Posted on 12/11/2020 3:37:10 PM PST by jroehl
Edited on 12/11/2020 3:41:42 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Fox news:
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Re: 1580:
Take it up with President Trump. He went to Georgia and said they need our support.
Now that they know the mathematical pattern of the fraud
algorithm, it’s easy to spot in the election data;
I’ve made an index for this proof on the Minnesota data.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3914280/posts?page=1502#1502
1:30 “Every single time votes came in, if that total got
above 2.1% roughly, what they did is they adjusted it down
by somewhere between 4 and 5 percent.”
1:45 “the third party votes were coming in at higher than 2%
so what they did is they knocked 645 votes off the third
party candidates which is roughly a 5% or 4.8% change” now I
don’t know what happened to those votes but I do know they
are no longer counted for the third party, and it like
they’re basically gone.”
3:15 “the vote total had gotten so fast, it went from 2.1 to
2.9% which is a huge jump, so what you’ll see is the cheating
algorithm essentially we hit 3% and it had a major
correction, brought it right back down to 2.1% again, and
what that did is they stole 13,500 votes from the third
party candidate and that dropped the percentage like they
stole 30%, and that almost a third of what was going to the
third party at that time, just gone.”
3:45 “their strategy here was to keep those votes,that go to
the third party at 2.1%”
4:00 “This happened multiple, multiple times throughout the
evening, until their is one big adjustment which is the
second part of their strategy”
4:30 this was their 2% strategy to keep Biden the candidate,
so what they did is the total number of votes from all
candidates lost is 194,846, that’s a huge number that was
gone at that time,
4:45 “but what they did here was they took roughly 6000
votes from the third party candidate, which is 13% at the
time, they stole 107, votes from Donald Trump at that time
which is approximately 12% of his total votes, but to keep
it looking fair they stole only 81,000 votes from Biden so
that’s only 7% of his total at the time”
5:14 “this is there major adjustment, when the votes are so
out of whack, and so obvious Biden was going to lose, they
just got rid of votes from the different candidates, but at
different ratios so that Biden would come out ahead.”
5:30 “So 81,000 vs 107,000, that almost a 30,000 vote
difference in terms of taken away from one candidate versus
the other, they absolutely stole this from Trump”
5:40 “the big losers are the third party candidates.”
6:04 “they adjusted it a total of 23 times.”
6:09 “but I can prove using these numbers that are publicly
available, that they kept the third party candidate at 2.1%
and would not let it get higher than that”
7:45 “Because there are votes taken from all three
candidates it creates an air of mystery, and so it can’t be
proven either way and this is the smokescreen that they’re
running in order to be not so easily detected.”
7:58 “the strategy that they went with is the third party
candidates votes were not allowed to get more that 2.1% and
votes were consistently stolen from the third party.”
8:07 “and I think what happened, probably, but I can’t say
for sure, gave those votes to Biden over the course of the evening.”
I’m not sure nutmeg. I think we need someone younger. Trump will be what, 77-78? And he has had PERFECT health-—but we all know, that just doesn’t last for many people.
I think a younger Trump will emerge.
I should have known that.
So if no SOTU, can’t Trump call a special session of Congress?
I agree.. They fear the commies on the left, but not the folks on the right..
The people on the right are the law abiding folks.. They're still willing to go to the courts and get screwed over and over again. They'll just whimper a bit and get in line with the rest of the commies.. No problem for thieves and liars of DC...
“”””Trump may have to wait until after the electors are selected or even after Biden becomes president in order to have standing. My understanding is that standing only happens after someone is harmed. Trump hasn’t yet been harmed because Biden is not yet president.”””
Your line of reasoning makes sense to me. Trump may have to wait until the Electors are selected on Dec 14th or maybe even until Jan 6 when the Electoral Votes are presented to Congress before Trump can claim injury.
“The people on the right are the law abiding folks.. They’re still willing to go to the courts and get screwed over and over again. They’ll just whimper a bit and get in line with the rest of the commies..”
Until they don’t.
LOL...Uncle Sugar can get all the cash he needs from his printing presses. By the way, appreciate your firm grasp on the court’s behavior, which I only suspected.
So, is this German server story a thing?
Exactly.
I don’t think the invasion will be armed. It is already taking place through our universities, big tech, financial institutions, banks, schools, all of this pandemic crap, Biden family corruption, spies driving senators or sleeping with congressmen, and now, via Dominion, the Manchurian candidate . . . not Biden, who is irrelevant, but laughing Kamala.
I am patient. God help my patience.
Psalm 46:10
ESV
“Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
That’s alright, we can elect him President of the new Constitutional States of America. Plus we won’t have that amendment limiting him to 2 terms :)
>> Gorsush is a RINO from Boulder, CO.
Kavanaugh was a self-professed beer-swilling frat boy.
Coney is NOT from a Catholic cult as was reported in the MSM, but an ecumenical Christian cult. Ecumenicals are inherently liberal. <<
Well, the only Trump SCOTUS nomination I outright “hated” was Gorsuch (and even there, I correctly predicted he’d be a Sandra Day O’Connor type justice instead of making hysterical claims he’d be a Souter type leftist). It seemed like I was the LONE voice of sanity on FR at the time of his appointment… as I recall, 95% of FReepers were having orgasms over Gorsuch’s appointment and laughed off that there was ANY possibility whatsoever that he would be anything less than Scalia 2.0. Impy says he chalked up my vehement opposition to Trump to the fact that I was a die-hard NeverTrumper during the 2016 primaries, which is silly. Trump turned out to be FAR more conservative than I expected on other issues, and I said so at the time. IF Trump had ACTUALLY nominated a “pro-life judge in the Scalia mold”, I would have said so and gladly admitted I was wrong and shouldn’t have doubted it. I opposed Gorsuch because he was a godawful pick, not because Trump was the one who appointed him (I actually SUPPORTED the vast majority of Trump nominees, only opposing RINOs like Gorsuch and that creep Rex Tillerson). If Reagan had appointed him, I’d oppose him too. I would have voted AGAINST the appointment if I was lone GOP Senator to do so. Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch moved the court significantly to the left.
