Politics Thread

[paulxu]

Particularly the changes made solely by Governors to State election laws. That is a direct violation of the Constitution regardless of the opinions of 9 people.

That's interesting. I don't know (and I probably missed it) where any governor "solely" changed election laws.
The Pennsylvania laws under dispute were passed by a Republican legislature in 2019 (and signed by a Democratic governor)
Other laws changed in the face of the pandemic were (as far as I know) crafted by the state legislatures (who are in charge of setting election laws)
No single case that I know of provided any evidence of "fraud" in the 60+ cases..

Sadly, all over the country there are efforts to make voting harder for people to cast their ballot.
One would think the opposite would prevail...that we would do all we can to encourage, and make easy, participation in our government.
Many of the laws around mail-in-ballots were originally favored by Republicans, but that changed with so many people using them because of the pandemic, and the results of the last election.

[boozehound]

I see where you’re coming from on Trump. He is definitely a master of self-promotion. Policy wise I felt he was clear based on his actions. Lower taxes, secure border, American interests first abroad, criminal justice reform, no new wars and historic peace deals and tough on China through trade.

As to the election. The argument can be made that he was speaking for millions who saw the election irregularities and the gov’t doing nothing about it. Particularly the changes made solely by Governors to State election laws. That is a direct violation of the Constitution regardless of the opinions of 9 people.

What election irregularities? Why was none of that evidence deemed credible enough by any court of law to even proceed with a suit? Going out and sowing a bunch of misinformation about voting 'irregularities' and then subsequently using that as 'evidence' of election fraud.
If they were clear and direct violations of the constitution why didn't a court take those up?

Either way I think that's a bit of a red herring. If you think that the reason people were upset about the election losses was because of the constitutionality of some procedural changes to the voting process I believe you are giving people a lot of credit around how much they know and care about the Constitution. They were upset because they had way too much emotionally invested in a candidate who lost, and that candidate then spent 2 months lying about how they didn't actually lose. Which gave all involved a way to extend their bizarre fantasy for another 2 months.

[Strange Brew]

What election irregularities? Why was none of that evidence deemed credible enough by any court of law to even proceed with a suit? Going out and sowing a bunch of misinformation about voting 'irregularities' and then subsequently using that as 'evidence' of election fraud.
If they were clear and direct violations of the constitution why didn't a court take those up?

Either way I think that's a bit of a red herring. If you think that the reason people were upset about the election losses was because of the constitutionality of some procedural changes to the voting process I believe you are giving people a lot of credit around how much they know and care about the Constitution. They were upset because they had way too much emotionally invested in a candidate who lost, and that candidate then spent 2 months lying about how they didn't actually lose. Which gave all involved a way to extend their bizarre fantasy for another 2 months.

Could be. I’ll give you that. I personally am, let’s say intrigued by D Governor’s unilaterally changing election laws in swing states during an election year. Sure I’m just letting curiosity get the best of me....

[boozehound]

Could be. I’ll give you that. I personally am, let’s say intrigued by D Governor’s unilaterally changing election laws in swing states during an election year. Sure I’m just letting curiosity get the best of me....

I'm not sure which specific state(s) or governor(s) you are referring to, but I assume that any changes were made as part of an emergency response to the pandemic we were in the midst of in order to expand mail-in voting so that people didn't have to crowd into polling places to take part in the Democratic process.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not sure which specific state(s) or governor(s) you are referring to, but I assume that any changes were made as part of an emergency response to the pandemic we were in the midst of in order to expand mail-in voting so that people didn't have to crowd into polling places to take part in the Democratic process.

Could be mistaken but they were not emergency orders.

See PA. Laws were changed pre pandemic and the D’s sued to extend counting. Case was decided in Sept but I could be wrong. Interestingly, Trump was winning at the end of the previous expiration of counting.

[paulxu]

Which governor "solely" change the voting laws?

[xudash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnaf...ature=youtu.be

[paulxu]

Apparently the MAGA wackos and the Q'ers are supposed to be coming to the Capitol tomorrow for the swearing in of Trump as president on the old date of the inauguration.

Also to get targeted members of Congress.

[xudash]

Apparently the MAGA wackos and the Q'ers are supposed to be coming to the Capitol tomorrow for the swearing in of Trump as president on the old date of the inauguration.

Also to get targeted members of Congress.

Paul, were you advocating for negotiating with Iran?

https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/24/w...Uc94NeWNrE_e3E

[bobbiemcgee]

Apparently the MAGA wackos and the Q'ers are supposed to be coming to the Capitol tomorrow for the swearing in of Trump as president on the old date of the inauguration.

Also to get targeted members of Congress.

Wow. Fox news will have to adjust their non-stop coverage of Dr. Seuss.