David Marcus defines the New Right conservative movement

[roamer_1]

Sayeth the Principled Conservative (TM) who can't admit the election was stolen right in front of his face.

Someone willing to accept a stolen election isn't a person who values liberty, not in the least little bit.

I still have mine, and I will retain it or die, so...

And you continue to attack me with bullsh*t. I will say it again: I believed from the start that the election was suspicious. And that can be proven in the record, all the way along.

Where we part ways is that I am waiting for actual proof. You have not provided that. You have lost on that count, and as I said, the only way it goes forward is AZ's audit and the like... which IS the proof I have demanded all the way along.

What happens when those audits fizzle? I will just shrug and go on my way. You will be apoplectic. Because I have not invested myself in the gossip.

What happens if those audits prove out? I will stand and cheer  because FINALLY there is something that provides traction.

But one way or the other, I doubt very much that you will get your audits in all five states. Maybe two.
And I doubt very much that you will get to prove interstate collusion, which is the only way you are going to get at the big Dems. So even if an audit or two does prove out, it is liable to be anticlimactic. You'll get the heads of a few precinct captains at best.

That's the reality of it, and at this late date, you are probably beating a dead horse.

[Absalom]

Your argument already lost, so...

------------------------
Roamer, as I read and reflect on the words of the 'usual suspects' (borrowing Paine);
" These are the paragraphs that Try Men's Souls".
According to them, Plato was a zero and Politics is the answer to all our prayers;
even though that phone line has been disconnected for about 1,000 years.
Your patience is a gift!!!

[roamer_1]

Was there a flood on Election Day?

No.

Right, but there WAS a plandemic. The same contingencies kick in, and are allowed by the precedent of the flood (or whatever)

Would it have mattered?  Does the Constitution grant a weather-exception to the requirement that the LEGISLATURE determine the method of elector selection?

No.

No, the legislature does. If there is precedent of the court acting as the agent of the legislature, that IS the legislature. If there is precedent of a wide berth given to State election committees by the legislature, then they are acting as agents of the legislature, making decisions the legislature had not predicted, then that IS the legislature.

You lose. A lawyer would wear you right out, because the precedent or written contingency was there before the fact of this election.

Therefore, those electors selected during the Great Flood of Whenever?   Those were false electors, too.  Not relevant to the issue of THIS election, which was stolen by false electors without your objection.

No they were not, by virtue of the state legislature signing cert. That is not a false elector.

I sense a stench of desperation in your posts, now.

Please cite the Weather Exception clause in the Constitution.

The legislature writes what it wants, according to the Constitution. To include exceptions to the rule. The argument is in the state, not the Constitution.

===
Explain to this Syracuse boy why ANYONE would have to have a problem with the wee-bit of snow Texas may get in any particular week?  Are Texans frightened by white things?  Just askin', for a friend, ya know.  Maybe Texas doesn't have trucks?  Maybe they just don't know how to drive in a little snow?   Too funny.

===

I am in NW Montana 60 miles from Canada in the heart of the Rockies... with the griz and the wolf, and real actual sled dogs. Most every one of my wolf-malamutes have been trained to the sled. So yeah. Snow. More than you.

If the "continencies" aren't established in advance by the legislature, they're not allowed to alter how the presidential electors are selected.

That's the point. They are.

You gonna tell us next that "infringed" only applies to gun owners who don't own scary looking guns, as defined by the people who stole the election of 2020?

Naw. I got all the guns I need. and they ain't locked up, and they're all loaded. and there ain't nothing worth shooting up in these mountains that I ain't shot and ate.

Yeah.  It's funny how I insist that the CONSTITUTION, the guarantor of our (well, my) freedom is the go-to document for determining whether an election is lawful or not.

The legislature writes what it wants. Since the constitution assigns elections solely to the state legislatures your argument is with the legislatures.

Since I offer "only" the Constitutional mandate, please cite the law in the United States that overrides the Constitution, provide a link, and then we can discuss who ratified this law, why the Americans weren't informed about it, and how that law you cite is better at protecting our liberties than the Constitution you s(p)it on.

The Constitution assigns the thing solely to the legislatures. They can do whatever they want. With the Constitution's blessing.