I was “hold your nose and vote Kavanaugh” at the time of his appointment, thinking there was a slim hope he’d be an improvement over Anthony Kennedy. I think the jury is still out on that one. But I certainly wasn’t happy with the appointment, as others have noted he is way too much of a Bushie, beltway insider status quo guy, and frat boy. It was weird how the Dems decided THIS particular appointment was the hill to die on and decided to portray the guy as a serial rapist and dedicated their careers to doing everything possible to destroy him (and amusingly, failing miserably to do so). Of course, our side reacted with the opposite extreme and put out propaganda about what an amazing constitutionalist he was. As I said at the time, the pre-scripted talking points BOTH sides had ready to roll out for WHOEVER Trump appointed got very tiresome. Trump could have nominated Chelsea Clinton to SCOTUS and the Dems would reply that she is a far-right ideologue “outside the mainstream” who hates blacks and gays and wants to “roll back women’s rights 50 years”, and the GOP would reply that she is a “brilliant legal scholar and loving mom who believes it is the job of judges to interpret the law as written and not legislate from the bench”. Yawn.
UNLIKE Trump’s first two SCOTUS picks, Amy Coney Barrett appeared to be the LONE Trump SCOTUS nominee who was a sincere strong conservative in real life (and I don’t give a crap if her “judicial philosophy” is “originalist” or not. I want an ACTUAL conservative, not an “originalist”… a term that didn’t even exist before the George W. Bush era, BTW) But as I noted, she wouldn’t have been my pick for SCOTUS (to replace either Anthony Kennedy or Darth Bader), nor would she have even ended up on my “short list” for those vacancies. She had some oddball stuff in her background and I feared she would be an easy target for the RATS to caricature beyond recognition. I was shocked when the RATS DIDN’T put out 24/7 ads on all social media platforms saying stuff like “Radical theocratic right-winger Amy Coney Barrett will vote to ban birth control because she thinks the Virgin Mary tells her to” Who_would_fardels_bear makes an interesting point that Barrett is actually a member of a charismatic/Pentecostal group, a movement in Christianity that has BOTH protestant and Catholic followers, not a specific “Catholic” group per say. They have millions of followers but its definitely not my thing… apparently they believe they are “filled with the holy spirit” and go around “Speaking in tongues” during the service… my dad went to a charismatic mass once and was very uncomfortable during the whole thing. But, meh, who I am to judge? I’m sure they are sincerely moved by the experience. Again, easy way to portray Barrett as a wacko cultist. I do think the only “Scalia-like” thing about her is that SHE is a hardcore devout Catholic, but that doesn’t automatically mean great conservative judge. I like the fact it ticks off BOTH the anti-Catholic bigots on their side AND the ones on OUR side, though. In any case, Barrett is off to a bad start by NOT dissenting on this case. The Texas case was about more than Trump, if the Dems are allowed to get away with stealing this election, we are headed towards banana Republic status.
Rather than “cementing a conservative majority for decades to come”, I fear we are actually back to square one after Trump’s three appointments, and the current ideological makeup of the SCOTUS differs little than it did BEFORE Trump took office. (and it actually ended up considerably to the LEFT of 80s and 90s era Rehnquist court, and was very similar to the Warren Burger era court before Barrett joined) Considering he got THREE appointments during his first term, that is a huge failure, IMO. Trump was very lucky to get 3 appointments in 4 years (Jimmy Carter got zero in that same time frame), and was able to hand-pick whoever he wanted for 1/3rd of the Supreme Court seats. I think history will show that there was one of the weakest areas of the Trump presidency, and he squandered a great opportunity. Those who shrug it off to “well, this just shows Trump needs even MORE appointments, we just gotta wait for a second Trump term and he’ll get three more judges and THEN we’ll have a conservative majority” miss the point entirely. If Trump appointed 3 more SCOTUS judges during his second term that were as “good” as the ones in his first term (let’s say he replaced Clarence Thomas with a socially liberal RINO, replaced John Roberts with another right-of-center squish, and replaced Stephen Breyer with an actual conservative), we’d still be stuck in the same situation.
This is not Trump bashing but a simply reality that we are screwed because of poor decisions about his SCOTUS nominees. One of my favorite conservative Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, had liberal activist Harlan F. Stone as his lone SCOTUS appointee, so it’s a simple reality that just because a President is good, it doesn’t mean his SCOTUS picks are.
They don't take a share if you earn less than $12k. And while it isn't much fun, you CAN live on $12k a year. They had way less than that at Valley Forge.
NOT just a tax strike.
A General Strike.
Truckers not delivering goods.
Police not going to work
Firemen not going to work
Bus drivers not going to work.
ANYONE NOT going to work for a few days ....
SHUT THE COUNTRY DOWN
It’s not that simple. Trump has to pick justices who will get at least 50 votes in the senate, and you know who they are.
We need The GREAT AMERICAN SICKOUT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.