Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
How do MAGA Morons still buy into the Big Lie?
How do MAGA Morons still buy into the Big Lie?
By maineman
21 Oct 2023 12:26 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
25 Oct 2023 10:57 am
SURE YOU DO, MOPBOYmaineman » 25 Oct 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑ I have no such memories, allcaps homo.... that's all about you.
tell me again about all your letters!
SECRET RENDEZVOUS AT OGUNQUIT
PUTZ
25 Oct 2023 11:00 am
didn't SupraTruther always type in caps?righteous » 25 Oct 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑ SURE YOU DO, MOPBOY
SECRET RENDEZVOUS AT OGUNQUIT
:rofl: :rofl:
PUTZ
25 Oct 2023 11:01 am
CAKE SWEETIE?
MUST HAVE BAKED IT FOR YOUR HONEY, ***.
25 Oct 2023 11:03 am
WHO GIVES A ****, ROBBIE
25 Oct 2023 11:04 am
just doin retorts
not surprised that it went over your head
25 Oct 2023 11:07 am
A brain comes with a conceived replacement.
A social mind replaces natural brain functions navigating space uniquely here. An intellectual mind gains a contextual soul wishing now isn't eternity and rather die in character than be equally occupying space as uniquely present.
Morality, legality, ethics, economics, social identity don't happen without ancestires compromising away their actual time adapting as displaced here now.
I don't give a rat's *** who you rather have been, but since conceived you are nothing more than a pretender believing your reality made you exceptional from naturally timed part now.
that is your doing, not mine. Personal responsibility to comprehend self as how living actually adapts to spontaneously alive simultaneously here. You won't accept that.
25 Oct 2023 11:13 am
They were...buy elected officials and courts. However, the US Constitution gives plenary authority to the state legislatures to determine how electors from their state are selected. Article II, Section 1 states: "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:..."maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑ Were the election rule changes made to minimize the risks to public health in the midst of a deadly global pandemic written in such a way as to explicitly favor one party over the other? Y/N?
No elected official, at any level, and no court, at any level, has the power to change the rules established by the legislature of a state for electing electors. If the state legislature established election rules...say only people who meet certain requirements may vote by mail, or that "drop boxes" are to be located at the county seat for two examples...as it pertains to the vote related to President, only the legislature can change those rules. Nobody, not even the Governor of the state, can say everyone is eligible to vote by mail. That decree can apply to all matters except the vote for President. That position was never brought before a court be anyone with legal standing (and probably only current members of the state legislature would have legal standing).
25 Oct 2023 11:37 am
Is this **** all you have, or could we hope for some intelligent content at some point?
25 Oct 2023 11:49 am
I understand that courts have stated that many of the pandemic-driven rule changes were unconstitutional. And those same courts have ruled that the remedy is PROSCRIPTIVE in nature and will apply to FUTURE elections and that those changes - made in good faith - were not a reasonable justification to disenfranchise millions of voters who played by rules as published in 2020.ConsRule » 25 Oct 2023, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑ They were...buy elected officials and courts. However, the US Constitution gives plenary authority to the state legislatures to determine how electors from their state are selected. Article II, Section 1 states: "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:..."
No elected official, at any level, and no court, at any level, has the power to change the rules established by the legislature of a state for electing electors. If the state legislature established election rules...say only people who meet certain requirements may vote by mail, or that "drop boxes" are to be located at the county seat for two examples...as it pertains to the vote related to President, only the legislature can change those rules. Nobody, not even the Governor of the state, can say everyone is eligible to vote by mail. That decree can apply to all matters except the vote for President. That position was never brought before a court be anyone with legal standing (and probably only current members of the state legislature would have legal standing).
My question, which you so cutely dodged, was: were any of those rules written to explicitly favor one political party over the other? Y/N?
25 Oct 2023 12:08 pm
The answer to your question will hinge on the thinking of the person(s) who made the change. I would hope the answer is no...but since I don't know the minds of the people who made the changes there is no way to know for sure. However, it is completely irrelevant.maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑ I understand that courts have stated that many of the pandemic-driven rule changes were unconstitutional. And those same courts have ruled that the remedy is PROSCRIPTIVE in nature and will apply to FUTURE elections and that those changes - made in good faith - were not a reasonable justification to disenfranchise millions of voters who played by rules as published in 2020.
My question, which you so cutely dodged, was: were any of those rules written to explicitly favor one political party over the other? Y/N?
Now, show me where those courts have the constitutional authority to allow unconstitutional changes to election laws stand or only apply to future elections? That is what most liberals, and their lackies in the media, don't understand. If a vote was cast and counted illegally, then the election results are compromised....period...full stop. I understand the remedy seems difficult, but it really isn't (IMO). The US Constitution provides the remedy. The legislature of the state is the sole authority when it comes to selecting/appointing electors...let the legislature that was in place in those states decide. I know a lot of people would scream and whine, but it's the fault of the people who changed the rules that it would need to come to that. The courts most certainly did not have the authority to do what they did.
25 Oct 2023 12:09 pm
A former federal election official on Thursday called the $400 million-plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent to help finance local elections a “carefully orchestrated attempt” to influence the 2020 vote — and recommended that all states ban private funding of election offices.Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, said the billionaire Facebook founder’s donations to a pair of nonprofits that doled out the cash to nearly 2,500 counties in 49 states “violated fundamental principles of equal treatment of voters since it may have led to unequal opportunities to vote in different areas of a state.”maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑ I understand that courts have stated that many of the pandemic-driven rule changes were unconstitutional. And those same courts have ruled that the remedy is PROSCRIPTIVE in nature and will apply to FUTURE elections and that those changes - made in good faith - were not a reasonable justification to disenfranchise millions of voters who played by rules as published in 2020.