That is the bare fact. And whatever the legislature has written over the years to allow for contingencies is all an act of the legislature, just as much as the normal electoral law. And every time precedent was set by the court and the legislature did not act to correct it, is also the legislature by way of passive acquiescence, because as the sole authority and therefore arbiter, that which they don't correct remains in precedence.

That is not spitting on the Constitution.

[roamer_1]

------------------------
Roamer, as I read and reflect on the words of the 'usual suspects' (borrowing Paine);
" These are the paragraphs that Try Men's Souls".
According to them, Plato was a zero and Politics is the answer to all our prayers;
even though that phone line has been disconnected for about 1,000 years.
Your patience is a gift!!!

No friend, it is a bother. 

[Sled Dog]

I still have mine, and I will retain it or die, so...

Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, per the Constitution, so you can believe what you want.

Until actions descending from those believes infringe on the rights of others to have free and honest elections.

And you continue to attack me with bullsh*t. I will say it again: I believed from the start that the election was suspicious. And that can be proven in the record, all the way along.

Well, no.  Citing the article of the Constitution that declare the state legislatures shall have sole authority on how the electors are selected and then pointing out that too many states defrauded the electors is not bullshit.

What is bullshit is your refusal to accept that fact for what it it, a fact.

And that the electors were selected by means not established by the state legislatures is an established fact and proven in the record.    All the way along.

It's just that some of us don't have TDS, don't object to Syracuse alumni, and actually like Cheetos, so we normal people are willing to be honest and state openly that the election was stolen.

Because the election was stolen.

Where we part ways is that I am waiting for actual proof. You have not provided that. You have lost on that count, and as I said, the only way it goes forward is AZ's audit and the like... which IS the proof I have demanded all the way along.

Where we part ways is the Constitution.

You don't like that the Constitution says Orangeman Won The Election.

Because Orangeman tweets mean things.

Or something.  I don't really care why you deny the election was stolen, the simple fact that you deny reality is sufficient.

That's where we part ways.   What's next, you reject the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

What happens when those audits fizzle? I will just shrug and go on my way. You will be apoplectic. Because I have not invested myself in the gossip.

And now we come up with the hypotheticals and the construction crews wearing Mini-True shirts moving the goal posts.

The electors were fraudulent because they were selected by unconstitutional means.

We already know the elections themselves were fraudulent, and we know it for the most obvious of reasons:  The Rodents don't want the audit to happen.  If the election were as honest as they say, they'd happily insist the audit happen.

Oh.

I forgot.

You TRUST the Rodents, at least so long as they kept the Evil Orange One from returning to his rightful place at the White House.    So long as the stolen election gave you the outcome you desired, an event perfectly in alignment with what Mitt Romney wanted, you're as happy as can be.   Now you're free to complain about all aspects of the Rodents except their habit of stealing elections and staging coups.

What happens if those audits prove out? I will stand and cheer  because FINALLY there is something that provides traction.

Nonsense.

We already have the evidence that the electors were false.    Read the Constitution.  It's not difficult to find on-line.

Here, if you're having difficulty finding a copy of the Constitution, and you're clearly confused about what it says, try constitutionus.com

But one way or the other, I doubt very much that you will get your audits in all five states. Maybe two.
And I doubt very much that you will get to prove interstate collusion, which is the only way you are going to get at the big Dems. So even if an audit or two does prove out, it is liable to be anticlimactic. You'll get the heads of a few precinct captains at best.

I don't recall asking for audits.

And the audits will only show what I and every other real American, the conservatives with real principles, already knows what happened.  That the Rodents cheat.    It's not like this is the first election they've stolen, you known.

Americans notice things like that.

Princpled Conservatives (TM) do not.   Unless Mittens loses an election.  Then I'm sure they get excited.

That's the reality of it, and at this late date, you are probably beating a dead horse.

No.  It's necessary to point out, everyday and forever, that the Rodents stole the election of 2020. 

Unlike Hester Prynne, the Rodents cannot make anything positive come from being compelled to wear the scarlet letter of "C".   

Cheaters aren't admired by Americans.

[Mesaclone]

------------------------
Roamer, as I read and reflect on the words of the 'usual suspects' (borrowing Paine);
" These are the paragraphs that Try Men's Souls".
According to them, Plato was a zero and Politics is the answer to all our prayers;
even though that phone line has been disconnected for about 1,000 years.
Your patience is a gift!!!

