- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court agrees to review Trump’s Colorado ballot ban in historic case
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:56 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:56 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
The more relevant fact is that no states were disputed. Every state only sent one slate of electors, duly chosen pursuant to state law. There was no dispute outside of Trump's mind and the minds of those gullible enough to follow him - and that isn't the speck of enough to overthrow our government.
quote:
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagrees. And since all we need is one state Supreme Court to make a finding, per your standard, we can say the election was not conducted legally. Game, set, match. Moron.
1
Posted on 1/6/24 at 2:02 pm to GumboPot
quote:
He's probably sitting at a gay bar in NOLA with a boy he’s grooming
FIFY
Posted on 1/6/24 at 2:05 pm to BamaAtl
You are such a hyperbolic emotional bitch.
quote:
"If only Mike Pence would do the right thing..."
....and dumb too.
This post was edited on 1/6/24 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 1/6/24 at 2:07 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Facts don't care about your feelings.
This is hilarious coming from the closest thing this board has to that corrupt Illinois mayor.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 2:27 pm to Dday63
quote:
Just say, "Yes, I believe 'office under the United Ststes' only applies to appointed positions, and therefore the emoluments clause and the impeachment disqualification clause do not apply to any elected officials." Why make everyone play guessing games?
Well for starters I didn’t say anything about the emoluments clause. And I certainly don’t believe that neither clause applies to elected officials. I have no earthly idea where that even came from.
I’ve been perfectly clear that POTUS is NOT an “officer of the United States” per SCOTUS jurisprudence.
What in my post did you find to be cryptic? I was being accusatory, as you are undoubtedly aware of the difference in wording between holding “office under the United States “ and being an “officer of the United States”.
You’re just choosing to ignore it.
This post was edited on 1/6/24 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unconstitutional electoral processes
Posted on 1/7/24 at 8:26 am to BBONDS25
quote:
BBONDS25
Can you point us all to where a second set of valid, legal electors existed for any state?
Oh, you can't? Because they didn't? And every state submitted 1 slate of duly appointed electors?
quote:
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
This is correct, yours knows no bounds.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 8:37 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Can you point us all to where a second set of valid, legal electors existed for any state? Oh, you can't? Because they didn't? And every state submitted 1 slate of duly appointed electors
Irrelevant. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the way voting occurred was illegal. Per your standard, when a state Supreme Court makes a factual finding, that is sufficient to make it a fact. Therefore, per your standard, the vote was not conducted legally.
You set the standard. No coming back from it. Take your L.
quote:
This is correct, yours knows no bounds.
Your ignorance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling isn’t a me problem. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
This post was edited on 1/7/24 at 8:38 am
Posted on 1/7/24 at 9:52 am to BamaAtl
quote:Sorry, but IAW with EC rules and the Constitution, if Pence chose to not open the envelopes in question, the outcome determination would have been forwarded to the HOR for adjudication. Whatever the HOR found would stand as the final electoral result.
He did not - there were no disputes about electoral votes that needed adjudication.
Let's repeat that last part, because you're a little slow on the uptake. If Pence did not open the envelopes in question, the result would have been forwarded to the HOR for adjudication. Whatever the HOR found would stand as the final electoral result.
So when Trump refers to Pence "doing the right thing," leaving the controversial envelopes unopened and asking the HOR to review the election is the point of reference.
Page 12 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News