re: Steve Scalise Frustrates Chris Wallace- Election Stolen

quote:

---

SCALISE: What I said is there are states that didn't follow their legislatively set rules. That's what the United States ???? Constitution says. And I think there are a lot of people that want us to get back to what the Constitution says we should be doing. Not just with elections, but a lot of other things, too.

---

He’s 100% correct, and Chris can’t challenge or deny that fact.

quote:

---

Everyone has standing in a federal election.

---

We don't have federal elections in this country. Everyone is all about the Constitution and individual states governing themselves until they don't like the outcome.

By not intervening in the election process and then certifying their Electors, State legislatures tacitly approved of the elections even if they violated State law. If you don't live in that state you have no standing to complain.

quote:

---

He wins elections by telling you morons guns good/abortions bad.

---

what is your view? you inbred imbecile?

what do you know about guns? good or bad

what is your take on abortion? ever had one?

quote:

---

So Scalise wusses out on his response? Shocking. Scalise is a swamp rat

---

He laid out exactly how the election was stolen.

quote:

---

So I am right and you just don't like it?

---

No, an asshat.

And an illiterate one, apparently.

quote:

---

Then why not say "It was stolen and we will not stand for it". Surely his base would support that. So why not say it?

---

What is wrong with saying "It was illegitimate and we will not stand for it." = That is the more general statement that perfectly defines the situation and the problem.

There is no requirement to list each and every possible combination of events that could make up the universe of "illegitimacy."

That's just another dodge to make force someone into a false narrative.

let's examine an analogy:
e.g.
Suppose a police officer finds a totally nude couple having sex on the median of an interstate freeway during rush hour traffic.

What if the officer takes photographs and video of the incident and brings the participants into a courtroom, charged with indecent exposure.

And the judge asks only one question = "Where is the complaint from the citizen who witnessed the event?"

And if not = Case Dismissed.

Furthermore, the couple has obtained an injunction to forbid you from slandering their reputation. You may not institute an investigation to find a witness, since you have no standing to do so.

And you may be liable for civil or criminal penalties, if the couple chooses to file a complaint or initiate a lawsuit. And, since one of the participants is a person of color, the DOJ is initiating an investigation to determine if there was a civil rights violation.

moral - you should have just not noticed.

quote:

---

Show me one video where Scalise has the balls to say the election was stolen?

---

The election was illegally wrought. PERIOD!
That is Scalise's point.

When dealing with contrarian absurdity as Scalise is in this case, deal first in indisputable fact, and force the contrarian to speculate instead. That is what Scalise is doing.

To know with absolute 100% certainty the election was "stolen", we'd need to see a side by side comparison with a legally run version, or at least be allowed full investigative access to acquire proof. We as of now, have neither. So an illegitimate partisan tool like Wallace can continue to yammer that no one can PROVE the election was stolen.

Instead, Scalise deftly refused to allow Wallace to go there. Scalise forced upon him the indisputable fact that the 2020 election was corrupted.

FACT: We have rules in place governing elections.
FACT: Those rules are in place to prevent elections from being stolen.
FACT: Election rules were not followed in the 2020 race.
FACT: In the aftermath, establishment machines are doing everything they can to subvert investigations into the corrupted election.

None of which should ever happen.
The fact Chris Wallace dismisses electoral corruption would be enough to get him summarily fired from a legitimate news network.

e.g.,
Would LSU have beaten Auburn in 2006 if the refs had called a legitimate game? If we had beaten Auburn, would LSU have won the 206 MNT?
Probably, yes to both.
Were we robbed? Very likely!
In the face of obviously poor officiating, did the SEC's denial of any wrong calls and refusal to investigate add to the problem. Absolutely!

But you can't know the alternative outcome with 100% certainty unless the Auburn game was replayed with legitimate officiating. You cannot know with absolute certainty that LSU would have made the National Championship game and beaten the 2006 OSU team. What you can say for certain is officiating for the 2006 LSU-AU game was corrupted. What you can say for certain is corrupt officiating should never occur in sport.

Folks,

There has not been a single court case won on any of this election fraud stuff. As a matter of fact, they usually get thrown out of court. The company that has been implicated has sued those that push the narrative that they were complicit in the fraud and most ran for cover.

Giuliani became a sweating mess when he had to present evidence. The kraken hasn’t been head from in a long time

There might have been small pockets of fraudulent behavior but not enough to sway this election

Most reasonable people can see this

quote:

---

There might have been small pockets of fraudulent behavior but not enough to sway this election

---

Some states absolutely violated their own voting laws. There's no debating that. I still don't understand why DJT/gulliani/etc didn't absolutely hammer that into the ground.

quote:

---

There has not been a single court case won on any of this election fraud stuff.

---

And few if any were over the merits of the case but due to lack of standing. No judge will hear the evidence because no judge wants to be the one who rocks the boat and ignites the firestorm.