECEPTION.  The changed rules were published and well known.

2.  There was no financial or personal gain because the revised rules applied equally to all voters.
 

maineman » 26 Jan 2023, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:56 am

You need to go back to your dictionary and learn the definitions of the words you use... and make yourself a promise to only use words whose meanings you KNOW first.

typical liberal asswipe you are

Huey » 26 Jan 2023, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2023, 10:56 am

I wouldn't say irrelevant because the actions of the states are why there is a lawsuit to begin with.

I say irrelevant because many people are still dreaming of the courts magically stepping in and declaring a 2020 redo.  that ain't gonna happen.