Riddle Me This Folks

[gator1776]

I posted this on the Main board couple hours ago when Louisiana join Texas

Riddle me this main board, if you have eventually 15 to 25 states challenge the outcome of this election in the five battleground states, what happens when one side loses? Basically the states are suing the other states for a fraudulent election. If 20 or 25 states all believe that these five states held a fraudulent election, what becomes of our government depending upon who wins?

What we have here is a constitutional crisis. Some people just want it that way, well, if that’s the way he wants it, that’s the way he’s going to get it.

Apologies to cool hand Luke.

Looking at you @sadgator @BSC911 @LizardGrad89

 

[gator1776]

Add one more.........

 

[sadgator]

We don’t have a constitutional crisis...we have nonsense and noise. The challenges are unsupportable and legally insufficient...

but, luckily, you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

 

[BillCutting4585]

We don’t have a constitutional crisis...we have nonsense and noise. The challenges are unsupportable and legally insufficient...

but, luckily, you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

Then why would SCOTUS take the case if it’s just a waste of time or insufficient evidence? Keep in mind, SCOTUS is the only panel that can take this lawsuit per the constitution.

 

[gator1776]

We don’t have a constitutional crisis...we have nonsense and noise. The challenges are unsupportable and legally insufficient...

but, luckily, you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

You really don’t see 10 states, so far, suing five states for a fraudulent election as a constitutional crisis?

I mean really? Are you sure?

 

[jfegaly]

You say you want a revolution

 

[BillCutting4585]

You say you want a revolution

The Beatles 😂😂😂

 

[gator1776]

You say you want a revolution

This

I suspect a bloodless one, I don’t think the other side has a stomach for the fight. Proud of our side for having the stomach for a change.

 

[sadgator]

Are you sure?

Completely.

 

[gator1776]

You say you want a revolution

And how fitting, Texas shall lead them, The only state that was ever a zone independent country that has it actually written in the constitution that it has the right to succeed if I remember correctly.

 

[BlueEyedGator17]

We don’t have a constitutional crisis...we have nonsense and noise. The challenges are unsupportable and legally insufficient...

but, luckily, you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

Hey.. just curious.... does ur head tickle ur ass?

 

[jfegaly]

This

I suspect a bloodless one, I don’t think the other side has a stomach for the fight. Proud of our side for having the stomach for a change.

I sure hope so. That being said this has to be resolved

 

[gator1776]

Completely.

 

[BillCutting4585]

And how fitting, Texas shall lead them, The only state that was ever a zone independent country that has it actually written in the constitution that it has the right to succeed if I remember correctly.

I know where I’m moving if this occurred

 

[sadgator]

Lol...fights and revolutions...

do you guys remember the foam tv bricks in 80’s, ya’ll should get some of those to work out your frustration...

 

[BlueEyedGator17]

I know where I’m moving if this occurred

I wonder how long before Florida joins in. I’m so glad I live in Florida. Can’t imagine if we got gillum. Haha

 

[sadgator]

Been right about absolutely everything so far...keep watching...as ghost loves to say...

 

[jfegaly]

I know where I’m moving if this occurred

come on down to the great Republic of Texas. I will treat you to some Whataburger and a meet and greet of @BSC911

 

[jfegaly]

Been right about absolutely everything so far...keep watching...as ghost loves to say...

what did you predict? Did the one eyed cat do something?

 

[BlueEyedGator17]

Been right about absolutely everything so far...keep watching...as ghost loves to say...

But have u? Lol. No evidence but we have video, cases of ballots being brought out of hidden, hacked voter machines ( that weren’t supposed to be connected to WiFi but were ), mass mail out ballots were dead ppl voted, illegals voted, underage kids voted, and the list goes on. So what were u right about?

 

[gator1776]

Lol...fights and revolutions...

do you guys remember the foam tv bricks in 80’s, ya’ll should get some of those to work out your frustration...

No I’m going just keeping banging your wife

 

[gator1776]

I wonder how long before Florida joins in. I’m so glad I live in Florida. Can’t imagine if we got gillum. Haha

Florida already joined in.

 

[gator1776]

Been right about absolutely everything so far...keep watching...as ghost loves to say...

Yeah but you really didn’t answer the question here, what happens if 25 or 30 states sue five states, does it really matter with the Scotus decides at that point? Interesting question.

 

[BillCutting4585]

come on down to the great Republic of Texas. I will treat you to some Whataburger and a meet and greet of @BSC911

Done and done

the fry daddy 😂😂😂

 

[gator1776]

 

[sadgator]

No I’m going just keeping banging your wife

You wanna talk about “frustration”...damn brutha...you must be a masochist...

 

[sadgator]

Yeah but you really didn’t answer the question here, what happens if 25 or 30 states sue five states, does it really matter with the Scotus decides at that point? Interesting question.

It’s happy horsesh!t...there’s no viable legal cause:..but you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

certainly sadgator can’t be right about that one too...

 

[jfegaly]

It’s happy horsesh!t...there’s no viable legal cause:..but you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

certainly sadgator can’t be right about that one too...