According to “Them”?

I believe Plato to be the foundation on which all of Western thought has been built...and to a lesser extent men like Aristotle, Heraclitus and Pythagoras. We ARE the children of Plato, the greatest thinker in the history of mankind. So be careful with that word “them” when applying it broadly to those disagreeing with you here. I do disagree with much that you say, but the foundational importance of Plato is something on which there can be no serious dispute. Quite frankly, Plato’s understanding of God makes the Bible look like a children’s cartoon book.

Frankly, this once promising thread has turned personal and non-productive. I’m done with it.

[Sled Dog]

Right, but there WAS a plandemic. The same contingencies kick in, and are allowed by the precedent of the flood (or whatever)

What "same contingencies" are those, the same ones as the imaginary Weather Contingency you refused to provide citation for?

No, the legislature does. If there is precedent of the court acting as the agent of the legislature, that IS the legislature.

Only if the legislature...this is tricky...LEGISLATES the judicial review as part of the specific election law.

But I can see you're squirming something fierce, here.  You can't just admit that the Secretary of State is tasked SOLELY with enforcing the election laws established by the legislature, and cannot modify a single part of it, and that the courts cannot alter those laws either, even when it makes it easier for the Rodents to steal the election from the Evil Orange One.

If there is precedent of a wide berth given to State election committees by the legislature, then they are acting as agents of the legislature, making decisions the legislature had not predicted, then that IS the legislature.

No.

That means they have demonstrated a habit of violating the Constitution.

The Constitution is not real estate.  Nobody can sneak an easement in.

You lose. A lawyer would wear you right out, because the precedent or written contingency was there before the fact of this election.

I'm an engineer.    The lawyer will think he won and discover someone's put square wheels on his car.

The reality is that you have lost, because you're broken the strings on this particular harp.   You are admitting, over and over and over again, that the electors were chosen by means not authorized by the legislature, and thus not chosen by the requirements of the Constitution.

Thanks for the confession.  No need to sign it.

No they were not, by virtue of the state legislature signing cert. That is not a false elector.

It's a fraudulent elector.   What LAW did the legislature pass authorizing the unlawful revisions enacted by the courts and the executive branches?   You are aware that LAWS require a governor's signature on them, don't you?

There's no honest person who will argue that the "certification" is an ex-post facto authorization condoning prior unconstitutional acts.  Naturally Principled Conservatives (TM) argue this incessantly, when driven to the corner of their inherent dishonesty.

The legislature writes what it wants, according to the Constitution. To include exceptions to the rule. The argument is in the state, not the Constitution.

Oh.

According to the Constitution, each state shall have a republican form of government, which requires that the laws of the state be enacted by the governor's signature.

There are no exceptions to the rule that the state legislatures have sole authority on how the electors shall be selected.   Those rules were violated.   Hence the electors so chosen are false electors.

What you're arguing is that when two baseball teams go out to play, they have an agreed set of rules, and then during the play, one team decides to change the rules so that they score one and a half runs for each of their players who makes it to Home, but the other team still only gets one.   Then the final score is 7.5 to 6.   YEA!  The Rodent Team won!!!

Then after the game the MLB certifies the score and the rules change becomes permanent.  Hooray!!!  The Rodents never lose again, not ever!   

Hey, you Americans, stop your whining, you lost according to the rules.  What?  Who cares that the rules were changed in the middle of the game?   That doesn't matter.  What matters is that we won, you did not.  Orangeman Bad.   

That's your argument.

See any holes in it?  I bet the Americans see plenty.

I am in NW Montana 60 miles from Canada in the heart of the Rockies... with the griz and the wolf, and real actual sled dogs. Most every one of my wolf-malamutes have been trained to the sled. So yeah. Snow. More than you.

Oh.  Thought you were a Texas puke.  Montana might get a little snow once in a while.  No, not more than what I grew up with.   But nice try.   Have you managed to find the Weather Exception to the requirement that only state legislatures can determine how presidential electors are chosen?

I didn't think so.

That's the point. They are.

Naw. I got all the guns I need. and they ain't locked up, and they're all loaded. and there ain't nothing worth shooting up in these mountains that I ain't shot and ate.

