Texas sues, other states join in

no worries said:
Yeah, Dotard won in 2016 with 304 to 227 electoral votes but lost the popular vote 2.9 million and Dotard and teabaggers claimed it was a landslide.
Your dear leader claimed that election was rigged too, if anyone deserved to call Trump as not a legit president, it was Hillary.
Forward to the 2020 election Dotard lost 306 to 232 electoral college votes and lost the popular vote by 7 million and just like their dear leader, they whine that really won.
Dotard lost and teabaggers are upset because all the Trump trinkets, they bought, will be worthless in another month and a week.
Click to expand...

The President is not elected by popular vote. See the Constitution.
 
Nordberg said:
No fraud has been proven because it does not exist. You believe that without a scrap of evidence, proving once again you guys are the problem. No evidence of massive fraud, some fraud, or any fraud. Don't you require evidence or have you substituted your beliefs for reality? In every Rudy court case, the judges asked for proof of fraud. They had none. You should contact Rudy and give him yours. I bet you don't have any either, just a right-wing belief.
Click to expand...

Huge fraud. The Supremes lacked the balls to hear the case.
 
Dark Soul said:
You have the reading problem. It was a procedural statement, nothing more.
Eo_o-pbW8AkgYY6
Click to expand...

“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief.”

What do you think that quote by Alito and Thomas means?
 
Jarod said:
“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief.”

What do you think that quote by Alito and Thomas means?
Click to expand...

You obviously think that it's a decision on a matter that they would not discuss. You would be wrong.
 
Jarod said:
If you say so... what do you believe it means? That they would grant some relief?
Click to expand...

I think it means exactly what it says, in the context of the specific issue discussed. You obviously think that they are referring to the issue as a generality. The Supremes always make findings as narrow as possible.
 
Dark Soul said:
I think it means exactly what it says, in the context of the specific issue discussed. You obviously think that they are referring to the issue as a generality. The Supremes always make findings as narrow as possible.
Click to expand...

Somehow to you....

“I would not grant relief”

Means Trump was going to get the relief he asked for?
 
Rightys have claimed that Dems are wrong about the trump case going to the Supreme court, due to Dems watching CNN. So who was right CNN or Infowars and Breitbart? Someone is not listening to facts, and it is not the left.
Trump must have thought his placing 3 people on the Supremes means they were loyal to him instead of the law. It does not always work that way, as he found out. You have to understand some time that Trump lies and lies. And you guys buy and buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top