This Multi-state Lawsuit Will Get a Hearing Before USSC

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Can you believe two grown men are arguing about a virtual bet made on the off-topic section of a horse racing board...like it's high noon in some Clint Eastwood movie...

Serious stuff bois....serious stuff....

Remember Bigmac?
Day after the election that he lost his bet on, he honorably left. No fuss, no muss. No 100's of creepy conspiracy theorists. bandied about by you shell shocked Trumpites

You just don't like the outcome. Hurt you deeply. Before Nov. 3 you asked me what I would do if Biden lost. I asked you right back if Donald lost?. You claimed Trump is not in your head as much he is in mine.

Is that why you now let Andy A. post thousands of repetitious rumors and outright lies, Trump is not well burned toast?

All I am doing is asking boxcar to honor our bet, while rubbing it in gleefully.
The sooner he is gone the less the turning of the knife.

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Is that an actual animal being grilled alive?

If so...that's a new low...even for you.

That is...horribly sad...

[fast4522]

One would think Bigmac has been here under another username, minus his motif or persona. Just as you would have without death. Making nonsensical virtual anything with such a aberrant Marxist does not seem logical for the many.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by hcap

Remember Bigmac?
Day after the election that he lost his bet on, he honorably left.

Honorable? Not if he skipped out owing you money on that election, sir.

[46zilzal]

QUOTE: Historians could mark 2020 as the moment when Republicans applied the same zeal they have used to attack democracy in advance of elections, through voter suppression and gerrymandering, to attacking democracy on the back end, by trying to deny and overturn the results.

from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-post-election

INSANITY

[Light]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

They took a shot and if they had been heard lots of things would have then been wide open.

They did get heard or more accurately "read" by the justices. One of Paxtons claims of "evidence" in his legal briefs to the court,that the justices read to determine whether to take the case or not was this garbage:

The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump's early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion

This is part of his weak ass so called "evidence" presented to the court. His biased erroneous statistical model. Obviously his model did not account for mail-in votes for Biden that had NOT COME IN YET from major population centers in those states.

This "statistic" was supposed to be an earth shattering piece of "evidence" (NOT) that was going to lead to the most historic blowout court case in American history. Instead it was the most moronic. I wouldn't hire that guy as my lawyer if he paid me.

But Trump is already eying his last major effort. Jan 6 in Congress when Pence presides over the Senate and has to formally count the electoral votes and announce the winner. Objections are permitted and there will be a circus in Congress.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Its not alive.

Kraken are funny creatures. Grilled squid is also delicious.

Grilling live octopuses is a thing in China, it figures.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

What the court means by "no standing" is that they (Texas) does not have the right to sue the other 4 states. The briefs Texas filed in their motion which the judges read, does not show how Texas was damaged for the way the other four states ran their election which was legalized by their own state legislatures and state courts. The Constitution says that states must respect the decisions of other states. That's why the court didn't even want to waste their time.

Its not like the Trump legal team is not able to get their case heard. All the judges in all the cases have read their complaints before the case begins but will not accept the case if the briefs filed don't show some credible evidence to back up their complaint. If it doesn't,the courts can't help you and your case can be considered frivolous.

That is a half-truth and, therefore, a lie! You omitted the reason behind the decision which was:

In a brief order, the court said Texas does not have the legal right to sue those states because it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-wo...jvy-story.html

The logic behind this decision is as twisted as it can get.

For you, and the rest of your comrades, who are mentally challenged, permit me to give a very simple analogy which even an 8-year old would be able to understand.

A family with three kids decides to eat out. The dad tells the kids they can decide ("elect") which of their favorite fast food restaurant they want to eat in. So, the youngest kid votes for McDonalds. The next youngest kid also votes for McDonalds. Finally, the third and oldest kid says, "I want Burger King, Burger King, Burger King". So the father says, "Okay, Burger King it will be." But the other two siblings strongly object to their papa's decision, and tell him that it's unfair because their oldest brother voted 3 times. But the father answered, "You two have not demonstrated a cognizable interest in the manner in which your brother gets to conduct his election of a restaurant."

Truly, king Solomon was right when he said that evil people do not understand justice (Prov 28:5).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

They did get heard or more accurately "read" by the justices. One of Paxtons claims of "evidence" in his legal briefs to the court,that the justices read to determine whether to take the case or not was this garbage:

The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump's early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion

This is part of his weak ass so called "evidence" presented to the court. His biased erroneous statistical model. Obviously his model did not account for mail-in votes for Biden that had NOT COME IN YET from major population centers in those states.

This "statistic" was supposed to be an earth shattering piece of "evidence" (NOT) that was going to lead to the most historic blowout court case in American history. Instead it was the most moronic. I wouldn't hire that guy as my lawyer if he paid me.

But Trump is already eying his last major effort. Jan 6 in Congress when Pence presides over the Senate and has to formally count the electoral votes and announce the winner. Objections are permitted and there will be a circus in Congress.

Another lie. The court never considered the merits of the Texas lawsuit. It never got that far. Court ruled that Texas could not proceed with the suit because it had no legal standing.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by fast4522

One would think Bigmac has been here under another username, minus his motif or persona. Just as you would have without death. Making nonsensical virtual anything with such a aberrant Marxist does not seem logical for the many.

Unbelievable. You are more incomprehensible and irrelevance than usual.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Unbelievable. You are more incomprehensible and irrelevance than usual.

The pot calling the kettle black! Prove my analogy wrong.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Honorable? Not if he skipped out owing you money on that election, sir.

Me? Who says so? I did not bet him.

But I guess boxcar then is following suit. But unlike Mac he is taking his time making lots of excuses
on his way out......SIR

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The pot calling the kettle black! Prove my analogy wrong.

Why? Honor our bet.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That is a half-truth and, therefore, a lie! You omitted the reason behind the decision which was:

In a brief order, the court said Texas does not have the legal right to sue those states because it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-wo...jvy-story.html

Maybe if you read what I wrote again you would realize that I explained everything correctly according to law.

What "demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections" means is:

that one state cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts to challenge another states election processes, which is what I wrote.

I.E. You can't sue another state for the way they process their elections or make their eggs. Take Law 101.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Light

They did get heard

What was it, 50 or 51 or 52 different lawsuits? All lost.

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

Trump is an entertainer and love theatrics. But it's time for curtains.