The legislature writes what it wants. Since the constitution assigns elections solely to the state legislatures your argument is with the legislatures.

I have no argument with the legislatures, unless they mailed out a bazillion easily defraudable ballots as they did in the Rodent states.    So I can now assume you like stolen elections based on mail fraud felonies?

My argument is with the courts, who have no authority interfering federal elections, and the governors, whose chance to affect the rules ends with their signatures on the election law.  And, of course, with the Never Trumping Principled Conservative (TM) Orange Man Bad fools that like the results of this particular stolen election so they can brag about how they value their liberty and other equally harmful and stupid things to say.

The Constitution assigns the thing solely to the legislatures. They can do whatever they want. With the Constitution's blessing.

That is the bare fact. And whatever the legislature has written over the years to allow for contingencies is all an act of the legislature, just as much as the normal electoral law. And every time precedent was set by the court and the legislature did not act to correct it, is also the legislature by way of passive acquiescence, because as the sole authority and therefore arbiter, that which they don't correct remains in precedence.

Yeah, that's not what happened here, and you know this.  What happend was that Trump was going to win the election, so...MONTHS before the election, the Secretaries of State and the state courts decided to hand down rulings doing all sorts of things that violated state election law.   

But you know all this.

That is not spitting on the Constitution.

That's why I used  (p) in that particular word.

[Sled Dog]

According to “Them”?

I believe Plato to be the foundation on which all of Western thought has been built...and to a lesser extent men like Aristotle, Heraclitus and Pythagoras. We ARE the children of Plato, the greatest thinker in the history of mankind. So be careful with that word “them” when applying it broadly to those disagreeing with you here. I do disagree with much that you say, but the foundational importance of Plato is something on which there can be no serious dispute. Quite frankly, Plato’s understanding of God makes the Bible look like a children’s cartoon book.

Frankly, this once promising thread has turned personal and non-productive. I’m done with it.

I never said Plato wasn't a leading founder of Western Civilization.   I said he was wrong in many things.   Our civilization moved away from the nightmare that is Plato's Republic, for example.   

[roamer_1]

Well, no.  Citing the article of the Constitution that declare the state legislatures shall have sole authority on how the electors are selected and then pointing out that too many states defrauded the electors is not bullshit.

And if that legislature, who has sole authority according to the Constitution, ALLOWS the state administration by way of the elections board, a broadly defined ability to act in their stead, WHAT THEN? That is the legislatures prerogative. They have sole authority, and can do what they want. At that point, the elections board, granted the authority to make decisions wherein the legislature could not predict, then the Administration iis acting at that point as the agent of the legislature - Entirely legal, because the legislature says so.

What is bullshit is your refusal to accept that fact for what it it, a fact.

No it is not. If that were true, ONLY the legislature could man the voting precincts. In ALL cases, they have granted oversight of the election to the administration. That right there is not ONLY the legislature. So EVERY state is outside of their Constitutional mandate.

But no... That's just the bullsh*t you want me to believe. The Legislature has already lent their authority to the administration in the bare form of oversight - True on its face. Now what we are arguing is the increment of authority granted therein, whether it is broadly or narrowly written.

And that the electors were selected by means not established by the state legislatures is an established fact and proven in the record.    All the way along.

No, it has not been proven. Is there precedent? I don't know. and neither do you. If the state board is operating using a preexisting exception or precedent in state law is not determined and damn important.

and actually like Cheetos

Puffs, slightly stale.

so we normal people are willing to be honest and state openly that the election was stolen.

So then I am normal people. I think it was stolen. I just don't think you can prove it.

Where we part ways is the Constitution.

You don't like that the Constitution says Orangeman Won The Election.

Because Orangeman tweets mean things.

Or something.  I don't really care why you deny the election was stolen, the simple fact that you deny reality is sufficient.

Mindreading, and damn poor at it. I was behind ol Tumpy in this... except that none of it means anything without actionable proof.

The electors were fraudulent because they were selected by unconstitutional means.

We already know the elections themselves were fraudulent, and we know it for the most obvious of reasons:  The Rodents don't want the audit to happen.  If the election were as honest as they say, they'd happily insist the audit happen.

Nah. Means nothing. If I  am being sued I get damned obstructionist just on general principles... That is how the game is played. I would never expect them to roll over.

