Supreme Court

[Incogneeto]

Had to fix that for you.

That's a whataboutism.

[neurosis]

That's a whataboutism.

That's more of an 'I know you are but what am I -ism'. I'm rubber and you're glue.

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I've been down all of those rabbit holes.  Pretty extensively.  The Hawaii example doesn't hold up in this case. I haven't seen the Gore example. I'll read that.

I do want to put this out there. After reading through the project 2025 nonsense, I don't have a lot of respect for the heritage foundation or their opinions on anything.

I am curious as to how the Hawaii example doesn't hold up in this case?  If what they are saying in that article is true, then the contested case Trump brought was still pending by the time the electors had to vote and based on the reasoning pointed out in the article it made sense.  Maybe I missed something when reading through the article that you picked up on?

[neurosis]

I am curious as to how the Hawaii example doesn't hold up in this case?  If what they are saying in that article is true, then the contested case Trump brought was still pending by the time the electors had to vote and based on the reasoning pointed out in the article it made sense.  Maybe I missed something when reading through the article that you picked up on?

I'll find it later when I get home if I have time. You can just google search "hawaii Trump fake electors differences" and find the info. 

This *could* be where G's "arguing semantics" may fit better?  From my understanding, there was no question that the election was lost and the Trump admin still went with their plan. The secrecy in Trumps case. The fact that Trump had already declared fraud and all cases were already thrown out. That's the difference.

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I'll find it later when I get home if I have time. You can just google search "hawaii Trump fake electors differences" and find the info. 

This *could* be where G's "arguing semantics" may fit better?  From my understanding, there was no question that the election was lost and the Trump admin still went with their plan. The secrecy in Trumps case. The fact that Trump had already declared fraud and all cases were already thrown out. That's the difference.

I did a Google search and found a couple of articles.   I skimmed them and the only "difference" that I would lend credence to was the margin of the win in question. The difference of win was around 100-200 votes for Hawaii, whereas Gerogia was 11000-12000.  But that difference for GA was still only a .26% margin and with the claim of a burst pipe in Fulton County that was false and the sending the count watchers home claiming they were done counting only to pull cases out from under a table and continue counting is very suspicious to me which brings me to the next difference. 

Another "difference" brought up in the article was the talk of the recount, they stated that we(Ga) had recounted 3 times, running the same ballots through the machine 3 times, without examining those ballots to make sure they were indeed valid is not what I would call a good recount especially since fraud was alleged. 

Their difference of the electors meeting in secret is of no concern to me. 

The other article makes similar arguments.  I am only speaking about the alternate electors issue in GA, I haven't followed any other states.

[neurosis]

The other article makes similar arguments.  I am only speaking about the alternate electors issue in GA, I haven't followed any other states.

There is one huge difference that can't be ignored. "Even if the recounts in Hawaii succeeded in giving Nixon the state, Kennedy would have still won the presidency with 300 electoral votes to Nixon's 222."  Kennedy didn't need those electoral votes. That's pretty important considering that Trump was making accusations of election fraud while attempting to (allegedly) commit election fraud himself.

I'll post a quote that is also important that I'll fuck up if I try to paraphrase

"When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate.


He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.

That newest slate "properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii," Nixon said."

I understand that meeting is secret would make no difference to some people. That's not the case for everyone.

Also, if they (2000 fake electors) had abandoned ship on the plan once the election was declared, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The OTHER popular libertarian think tank 'The Cato Institute' also has an article saying that the two cases aren't comparable. Funny that one says it is and one says it isn't?   I didn't actually read the Heritage Foundation article. It could have just explained how they thought they could get away with it (the excuse for doing it).

As with everything else, all of this information is available to all of us. Our opinions aren't going to matter in the end. Some (can't remember the number) of these electors are facing some pretty hefty charges. We'll see what the courts have to say about it.  I'm not one of those 'if one side gets away with it then the other side should get a pass'.  I'm more of the 'both sides should be held accountable if what they're doing is illegal.   Incog calls that fence sitting.

[neurosis]

I quoted the article so I wouldn't fuck it up and fucked up the quote.  lol

[Jon@NOWHERE]

There is one huge difference that can't be ignored. "Even if the recounts in Hawaii succeeded in giving Nixon the state, Kennedy would have still won the presidency with 300 electoral votes to Nixon's 222."  Kennedy didn't need those electoral votes. That's pretty important considering that Trump was making accusations of election fraud while attempting to (allegedly) commit election fraud himself.

