GOP dilemma — how to keep Trumpers yet regain anti-Trumpers

[libertybele]

                         

I use em for the winky face. That's my entire repertoire.   

 

[Sled Dog]

That ain't the point.

That is exactly the point.

I see it just fine.

Look, you either see it fine or you deny the election was stolen outright.

Since you pretend the election was not stolen, you aren't seeing it.

And there shouldn't be anything fine about that, not with anyone.

[libertybele]

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; and ;

Just used my annual allotment.

...and if you should accidentally use one while at the Castle Bar we won't count it against you.

[roamer_1]

So what you meant was that EO didn't count, but they do now.

Well no... Obviously they don't. All of Tumpy's are gone like a fart in a hurricane... As predicted, btw...

And wanting judges to circumvent the Congress and allow el presidente to rule by decree is not the Conservative position. the DACA ruling is flat wrong, and ought to be struck down, not used for an excuse.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well no... Obviously they don't. All of Tumpy's are gone like a fart in a hurricane... As predicted, btw...

And wanting judges to circumvent the Congress and allow el presidente to rule by decree is not the Conservative position. the DACA ruling is flat wrong, and ought to be struck down, not used for an excuse.

Not so fast with that yeast-killing fart!  Democrat EOs last forever. 

[roamer_1]

That is exactly the point.

Look, you either see it fine or you deny the election was stolen outright.

Since you pretend the election was not stolen, you aren't seeing it.

And there shouldn't be anything fine about that, not with anyone.

Exactly NO. I will not succumb to the unreliability of public square 'justice'.
Absolutely not.

If you want to see me turn that around, you have to sure as hell prove it in court, where documents are vetted and evidence established, not relying on waggin tongues and gossip rags.

I am fairly certain that there was chicanery - There always IS... Proving it is the hard part, and I said that right when this whole mess started.

Standards. Principles. They have a purpose.

[roamer_1]

Not so fast with that yeast-killing fart!  Democrat EOs last forever.

No, they really don't. Most of Obummer's went the same way as Tumpy's. And Boosh before him.
As I said, they don't count. You know what counts? What was passed as LAW the last four years... Go look at that and see how proud you are. Because that's the stuff that sticks.

EOs are nothing but candy thrown from the front of the parade.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, they really don't. Most of Obummer's went the same way as Tumpy's. And Boosh before him.
As I said, they don't count. You know what counts? What was passed as LAW the last four years... Go look at that and see how proud you are. Because that's the stuff that sticks.

EOs are nothing but candy thrown from the front of the parade.

Wrong.  The Federal Courts worked overtime throwing out Trump's EOs that overturned O'Bastard's EOs.

[christian]

roamer1
That's why we have always been instructed 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'.

Truer words from a Never Trumper never spoken, of course that applies just as much to democrats, right?  Silly me,of course not, we already know that!  Democrats get to rule, non-judgmentally, of course, and fools get fooled.
 

[roamer_1]

Wrong.  The Federal Courts worked overtime throwing out Trump's EOs that overturned O'Bastard's EOs.

Not wrong. Most were overturned.

[roamer_1]

Truer words from a Never Trumper never spoken, of course that applies just as much to democrats, right?  Silly me,of course not, we already know that!  Democrats get to rule, non-judgmentally, of course, and fools get fooled.
 

Of course it does. That is the purpose of law. And whether the Democrats, when BOTH sides ignore the law, when BOTH sides insist on trial in the gossip rags, listening to waggin tongues, That is when we are truly finished. There ain't no coming back from where y'all are determined to go. And you can turn in your 'party of law and order' card.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not wrong. Most were overturned.

If the Courts overturned one Trump EO that voided an O'Bastard EO, then your earlier statement about farts in hurricanes was at least partially incorrect.  Democrat EOs can last forever  and ever.

[Cyber Liberty]

Of course it does. That is the purpose of law. And whether the Democrats, when BOTH sides ignore the law, when BOTH sides insist on trial in the gossip rags, listening to waggin tongues, That is when we are truly finished. There ain't no coming back from where y'all are determined to go. And you can turn in your 'party of law and order' card.