You TRUST the Rodents, at least so long as they kept the Evil Orange One from returning to his rightful place at the White House.    So long as the stolen election gave you the outcome you desired, an event perfectly in alignment with what Mitt Romney wanted, you're as happy as can be.   Now you're free to complain about all aspects of the Rodents except their habit of stealing elections and staging coups.

More senseless mind reading. I don't TRUST any of em, right or left. And I didn't vote for Romulus... You did. Remember?

And I care not a whit about your complaining about the Democrats. Knock yourself out. Don't care.
What is nonsensical is all your tub-thumping with absolutely no actionable proof.

We already have the evidence that the electors were false.    Read the Constitution.  It's not difficult to find on-line.

Here, if you're having difficulty finding a copy of the Constitution, and you're clearly confused about what it says, try constitutionus.com

Don't need to. I have one right here in my pocket.

I don't recall asking for audits.

And the audits will only show what I and every other real American, the conservatives with real principles, already knows what happened.  That the Rodents cheat.    It's not like this is the first election they've stolen, you known.

Americans notice things like that.

...and do nothing but bitch and moan because they have no actionable proof. What do you do about it without actionable proof? You can't even justify your rabble rousing since without actionable proof, in the shade of the next time, it don't matter how many people you get to vote, because if you are right in this, they will steal it again regardless.

Princpled Conservatives (TM) do not.   Unless Mittens loses an election.  Then I'm sure they get excited.

Again, YOU voted for Romulus. Remember? I did not.

No.  It's necessary to point out, everyday and forever, that the Rodents stole the election of 2020. 

Unlike Hester Prynne, the Rodents cannot make anything positive come from being compelled to wear the scarlet letter of "C".   

Cheaters aren't admired by Americans.

All to no avail. A waste of time and energy without being able to DO something about it.

[roamer_1]

Frankly, this once promising thread has turned personal and non-productive. I’m done with it.

That's right. I am done with it too.

[Right_in_Virginia]

ONLY the legislature could man the voting precincts. In ALL cases, they have granted oversight of the election to the administration. That right there is not ONLY the legislature. So EVERY state is outside of their Constitutional mandate.

What the hell are you talking about?  What oversight was the administration granted?

[Sled Dog]

And if that legislature, who has sole authority according to the Constitution, ALLOWS the state administration by way of the elections board, a broadly defined ability to act in their stead, WHAT THEN? That is the legislatures prerogative. They have sole authority, and can do what they want. At that point, the elections board, granted the authority to make decisions wherein the legislature could not predict, then the Administration iis acting at that point as the agent of the legislature - Entirely legal, because the legislature says so.

If the state legislature "allows" an exception to the rules, the Rodents don't have to go judge-shopping to find a judge to buy off on the steal.  Do describe the Special Chinese Bioterrorism Pandemic the state legislatures included in their constitutionally valid laws.   If the exceptions were part of the law, then the courts wouldn't have gotten involved.

Do you know how the laws work in the US?

Just askin'.   

No it is not. If that were true, ONLY the legislature could man the voting precincts. In ALL cases, they have granted oversight of the election to the administration. That right there is not ONLY the legislature. So EVERY state is outside of their Constitutional mandate.

?

Seriously?  You're presenting this as a rebuttal?

But no... That's just the bullsh*t you want me to believe. The Legislature has already lent their authority to the administration in the bare form of oversight - True on its face. Now what we are arguing is the increment of authority granted therein, whether it is broadly or narrowly written.

No, they haven't.

No, it has not been proven. Is there precedent? I don't know. and neither do you. If the state board is operating using a preexisting exception or precedent in state law is not determined and damn important.

We're back to this. 

Good.

Yes, it's been proven.

So then I am normal people. I think it was stolen. I just don't think you can prove it.

You don't think it was stolen.   If you thought it was stolen, your emotions and energy would be directed towards defeating the Theft.   Clearly your energies are being used to prevent the public acceptance of this fact.

It's already been proven.   It's in the Constitution.   You can find it on-line.

Mindreading, and damn poor at it. I was behind ol Tumpy in this... except that none of it means anything without actionable proof.

Except there is proof.

It's in the Constitution.  You can find it on-line.

