webadict @ webadict @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

272

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is really just a summary that will pertain to most cases. https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords=&status=all&state=all&topic=25 is a collection of all the cases, so you can see them all!

Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let's see how each of those court cases were ruled!

Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.

Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm'n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.

King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could've been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.

Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.

Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff's claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.

Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could've been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff's claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn't didn't override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.

Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff's claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.

Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.

Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.

Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.

Which of the fact checks do you think were unfair?

Don't Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?

Actually, I think it's also grammatically correct. You can use an interjection (which "weird" would count as here since it's a show of emotion) followed by a comma.

I don't really see how he would be better on national security, given that most, if not all, of our national security agencies regard Trump as a threat. He frequently gives out secrets to foreign powers (whether this is accidental or purposeful is debatable), has a distinct disregard for the military, (including doing nothing about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers, instituting a trans ban in the military against the advice of the military, calling captured soldiers losers, etc.), and he also tried to overturn an election he consistently called fraudulent in spite of no evidence found to support that conclusion and loads of evidence to conclude that the election was fair through a number of methods (fake slates of electors, organizing a mod and several senators and representatives to delay certification of the election, getting Pence to not certify).

If you meant border security, then why did he help kill a bill that would have fixed many of the things he's complaining about?

History proves you wrong. The fucking Three-Fifths Compromise proves you wrong! Imagine pretending we would somehow be more racist if we removed the Electoral College, I can't even.

Remember when claiming immigrants were stealing and eating pets was enough to disqualify someone from being a president?

... No?

Ah, my bad, this insane new low seems to have never happened before.

You post a lot of defense for Trump for someone that doesn't like Trump. You also post a lot of attacks against Harris and Walz.

Trump is at best a misinformed bumbling dumbfuck who thinks immigrants eat pets and children get surgeries in school, whereas Harris' lies are at worst the typical politician lies about supporting things she doesn't really support.

It is insane if you think these are on the same level.

Anyway, vote Harris because Trump will try to January 6th us again.

You could also pronounce it like Exitter and it still works.

Which part of asking for an end of an Apartheid state is antisemitic?

He called the cops on a Get Out the Vote rally because they were giving away hotdogs. Also he hates unions.

"Democrats are polling real bad with the fascists."

Damn, can't win 'em all.

Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.

Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.

If I make a million dollars by exploiting people and give $100,000 to charity, I think that still makes me a monster.

Isn't that twink a Goblin, tho?

...No, it's too easy...

I don't see how taking money away from the public education system AND allowing the vouchers to reduce taxable income for the users couldn't possibly result in more money for the state, but I also enjoy the sweet taste of lead paint!

You're right, just start a new branch of the military and just call it the Freedom Squad, and their whole goal is assassinating anyone you deem the deep state.

The problem with that thinking is the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He can tell the military to do anything, and anything he tells them to do is protected, because that power is EXPLICITLY written out in the Constitution, and thus is an official act.

Additionally, he could just hire literal hitmen and pardon them of any crimes. Official act. Fucking brownshirts are gonna be back.