Let's hold off on that judgement until a Federal Court actually allows a trial on merits to proceed.  First it was "no standing," and now the favorite dodge is "moot case."  No evidence has been tested yet and probably will never be.

[roamer_1]

If the Courts overturned one Trump EO that voided an O'Bastard EO, then your earlier statement about farts in hurricanes was at least partially incorrect.  Democrat EOs can last forever  and ever.

Even if I cede the point - Using that excuse leads to emperors. Is that where we are now? Rome all over again?

None for me., thanks. Authorize your tyrants. I will just mosey on back into the woods and let y'all have your just desserts. Because all that only goes in one direction, and it sure as hell ain't American.

[roamer_1]

Let's hold off on that judgement until a Federal Court actually allows a trial on merits to proceed.  First it was "no standing," and now the favorite dodge is "moot case."  No evidence has been tested yet and probably will never be.

Oh no, that judgement is right in lieu of a court decision. And as I said, proving it is always the problem. We had this same conversation at the start. You forget 'the courts' included Tumpy's high dollar defense - which didn't make the grade.

I would be more than happy to join you in hoping for adjudication... You know where I am on all this.
But much of what was gospel at the front went away in the telling, and I suspect much of what's left is the same.

[christian]

Some say that because Biden succeeded in overturning the good Trump did, Trump failed.  That's the hardcore democrats point of view, preaching at useful fools, what Trump did was benefiting the American people, and Biden overturning what Trump did, is costing the American people a great deal.  Biden overturning the good Trump did is Bidens dirt he did to every one of us.  That's the reality, not the democrat hardcore's trying to blame shift Trump for what Biden did/doing.  The clueless remain shamelessly clueless about it though.

[roamer_1]

Some say that because Biden succeeded in overturning the good Trump did, Trump failed.  That's the hardcore democrats point of view, preaching at useful fools, what Trump did was benefiting the American people, and Biden overturning what Trump did, is costing the American people a great deal.  Biden overturning the good Trump did is Bidens dirt he did to every one of us.  That's the reality, not the democrat hardcore's trying to blame shift Trump for what Biden did/doing.  The clueless remain shamelessly clueless about it though.

Executive orders ALWAYS get overturned. This time is no different. You want lasting good for the American people, write it into law. That's how it's done.

[Sled Dog]

Exactly NO. I will not succumb to the unreliability of public square 'justice'.
Absolutely not.

If you want to see me turn that around, you have to sure as hell prove it in court, where documents are vetted and evidence established, not relying on waggin tongues and gossip rags.

Actually, I don't have to do any such thing.

The election was stolen openly and the courts proved their corruption by flatly refusing to accept the cases, and the few times they accepted cases, they refused evidence.

The USSC rejected the lawsuit brought by Texas and twenty other states citing the unconstitutional shananigans used by MI, PA, WI and others to select the electors, methods adopted in violation of the Constitution's requirement said processes be determined specifically by the state legislatures.

The evidentiary merit of that lawsuit was transparently obvious to EVERYONE.   Even the hate-filled never-trumping a-holes aren't going to deny that the Rodents in those states unlawfully chose electors, enough so that every voter who supported the only American candidate on the ballot was disenfranchised.

YOU can pretend you didn't see it. 

You can't pretend you're not supporting the Rodents and their criminal activity with your pretense.

[roamer_1]

Actually, I don't have to do any such thing.

Yes in fact, you DO. That is how it works.

The election was stolen openly and the courts proved their corruption by flatly refusing to accept the cases, and the few times they accepted cases, they refused evidence.

And that just CAN'T be legitimate, eh? Cases are refused all the time. You would think Tumpy's lawyers would have expected that.

The USSC rejected the lawsuit brought by Texas and twenty other states citing the unconstitutional shananigans used by MI, PA, WI and others to select the electors, methods adopted in violation of the Constitution's requirement said processes be determined specifically by the state legislatures.

And rightly so - I do not want New York dictating how Montana does its business. And that is in fact what you desire, whether you know it or not...  Unintended consequences.