Nah. Means nothing. If I  am being sued I get damned obstructionist just on general principles... That is how the game is played. I would never expect them to roll over.

You mean rolling over as in "i believe the election was stolen but I'm going to object vociferously to every effort to make that fact part of the common knowledge" kind of rolling over?

Anyone in American honestly believe the Rodents are objecting to the audits because the elections results are pure and untainted?

Anyone here who remembers how the Rodents desperately tried to steal Floriduh in 2000 want to state the Rodents aren't Election Bandits of the worst caliber?

More senseless mind reading. I don't TRUST any of em, right or left. And I didn't vote for Romulus... You did. Remember?

You're still trying to straddle a fence that long ago replaced it's splintery wood with high quality 440C steel razor blades, edge up.

And I care not a whit about your complaining about the Democrats. Knock yourself out. Don't care.
What is nonsensical is all your tub-thumping with absolutely no actionable proof.

Additional proof not required.

Once a theorem has been established, additional proof are curiosities, not necessities.   There are dozens of proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem.   Only one was required.   You can prove trigonometric identities with more trig, or, if you're a masochist, you can dig out the McClauren series and have fun with that.

Don't need to. I have one right here in my pocket.

...and do nothing but bitch and moan because they have no actionable proof. What do you do about it without actionable proof? You can't even justify your rabble rousing since without actionable proof, in the shade of the next time, it don't matter how many people you get to vote, because if you are right in this, they will steal it again regardless.

Again, YOU voted for Romulus. Remember? I did not.

No.  I didn't know Star Trek was on the ballot.

Sure are a lot of Klingons around the seventh planet, though.   

All to no avail. A waste of time and energy without being able to DO something about it.

John 8:32

[Right_in_Virginia]

My argument is with the courts, who have no authority interfering federal elections,

You're (still) wrong.  If states violate the 14th Amendment Equal Protections Clause and/or Article 2, Section I, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, Federal court is precisely where ths issue(s) belong.  And since it's a State v State issue the US Supreme Court is the Court of original jurisdiction.  This is not "interfering", this is a Constitutionally mandaded judicial obligation.

No matter how many years and how strongly you state otherwise, you are and will remain dead wrong.

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's right. I am done with it too.

Thank you, Jesus.   

[libertybele]

According to “Them”?

I believe Plato to be the foundation on which all of Western thought has been built...and to a lesser extent men like Aristotle, Heraclitus and Pythagoras. We ARE the children of Plato, the greatest thinker in the history of mankind. So be careful with that word “them” when applying it broadly to those disagreeing with you here. I do disagree with much that you say, but the foundational importance of Plato is something on which there can be no serious dispute. Quite frankly, Plato’s understanding of God makes the Bible look like a children’s cartoon book.

Frankly, this once promising thread has turned personal and non-productive. I’m done with it.

 

[Sled Dog]

You're (still) wrong.  If states violate the 14th Amendment Equal Protections Clause and/or Article 2, Section I, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, Federal court is precisely where ths issue(s) belong.  And since it's a State v State issue the US Supreme Court is the Court of original jurisdiction.  This is not "interfering", this is a Constitutionally mandaded judicial obligation.

No matter how many years and how strongly you state otherwise, you are and will remain dead wrong.

No, I'm not wrong about that because I didn't bother to list all the caveats and emptors and other legal thingies in a polite conversation.

I'm also fully aware of how the Supreme Court used lies about the Fourth Amendment to justify violating the Fifth Amendment and thus fifty million babies have been slaughtered for profit in the last five decades.

If some state said that (b)lacks weren't allowed to vote, then yes, the Equal Protection Clause applies.

If some judge, elected or otherwise, violates state election law by ordering the polls to remain open because some (b)lacks in the inner cities like voting so much they like to do it often and thus the lines are too long, that's not a valid application of the Equal Protection Clause.

The courts were ordering that mail-in ballots be counted, even though they were received after the legislated deadline, ordered ballots accepted without valid signature, rejected signature validation, etc. 

Valid exceptions on the strength of later Amendments to the Constitution are not what was used to violate the election.

We all know this.

But Orangeman Bad, bring in ALL the arguments, no matter how flawed, to shut down the discussion on how the election was stolen.