I'll post a quote that is also important that I'll fuck up if I try to paraphrase

"When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate.


He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.

That newest slate "properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii," Nixon said."

I understand that meeting is secret would make no difference to some people. That's not the case for everyone.

Also, if they (2000 fake electors) had abandoned ship on the plan once the election was declared, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The OTHER popular libertarian think tank 'The Cato Institute' also has an article saying that the two cases aren't comparable. Funny that one says it is and one says it isn't?   I didn't actually read the Heritage Foundation article. It could have just explained how they thought they could get away with it (the excuse for doing it).

As with everything else, all of this information is available to all of us. Our opinions aren't going to matter in the end. Some (can't remember the number) of these electors are facing some pretty hefty charges. We'll see what the courts have to say about it.  I'm not one of those 'if one side gets away with it then the other side should get a pass'.  I'm more of the 'both sides should be held accountable if what they're doing is illegal.  Incog calls that fence sitting.

I can see how the secret meeting can be of concern to some which is why I said it was of no concern to me. 

The heritage foundation article doesn't read, to me anyways, like they were trying to get away with something but more like sending the electors as a "just in case" should the litigation that the Trump team brought prevailed.

I think the biggest thing that pisses me off, and others like me, is that there wasn't an actual investigation into the allegations of the election fraud.  I mean we investigated the 2016 election and Trump based on a dossier that was bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

[neurosis]

I think the biggest thing that pisses me off, and others like me, is that there wasn't an actual investigation into the allegations of the election fraud. 

I have to admit, I didn't follow the election fraud claim as much as some of you. I tried to read as much as I could when things were brought up. My interest was lost when the 'cyber ninjas' were hired to audit Arizona votes. When I found out who the CEO was and researched that a little they lost my interest. The courts, Barr, and pretty much everyone else had already dismissed all claims of election fraud.

I can get behind some of the opinions that say that voting law changes went too far during covid. Some States weren't set up to handle a wave of sudden mail in voters.  The Trump admin didn't help the situation by trying to take apart the postal service. I know that there are a lot of excuses for this.  I was mostly pissed because my netflix deliveries dropped to once a week.  

mean we investigated the 2016 election and Trump based on a dossier that was bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

I get that.  There were some things that seemed like red flags but over all, that investigation was built on trash.

[Del.]

I've never thought that ballots were miscounted. I do however have major concerns about who actually filled out the mail in ballots in the large inner cities. There is no way to know.

[Smit]

Is there a real reason you're so concerned about who actually filled out the mail in ballots?

I mean something solid, a concrete bit of evidence that suggests there is something to be suspicious about. Something that would stand up in court as credible evidence?

I'm sure there is something driving the doubt other than some orange mfer and his sycophantic suckups said so?

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I have to admit, I didn't follow the election fraud claim as much as some of you. I tried to read as much as I could when things were brought up. My interest was lost when the 'cyber ninjas' were hired to audit Arizona votes. When I found out who the CEO was and researched that a little they lost my interest. The courts, Barr, and pretty much everyone else had already dismissed all claims of election fraud.

I can get behind some of the opinions that say that voting law changes went too far during covid. Some States weren't set up to handle a wave of sudden mail in voters.  The Trump admin didn't help the situation by trying to take apart the postal service. I know that there are a lot of excuses for this.  I was mostly pissed because my netflix deliveries dropped to once a week.  



I get that.  There were some things that seemed like red flags but over all, that investigation was built on trash.

I wanted an actual investigation, not the cyber ninja stuff, although if they showed anomalies then it should have been investigated further.  The fact that everything was written off is what makes the actual claims seem more credible. 

[Del.]

Is there a real reason you're so concerned about who actually filled out the mail in ballots?

I mean something solid, a concrete bit of evidence that suggests there is something to be suspicious about. Something that would stand up in court as credible evidence?

I'm sure there is something driving the doubt other than some orange mfer and his sycophantic suckups said so?

I think many of them were filled out by someone other than the person they were mailed to. I don't think mail in ballots should ever be used. Absentee ballots are ok.

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I think many of them were filled out by someone other than the person they were mailed to. I don't think mail in ballots should ever be used. Absentee ballots are ok.

Based on this poll it happened quite a bit.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heartland-rasmussen-poll-one-five-161100197.html?guccounter=1