The evidentiary merit of that lawsuit was transparently obvious to EVERYONE.   Even the hate-filled never-trumping a-holes aren't going to deny that the Rodents in those states unlawfully chose electors, enough so that every voter who supported the only American candidate on the ballot was disenfranchised.

The ones who had standing were the legislatures in those states. And it is foregone, because the state legislatures did not take it up - They granted authority and didn't bark when that authority was exceeded... that is called something like 'passive acquiescence'. And it is the very SAME WAY federal administrations get away with treaty modifications without the treaty going back to the Congress. It's done all the time.

YOU can pretend you didn't see it. 

You can't pretend you're not supporting the Rodents and their criminal activity with your pretense.

I see it fine. Probably better than you - because I have no dog in the hunt, and have stayed away from gossip rags and their penchant for informing falsely.

The bottom line is simply put: There is no there there until it is adjudicated. Tumpy s a big boy,, and was (I assume) properly defended... And lost on every front. You can piss and moan and kick your feet, but that is not going to change. It is what it is.

As it turns out, and as others here know, my sympathies lie with Tumpy on this one. But I am also a realist. ALWAYS the problem is proving it. Nothing new, and predicted before the fact. And it remains unproven to this very hour.

Tough sh*t, there it is. 

[corbe]

   The GOP keeps telling me their 'Moving' I see nothing but years of stagnation.

John Fullbright with Jimmy LaFave "Moving"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j7zieI_fuY

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not wrong. Most were overturned.

Wrong.

[Right_in_Virginia]

And rightly so - I do not want New York dictating how Montana does its business. And that is in fact what you desire, whether you know it or not...  Unintended consequences.

@roamer_1

Here's where the "chain of command" in Presidential elections may confuse you:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

~HOWEVER~

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, delegates the power to regulate the selection of Electors in a Presidential election to the United States, specifically: 

"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."

It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania. et al comply with the United States Constitution with respect to elections for president of the United States.  The Texas lawsuit claimed four defendant states did not do this.

STATE OF TEXAS v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Here's the link:  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Pay close attention to:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What's most egregious about the  7 Supreme Court justices refusing to hear this case is that they, themselves, broke with the Constitution.  Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, a state may sue another state and the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all cases between states.  As the court of original jurisdiction, the SC had zero authority to refuse.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTW, @roamer_1 circling back to your statement that you don't want New York dictating to Montana, states have frequently sued each other.

As stated in my earlier post, ... Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states may sue other states and the US Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction.  They sue each other fairly frequently, especially in areas of jurisdiction, land rights, resource rights and debt collection.

So, while a long shot --- it is possible NY could be telling MT what to do some day.   

[sneakypete]

   The GOP keeps telling me their 'Moving' I see nothing but years of stagnation.

John Fullbright with Jimmy LaFave "Moving"

 

@corbe

It's always good to hear John Fullbright.

Thank you.

[roamer_1]

It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania. et al comply with the United States Constitution with respect to elections for president of the United States.  The Texas lawsuit claimed four defendant states did not do this.

@Right_in_Virginia

No, they do NOT.

The Constitution rests the authority SOLELY in each state respectively, and in the legislature thereof specifically. The ONLY business there is is INTERNAL to the respective states. That a state official overstepped boundaries is a matter for the legislature to pick up. Since they did NOT, they tacitly approved of the action. Their standing, their business. If they don't chose to move on it, that is THEIR business.

Be careful what you wish for. Indeed the end game that y'all are messin with is New York having a say in how Montana does it's business. Good God y'all. Look at the precedent you want to set.

Pay close attention to:

What's most egregious about the  7 Supreme Court justices refusing to hear this case is that they, themselves, broke with the Constitution.  Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, a state may sue another state and the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all cases between states.  As the court of original jurisdiction, the SC had zero authority to refuse.

I understand the concept of original jurisdiction. That does NOT mean the court MUST pick it up. If the claim has no merit it SHOULD be rejected outright, or soon enough the court will be engulfed by nuisance suits aimed precisely at that: Being a nuisance, in the no-downside hope of the spaghetti sticking to the wall.

I am outright opposed to both your points.