[Absalom]

According to “Them”?
I believe Plato to be the foundation on which all of Western thought has been built...and to a lesser extent men like Aristotle, Heraclitus and Pythagoras. We ARE the children of Plato, the greatest thinker in the history of mankind. So be careful with that word “them” when applying it broadly to those disagreeing with you here. I do disagree with much that you say, but the foundational importance of Plato is something on which there can be no serious dispute. Quite frankly, Plato’s understanding of God makes the Bible look like a children’s cartoon book.
Frankly, this once promising thread has turned personal and non-productive. I’m done with it.

--------------------------------
Mesaclone,
My core issue w/many posts/posters is their fundamental lack of seriousness when
discussing individuals/matters involving Plato, Natural Law, Human Nature, Creation,
Logic & Reason, enduring Principles and the like.
Some are lost while others are just clowning around to get attention but you were
never the object of any such criticism or scorn from me.
More importantly, whether we agree or disagree, this is an opinion forum and you are
certainly entitled to yours.

 

[christian]

The rational is that only a court can decide guilt or innocence, therefore you can murder all the people you want, if the murders never come before a court, you are then innocent.  This is the thinking of the reprobate, no guilt conscience.  Odd how Conservatives are based on morality, this character denied morality out side of a court room.  Ted Bundy believed in whatever he could get away with too.  Laughing at America's doom is another big clue being ignored.  Has like minded people found this a haven ?  It would explain a lot.  The New Conservative, Putin or Xi ?  Don't be so sure it ain't.

[christian]

roamer1:
I will not help it along with that. Not either side of it. Big.gov can go hang, be it from the Democrats or the Republicans. My liberty will not be made a compromise.

christian:
NeverTrumpers working with RINOs and democrats to overthrow an election has nothing to do with them ?
 
Cowboy comedian ! with denials thrown in too!
You march their march, talk their talk, join them to defeat Trump, but you have no part in it?  Drivers in getaway cars used to deny their were part of it,to their surprise they were part of it and went to prison with the rest.  Your con-job is wearing thin, and is wearing out.

[corbe]

    Wait yall, I haven't even started yet.  Don't leave.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, I'm not wrong about that because I didn't bother to list all the caveats and emptors and other legal thingies in a polite conversation.

Your assertion that the federal court has no role in a federal election is wrong.  Sorry, it's just wrong.

If some judge, elected or otherwise, violates state election law by ordering the polls to remain open because some (b)lacks in the inner cities like voting so much they like to do it often and thus the lines are too long, that's not a valid application of the Equal Protection Clause.

It is a potential violation of both the Electors Clause giving the state legislature sole control of the election for presidential electors,  as well as the Equal Protection Amendment for citizens in all states guaranteeing uniform application of the Electors' Clause.  Just because no state legislature has ever challenged this doesn't mean they could not have.

The courts were ordering that mail-in ballots be counted, even though they were received after the legislated deadline, ordered ballots accepted without valid signature, rejected signature validation, etc. 

And these actions were part of the suit brought by the State of Texas (and 18 cosigner states) against four defendant states.  The suit requested a ruling from the court of original jurisdiction on a potential violation of the Electors' Clause and the 14th Amendment of the United States. 

Valid exceptions on the strength of later Amendments to the Constitution are not what was used to violate the election.

Not necessarily true.  If the defendant states did violate the Electors' Clause rendering their electors invalid, then the right of every US citizen to an accurate application of the Electors' Clause guaranteed through the 14th Amendment was trampled.  A reasonable remedy for both violations would have been to invalidate the certified electors of the four defendant states and return the selection to the state legislatures for a review, debate and new vote.
.

We all know this.

We should.

[Sled Dog]

Your assertion that the federal court has no role in a federal election is wrong.  Sorry, it's just wrong.

Your ability to say I said what I didn't say is just astounding.  Sorry, it's just astounding.

You guys really can't hold up your end of the argument on reason and facts, can you?  Resorting to strawmen, resorting to arguments from authority.   Wow.

It is a potential violation of both the Electors Clause giving the state legislature sole control of the election for presidential electors,  as well as the Equal Protection Amendment for citizens in all states guaranteeing uniform application of the Electors' Clause.  Just because no state legislature has ever challenged this doesn't mean they could not have.

And as the judge said about "election fraud", "we all know it when we see it".   Except he didn't use the word "election fraud", but I did.

