Can you tell me how to get to Ted Cruz Street?

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
You are incorrect as to why the lawsuits were not successful.
63 losses lol
you posted absolute rubbish and tripe. Trump lost BIGLY and these sore losers can't accept it so it MUST be rigged. No proof has ever been offered, ironically. That 'letter" you have so much faith is is nothing but the whining of sore losers. Trump lost THE END
I said you are incorrect as to the reason the lawsuits were not successful.

You didn't even bother to try to dispute what I said. You seem very upset that I said it though.

Take a chill pill buddy.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
I said you are incorrect as to the reason the lawsuits were not successful.

You didn't even bother to try to dispute what I said. You seem very upset that I said it though.

Take a chill pill buddy.
again, i find it more than a little funny that you seem to think the 63 lawsuits that were thrown out have any merit Pal
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
again, i find it more than a little funny that you seem to think the 63 lawsuits that were thrown out have any merit Pal
I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit.

I suggest you read Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Pennsylvania case, excoriating the irresponsibility of not hearing cases about the unconstitutional election law changes.

But you won't do that. You'll simply repeat what the news tells you to believe. Carry on.
 

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit.

I suggest you read Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Pennsylvania case, excoriating the irresponsibility of not hearing cases about the unconstitutional election law changes.

But you won't do that. You'll simply repeat what the news tells you to believe. Carry on.
Hey Bro, a record of 1-63 shows the cases had no merit. If they had something,if they had anything concrete and provable then the odds are strongly in The Kracken 's favor that a case would have been heard. Hillary Clinton called it in the air in 2016 when she said anytime Drumpf loses he cries about it being "rigged"
 

BMWMC

B.C. boohoo buster.
I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit.

I suggest you read Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Pennsylvania case, excoriating the irresponsibility of not hearing cases about the unconstitutional election law changes.

But you won't do that. You'll simply repeat what the news tells you to believe. Carry on.
OMG.."I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit."
Talk about entering the Twilight Zone. Exactly where else would you have held a test of validity then?

funny-baby-lol.gif



"SCOTUS’s conservative justices were so furious about the Pennsylvania decision that they attempted to shatter states’ authority to run their own elections. In October, Thomas—joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaughaccused the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of infringing on the Legislature’s authority to set election law. They asserted that, under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts can override state courts’ interpretation of election codes based on their own sense of what the state legislature prefers. Yet these four justices never found a fifth vote: Amy Coney Barrett joined the court too late to weigh in, and Chief Justice John Roberts refused to go along with this hijacking of state election law. In the end, late-arriving ballots were counted, though they did not change the outcome of any federal race in Pennsylvania, including the presidential contest.

It makes sense, then, that SCOTUS refused to hear these cases on Monday. They are plainly moot, because the election is over, and there is no longer any live controversy to settle. Still, three justices—Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—dissented from the court’s decision to turn away the Pennsylvania cases.

In his dissent, Thomas cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election by questioning the security of mail voting. “Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent,” he wrote. The current trend toward more “permissive” mail voting, the justice warned, “vastly” increases “the risk of fraud.” Thomas drew heavily from a 2012 New York Times article focusing on Florida’s mail voting regime, which focused on a handful of fraudulent schemes involving mail ballots. The justice also pointed to a Republican operative’s criminal attempt to steal an election in North Carolina using mail ballots."




What's Thomas going to say about Internet Voting when that comes? What century does he think America should be living in? Allowing more people to vote increase Democracy and the meniscal violations aren't going to change and election result. I would trust a High Performance Computer more running a sophisticated and approved algorithm to collect votes and count them. People are the weakest link when it comes to credibility.
 
Top