How does it feel to get duped by the media? You voted for someone with dementia. Well sonofabitch

 

[LizardGrad89]

Then why would SCOTUS take the case if it’s just a waste of time or insufficient evidence? Keep in mind, SCOTUS is the only panel that can take this lawsuit per the constitution.

As of 6:36 PM today, SCOTUS had not yet taken the case. The case being filed is not the same as the court accepting the case.

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/12/...-texas-in-suing-wisconsin-three-other-states/

 

[LizardGrad89]

We don’t have a constitutional crisis...we have nonsense and noise. The challenges are unsupportable and legally insufficient...

but, luckily, you won’t have to take sadgator’s word for it...

No state has standing to bring a suit about another state. Each election is the sole province of that state. Texas has their electoral votes, the voters in that state decided how to allocate them. The other states have the same right and Texas has no say in how they do it. Texas also has no damages, as nothing about Texas elections was changed in any way by any actions taken by other states. Interestingly, it's the electoral college that shields the other states from Texas. If we had a national election, then it could be argued that Texas voters were damaged by outcomes from other states. But because each state has only it's own electoral votes, each state is a little island all on it's own.

SCOTUS will not take up this case. To do so would turn the entire basis of our legal system upside down. It would destroy the legal precedent of standing, and so there would be no criteria for deciding which cases have sufficient basis for a trial and which don't.

 

[goldmom]

And how fitting, Texas shall lead them, The only state that was ever a zone independent country that has it actually written in the constitution that it has the right to succeed if I remember correctly.

Well, they have been successful...but it's largely a myth that they can secede. The DO have the right to break up into five states.

 

[jfegaly]

No state has standing to bring a suit about another state. Each election is the sole province of that state. Texas has their electoral votes, the voters in that state decided how to allocate them. The other states have the same right and Texas has no say in how they do it. Texas also has no damages, as nothing about Texas elections was changed in any way by any actions taken by other states. Interestingly, it's the electoral college that shields the other states from Texas. If we had a national election, then it could be argued that Texas voters were damaged by outcomes from other states. But because each state has only it's own electoral votes, each state is a little island all on it's own.

SCOTUS will not take up this case. To do so would turn the entire basis of our legal system upside down. It would destroy the legal precedent of standing, and so there would be no criteria for deciding which cases have sufficient basis for a trial and which don't.

#counteveryillegalvote. #yourirrelevanceskirtisshowing. ROFLMAO. No links to quality publications out of Milwaukee?

 

[fatman76]

No state has standing to bring a suit about another state. Each election is the sole province of that state. Texas has their electoral votes, the voters in that state decided how to allocate them. The other states have the same right and Texas has no say in how they do it. Texas also has no damages, as nothing about Texas elections was changed in any way by any actions taken by other states. Interestingly, it's the electoral college that shields the other states from Texas. If we had a national election, then it could be argued that Texas voters were damaged by outcomes from other states. But because each state has only it's own electoral votes, each state is a little island all on it's own.

SCOTUS will not take up this case. To do so would turn the entire basis of our legal system upside down. It would destroy the legal precedent of standing, and so there would be no criteria for deciding which cases have sufficient basis for a trial and which don't.

That’s the same argument as saying a voter in one precinct cannot sue another precinct for open voting malfeasance.

They absolutely can because the disenfranchisement affects the voter who cast a legal (in the case the argument is Constitutional) vote.

And the EC was never meant to shield anyone from anything except pure democracy (hence, a “Republic”). It was critical to the founders that we never rely on mob rule.

EC process also has certain provisions for fraud, which if you haven’t cracked a civics book for awhile you may get a crash course in on 1/6.

 

[sadgator]

The evidence of fraud is overwhelming alright...

 

[goldmom]

That’s the same argument as saying a voter in one precinct cannot sue another precinct for open voting malfeasance.

They absolutely can because the disenfranchisement affects the voter who cast a legal (in the case the argument is Constitutional) vote.

And the EC was never meant to shield anyone from anything except pure democracy (hence, a “Republic”). It was critical to the founders that we never rely on mob rule.

EC process also has certain provisions for fraud, which if you haven’t cracked a civics book for awhile you may get a crash course in on 1/6.

The 2000 election decision by SCOTUS centered on equal protection, IIRC. standards for counting ballots had to be equal in all 67 counties in FL, and they clearly were not.
I'm not terribly hopeful but at this point I think I have pretty much run out of hope, so who knows. 😟

 

[goldmom]

The evidence of fraud is overwhelming alright...

Sorry, don't understand this?

 

[sadgator]

Sorry, don't understand this?

“Look at it again.”

 

[kjfreeze]

come on down to the great Republic of Texas. I will treat you to some Whataburger and a meet and greet of @BSC911

Whataburger - the BEST hamburger in America!

 

[fatman76]

The 2000 election decision by SCOTUS centered on equal protection, IIRC. standards for counting ballots had to be equal in all 67 counties in FL, and they clearly were not.
I'm not terribly hopeful but at this point I think I have pretty much run out of hope, so who knows. 😟

Hang in there

 

[fatman76]

Sorry, don't understand this?

He’s just pointing out I have a thing for Bump Its