My question, which you so cutely dodged, was: were any of those rules written to explicitly favor one political party over the other? Y/N?
https://nypost.com/2021/10/14/zuckerber ... 2020-vote/
25 Oct 2023 12:30 pm
ConsRule » 25 Oct 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑ The answer to your question will hinge on the thinking of the person(s) who made the change. I would hope the answer is no...but since I don't know the minds of the people who made the changes there is no way to know for sure. However, it is completely irrelevant.
Now, show me where those courts have the constitutional authority to allow unconstitutional changes to election laws stand or only apply to future elections? That is what most liberals, and their lackies in the media, don't understand. If a vote was cast and counted illegally, then the election results are compromised....period...full stop. I understand the remedy seems difficult, but it really isn't (IMO). The US Constitution provides the remedy. The legislature of the state is the sole authority when it comes to selecting/appointing electors...let the legislature that was in place in those states decide. I know a lot of people would scream and whine, but it's the fault of the people who changed the rules that it would need to come to that. The courts most certainly did not have the authority to do what they did.
I cannot show you where any court has the constitutional authority to allow unconstitutional changes to election laws stand. And why should I? I never clamed they did.
25 Oct 2023 12:38 pm
Pennsylvania got away with it... talk about fraud...maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑ I cannot show you where any court has the constitutional authority to allow unconstitutional changes to election laws stand. And why should I? I never clamed they did.
25 Oct 2023 12:41 pm
So...you're comfortable with courts allowing illegal votes being cast and counted? You find it perfectly acceptable to allow compromised election results to stand? Sounds like you are a true threat to our form of government.maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑ I cannot show you where any court has the constitutional authority to allow unconstitutional changes to election laws stand. And why should I? I never clamed they did.
25 Oct 2023 1:41 pm
I am comfortable with the courts addressing - and correcting - the administrative overreach in future elections, which they already have done.ConsRule » 25 Oct 2023, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑ So...you're comfortable with courts allowing illegal votes being cast and counted? You find it perfectly acceptable to allow compromised election results to stand? Sounds like you are a true threat to our form of government.
I am also comfortable with the courts ruling that registered voters who played by the rules and voted according to the guidance they received from their elected and appointed public officials should not be disenfranchised after the fact.
I am surprised you would not share that sentiment.
25 Oct 2023 2:58 pm
Another liberal lie. Nobody, if the unconstitutionally cast votes were excluded, would have been disenfranchised. To be disenfranchised means to lose one's RIGHT to vote...it DOES NOT mean having one's vote discarded because it violated the US Constitution. Besides, I never said the entire election in those states needed to be voided...the courts don't have that authority. However, the vote for President should have been ignored because the rules changes were unconstitutional (even though the people were not voting for President). State elected officials and the courts in those states may have the authority to change the rules in everything else...just not how electors are chosen.maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑ I am comfortable with the courts addressing - and correcting - the administrative overreach in future elections, which they already have done.
I am also comfortable with the courts ruling that registered voters who played by the rules and voted according to the guidance they received from their elected and appointed public officials should not be disenfranchised after the fact.
I am surprised you would not share that sentiment.
I am NOT surprised you aren't smart enough to know the definition of disenfranchised or understand the nuances.
25 Oct 2023 6:15 pm
I DON'T SEE YOU FURNISHING INTELLIGENT CONTENT NOT TAINTED WITH LEFTIST GIBBERISH.maineman » 25 Oct 2023, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑ Is this **** all you have, or could we hope for some intelligent content at some point?
YOU SHINE WITH LOYALTY TO A CORRUPT LEFTIST PARTY. YOU SUPPORT THE RADICAL LEFTIST AGENDA, OPEN BORDERS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, ETC., ETC.
THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION AROUND THE LEFTIST IDEOLOGY.
25 Oct 2023 6:17 pm
MY VERSION OF YOUR RESPONSE WITH CAKE, FRUITY.Mrkelly » 25 Oct 2023, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ just doin retorts
not surprised that it went over your head
MOST DEFINITELY WENT OVER YOUR LITTLE BRAIN.
25 Oct 2023 6:33 pm
the one where you called me "sweetie" ?righteous » 25 Oct 2023, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑ MY VERSION OF YOUR RESPONSE WITH CAKE, FRUITY.
MOST DEFINITELY WENT OVER YOUR LITTLE BRAIN.
ewwwww
25 Oct 2023 6:44 pm
ConsRule » 25 Oct 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Another liberal lie. Nobody, if the unconstitutionally cast votes were excluded, would have been disenfranchised. To be disenfranchised means to lose one's RIGHT to vote...it DOES NOT mean having one's vote discarded because it violated the US Constitution. Besides, I never said the entire election in those states needed to be voided...the courts don't have that authority. However, the vote for President should have been ignored because the rules changes were unconstitutional (even though the people were not voting for President). State elected officials and the courts in those states may have the authority to change the rules in everything else...just not how electors are chosen.
I am NOT surprised you aren't smart enough to know the definition of disenfranchised or understand the nuances.
Disenfranchisement also means removal of the privilege to vote. The courts chose to not retroactively remove the privilege to vote for president in 2020 for any registered voter who followed the rules as promulgated by their elected and appointed public officials. The courts chose to remedy the bureaucratic overreach by requiring legislative input prior to the 2022 election. I take it that you would throw out ballots cast by well-meaning registered voters who followed the published instructions of their public officials? What did they do wrong that their voices should not be heard?
Who is online
In total there are 5853 users online :: 1 registered, 14 bots, and 5838 guests
Registered users: ROG62
Bots: LCC, Bolt, GPTBot, CriteoBot, ADmantX, proximic, DuckDuckGo, facebookexternalhit, YandexBot, Applebot, Googlebot, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot, curl/7