It's over. We have lost.

[clintonhater]

Or leave the country.

Like all the lying libs who swore they would when Trump won? THEY had a perfectly suitable alternative--an English speaking country controlled by a liberal gov't just across the border; a lib's paradise, but still they didn't go. I'm looking for an English speaking country with a right wing gov't. Where would that be?

[togor]

Like all the lying libs who swore they would when Trump won? THEY had a perfectly suitable alternative--an English speaking country controlled by a liberal gov't just across the border; a lib's paradise, but still they didn't go. I'm looking for an English speaking country with a right wing gov't. Where would that be?

India

- - - Updated - - -

Or Pakistan

[oscars]

Don’t think that Medicare is portable to overseas.

[Art]

Anybody who seriously thought that the Supreme Court was going to decide this election by intervening in state counting was on a fools errand. First, constitutionally the whole idea is bogus and no Constitutional Originalist is going to get on that wagon, second, even if it wasn't, the Supremes are never going to allow themselves to be put in that sort of partisan bind. Want to really dump gasoline on the "pack the court" fire just start micro managing elections.

Saying "were doomed" is hyperbole. The Democrats were slaughtered down ballot. Not only did they not gain any state houses, the "Rs" gained enough that they now control both houses of 31 State Legislatures (Texas once again was "fools gold" for the Dems,) gained at least 11 seats in the house and will probably hold the Senate. Even if they don't Democrat Senators in deep red states like Manchin and Testor have already said they will not vote to either pack the courts or add any new states. The Republicans got 12% of the black vote, that is a dangerous sign for the Democrats.

Don't forget "The Donald's" kept promises on the Federal Judiciary. Not 0nly do Republican appointees hold a 2-1 advantage on the high court but Trump appointed over 200 other Federal Judges and counting. In so doing he's made it a lot harder for the Dems to engage in their favorite tactic of judge shopping to stall laws or policies they don't like.

There are of course sources of concern. Georgia is an example. The Republicans, today, hold every statewide office in Georgia but the combination of changes due to covid and the fact that the "Rs" are scared to death of Stacy Abraham contributed to Biden squeeking out a win there. However there is no reason not to revert to the old system of counting votes after the plague is over.

[togor]

Question, Art.

For its obvious rehash of arguments already rejected by lower courts, that suit had one standout feature: it went after enough electoral votes to flip the election in one go.

Saying it was doomed and why, afterwards, leaves unanswered an important question: how would you have felt if by some miracle the judges had decided for Trump?

[Art]

Question, Art.

For its obvious rehash of arguments already rejected by lower courts, that suit had one standout feature: it went after enough electoral votes to flip the election in one go.

Saying it was doomed and why, afterwards, leaves unanswered an important question: how would you have felt if by some miracle the judges had decided to decide for Trump?

I would have had really mixed feelings. On on hand the judiciary would have exceeded its constitutional authority setting an awful precedent for future elections. Would I have preferred Trump to win, yes. Was their cheating going on? almost surely. Was there enough cheating to deny Trump a win? Probably not. All in all I would have considered the court coming in and manipulating the process a very bad thing.

So, on balance, I think the court made the right decision and I would have felt that them being viewed as handing the win to Trump as a perfect case of "The juice not being worth the squeeze."

[S.A. Boggs]

India

- - - Updated - - -

Or Pakistan

So now you are going to do the IRS fake calls instead of being a "trained" whatever?
Sam

[Sandpebble]

I would have had really mixed feelings. On on hand the judiciary would have exceeded its constitutional authority setting an awful precedent for future elections. Would I have preferred Trump to win, yes. Was their cheating going on? almost surely. Was there enough cheating to deny Trump a win? Probably not. All in all I would have considered the court coming in and manipulating the process a very bad thing.

So, on balance, I think the court made the right decision and I would have felt that them being viewed as handing the win to Trump as a perfect case of "The juice not being worth the squeeze."

Interesting take Art and one of the few "conservative views" here that would "flirt" with the truth . Enough cheating to deny Trump a win.... more than Probably Not and you do know that .

The man lost ... just that plain and simple ... . Election fraud ? .... yes and it's happening right now under the direction of Trump , Giuliani and any of the GOP who are helping over turn an American Presidential election .

I'm sorry for all here whose favored candidate did not lead well enough to capture the vote of the majority .... but he didn't.

Isn't cheating and lying to change the outcome of an election the reason we sent troops all around the globe for most of our lives ?

Frankly I didn't think the past four years were all that great ....but the past two months ...... the man is a self centered and weak leader.

If he lost it's because he did it and there was no stolen election .

and back to you Art ... again, your take on what the Supreme Court can or should do was quite correct.

[clintonhater]

Isn't cheating and lying to change the outcome of an election the reason we sent troops all around the globe for most of our lives ?

When did that happen?

[barretcreek]

Thank you, Art.
But there is one constant the 'Rats have pulled over and over and that is ballots coming in after the polls have closed. Hilary called it back in August and others before the election. "Don't concede, when all the ballots are counted you will win". We'll print them.

[togor]

I would have had really mixed feelings. On on hand the judiciary would have exceeded its constitutional authority setting an awful precedent for future elections. Would I have preferred Trump to win, yes. Was their cheating going on? almost surely. Was there enough cheating to deny Trump a win? Probably not. All in all I would have considered the court coming in and manipulating the process a very bad thing.

So, on balance, I think the court made the right decision and I would have felt that them being viewed as handing the win to Trump as a perfect case of "The juice not being worth the squeeze."

Thank you for that answer. I agree, some of these issues are bigger than the desires of any one candidate. We are custodians of a proud legacy in our time here and need to remember that.

[dogtag]

Why all the seemingly brilliant legal minds on Trump's team
sought to bring a case before the Supreme Court knowing
that Texas had no legal standing regarding another State's
election makes me wonder what the hell they're up to.
Why not use a State that did have legal standing instead
of Texas that didn't ?

[togor]

States run their own elections. It's in the rule book.

[dogtag]

States run their own elections. It's in the rule book.

We're so lucky to have you around so that you can explain things to us dummies.

[Roadkingtrax]

We're so lucky to have you around so that you can explain things to us dummies.

Good to see you admit it for a change.

- - - Updated - - -

Why all the seemingly brilliant legal minds on Trump's team
sought to bring a case before the Supreme Court knowing
that Texas had no legal standing regarding another State's
election makes me wonder what the hell they're up to.
Why not use a State that did have legal standing instead
of Texas that didn't ?

Because they haven't demonstrated any evidence.