We all know when a judge is raping the Constitution.  Some do it to murder babies, others do it to steal elections.  But it's always obvious when it's being done for a political purpose rather than for a liberty-enhancing Constitutional protection.

The judges that ordered the fraudulent ballots to be counted, that ordered the polls to remain open, they weren't doing it for election integrity, they were doing it for a purpose you approved of, to steal the election from the American people.  ANYTHING to keep the Ebil Orange Man out of the White House.

How terrifying it must be for people to be so afraid of an Orangeman they instead vote in a senile plagiarist who came from Syracuse University, himself an Orangeman.

I'm surprised the Rodents still allow orange pumpkins to be sold in Octobers.    I guess the alternative, the albino pumpkins from Trader Joe's, was much to privileged to be considered.

And these actions were part of the suit brought by the State of Texas (and 18 cosigner states) against four defendant states.  The suit requested a ruling from the court of original jurisdiction on a potential violation of the Electors' Clause and the 14th Amendment of the United States. 

Oh, I'm not even talking about those actions.   Clearly since the states of WI, PA, AZ, GA, MI were busy defrauding the entire United States, Texas and every other state who wasn't engaged in the most massive vote fraud operation in history had standing to sue.   But the people who pretend to accept the violation of the Constitution by the judicial interference in the states' selection of electors are equally and strangely just as happy that the courts whose job it is to adjudicate inter-state disputes refused to even look at the evidence, simply falsely claiming those states had no standing.

Then they sit around and wonder how the Court has gotten away with the murder of fifty million Americans over the last half-century.   Because the Court isn't using the Constitution as it's anchor.

What ever happened to the idea that words mean things?

Not necessarily true.  If the defendant states did violate the Electors' Clause rendering their electors invalid, then the right of every US citizen to an accurate application of the Electors' Clause guaranteed through the 14th Amendment was trampled.  A reasonable remedy for both violations would have been to invalidate the certified electors of the four defendant states and return the selection to the state legislatures for a review, debate and new vote.

Yes, it was trampled.

The REASONABLE remedy for false electors is to dismiss the false electors, if the Constitution itself is deemed the source of "reasonableness" in the functioning of the federal government.  And if enough false electors are dismissed to prevent any candidate from achieving the required majority of electors, then the electoral process is shifted to a state-by-state vote in the House.

It's not "reasonable" to demand a new vote between election day and the day the Electors submit their ballots to the Congress.

As everyone else has been saying, the election was stolen.  Even Joe Biden, Senile, admitted the Rodents were running the most massive vote fraud operation in history.

We should.

I do.

The Americans do.

Never Trumper Principled Consertive (TM) Orange-o-phobiacs do not.  Or rather, refuse to .

[sneakypete]

roamer2:
like I said, I did not and do not have a dog in  this hunt.

christian:
That joke is old and stale, as you walk hand in hand lockstepping with the democrats, still advancing the cause of the last election being stolen.  Persuasive?  NOT!  DENYING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, clever?  by half.  First Czarist cowboy i ever met!  I'll pass on your magic elixirs medicine show!  Too much toxic Putin like elixir for me to drink.  How is it for skin?

@christian

@roamer-1

You are wasting your time. His mind is made up and reason and logic are not going to change it. He is emotional,not rational.

[sneakypete]

roamer2:
like I said, I did not and do not have a dog in  this hunt.

christian:
That joke is old and stale, as you walk hand in hand lockstepping with the democrats, still advancing the cause of the last election being stolen.  Persuasive?  NOT!  DENYING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, clever?  by half.  First Czarist cowboy i ever met!  I'll pass on your magic elixirs medicine show!  Too much toxic Putin like elixir for me to drink.  How is it for skin?

@christian

BTW,it won't make any real difference,but you should address him as roamer-1.

[DB]

@christian

@roamer-1

You are wasting your time. His mind is made up and reason and logic are not going to change it. He is emotional,not rational.

Actually it is very rational. You vote for the lesser evil and then wonder why you got evil. It isn't that hard. Until enough people have the courage to not vote for the lesser evil giving in to their fear nothing will change. That lesser evil doesn't have to perform any better because they already own your vote. That should be obvious by just by reviewing the last 30 years of voting for the lesser evil and what you got in return.