I'm explaining to you the mechanism of why such suits were dismissed. I'm sorry you don't understand.
I’m not a lawyer and any lawyer here can correct me on this, but I do have some understanding of “standing”. If your argument is that there was so much fraud, mistakes or other things to have marred the election enough to overturn the election but hasn’t been adjudicated because of lack of standing that’s a flawed argument. My understanding is having standing means that an aggrieved party can show that a harm was actually done. In this case the aggrieved party is Trump so to have standing he does need to show that a harm was done. In this case that there actually is enough fraud etc.. to merit a legal remedy. That courts are dismissing Trump’s cases for lack of standing means that they don’t see that they don’t see enough fraud or etc.. to where merit possible legal remedies. It’s not that they are ignoring fraud out there but that not enough prima facia evidence of fraud has been shown that would make a difference. This would be like arguing that in the second quarter of a basketball game the ref called what was a charge a blocking foul and gave the player a three point play. That player’s team wins the game in a blowout. So yes that was a bad call but unlikely changes the game. No elections are perfect. There were a lot of questionable things that happened in 2016 and given that the margins were much narrower then Clinton certainly could’ve raised the same challenges. If you’re expecting the courts to do something as extreme as overturn an election you need to show a pretty strong standing.
I’m not a democrat and you’ll find it’s not just them. I don’t have any love for Biden but with the bar trump set (and your display here) yea he’s an adult. so continue to b**** and moan while nothing happens
Nobody b****ed and moaned more than the left the last 4 years. I know you said you're not a Dem, just making the point.
Texas and other states brought the suit to the SC. It had to be Pennsylvania and the other states where fraud occurred that needed to bring the suits. If my car got stolen in front of 20 eyewitnesses, it's still up to me to press charges, my neighbor can't press charges on my behalf. If I dont care that my car stolen, it ends there.
And yet.... not one single piece of evidence proving massive fraud has been presented. They argue how states changed their voting rules without going through proper procedure. If states change their rules how does that benefit one candidate over the other? How does early voting negatively impact Trump? Expanded mail in voting? Why would these changes be bad for Trump and good for Biden? Why would these changes not impact down ballot elections? Why didn't the Trump campaign complain about these exact same machines in 2016? Why didn't the campaign complain about some of these procedural changes in 2016 or 2018?
That’s the point you have to show a harm that was caused. If you can’t show a harm. In this case Texas wasn’t able to show a harm. First off it’s always been a rather hypocritical argument for conservatives who believe in states rights to argue that the Constitutional mandated state function of holding an election should be subject to not only Federal review but has bearing in other states. Leaving that there is precedence for claiming that a harm done within a state does have bearing on the rest of the county. That was part of Bush v Gore so yes the USSC could’ve taken the TX lawsuit up if they had shown the at they were harmed and it wasn’t just about that it was up to PA. Further the argument regarding how PA conducted their election had already been brought up from parties in PA. The USSC turned those cases down. So not only could TX not show a harm that was done to give it standing even accepting the argument that only someone from PA had standing that issue had already been considered and rejected by the court
You understand that the Washington Times is a right wing source. Why is it okay for you to post information from a source that is politically right leaning but you claim other sources aren't to be trusted. For the record, I pointed out problems with the actual article and report it mentions.
The judges wrote in their decisions that there was no evidence. Also most of the complaints filed in the cases aren't even suggesting actual fraud.
They backed a shitstain and rolled around in it's scent like a dog and a rotten corpse. Ready to turn on a dime to sell out their principles for a tax cut. How the mighty continues to fall.
Oh wow i just read some of his posts... Hell, complete delusion. @SuraGotMadHops, sorry friend, but you are totally batsh!t nuts if you believe these things.
Why are you guys arguing with him? He is disputing factual evidence (court proceedings and inability for the trump campaign to present any evidence) to make the claim of the allegations without any evidence and disregard for what every right and left wing led judge has said. It’s next level cult brainwashing. you can’t argue with someone that lives in delusion and fantasy
And nevermind that these folks see no fraud in ANY state or county Trump won. Talk about amazing odds - widespread but somehow supremely targeted too.
What it all boils down to is that as many states were trying to make voting easier for all (especially during a pandemic) other states as well as Republicans were trying to make things difficult. The goal should be to have as many legal citizens vote as possible. It is telling that those against that aspiration tend to be the Republican party. I have yet to hear one reasonable argument as to why mail in voting should not be expanded..or better access to early voting...or easier access to drop boxes.
