*****OFFICIAL ELECTION DAY THREAD*****

2,705,084 Views | 20889 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Whistle Pig
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

OCTOBER 16, 2020 03:36:43 PM

A US federal judge on Wednesday denied a conservative group's request to block five Wisconsin cities from accepting grants to help pay for the upcoming election.

The grants, which total over $6 million, were awarded by the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to the cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee and Racine to help pay for the increased costs involved in staging safe and efficient elections amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Wisconsin Voters Alliance (WVA) and six of its members contested the legality of these grants on September 24 by filing a motion for a temporary restraining order with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In its motion, the WVA asked the federal judge to block the five cities from accepting the grants, claiming that the grants amounted to bribery.

The WVA argued that under federal election law only states have the authority to accept and use such private election grants. It also argued that the grants given by the CTCL, a private "left-leaning" nonprofit organization, were directed at these five cities that tend to vote for Democrats in an effort to skew the outcome of the elections.

The judge denied the WVA's request, holding that nothing in the law prohibits the cities from accepting grants from the CTCL.

He also noted that the fact that more than 100 other Wisconsin municipalities received similar grants from the CTCL, further weakening the WVA's argument that the CTCL grants to the five cities were meant to skew the outcome of the election.

"The risk of skewing an election by providing additional private funding for conducting the election in certain areas of the State may be real. The record before the court, however, does not provide the support needed for the Court to make such determination, especially in light of the fact that over 100 additional Wisconsin municipalities received grants as well," wrote the judge.
LINK

Galling!! Zuckerberg bought this election and the damn courts sat back and watched it happen.

ETA: They appealed and Kavanaugh refused to reverse the lower court decision.
Post removed:
by user
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turnabout and all that.

fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, then I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from our written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
HumpitPuryear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fasthorse05 said:

I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, the I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from out written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
Agree. It gives Dems about one month to prove that China interference didn't happen. That's about the same amount of time Republicans were allowed to prove that election fraud happened. Seems fair to me.
Reload8098
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gyles Marrett said:

will25u said:


This is all so freaking ridiculous. Liberals are going to be using corona as an excuse for everything corrupt they want to do for the next 100 years.

If they are going to play this game why can't they install cameras to watch the audit. BS!
Gyles Marrett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HumpitPuryear said:

fasthorse05 said:

I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, the I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from out written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
Agree. It gives Dems about one month to prove that China interference didn't happen. That's about the same amount of time Republicans were allowed to prove that election fraud happened. Seems fair to me.
The way I look at it, if roles were reveresed the democrats wouldn't hesitate to do it so why the F not.

I don't care if they riot, I have door locks and lots of firearms. Bring it on.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fasthorse05 said:

I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, then I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from out written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:

+1 for Trump? Update the numbers..


That's certainly one way to look at it.
I was curious so I went to look on PACER what the ruling said.

Dr. Ayyadurai filed his suit pro se Complaint and emergency request for PI against William Francis Galvin, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on November 20, 2020, in the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts (No. 1:20-cv-11889-MLW). Dr. Ayyadurai sought the PI to prevent certification of Massachusetts' election results.

Galvin filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim on December 4, and Dr. Ayyadurai responded on December 9. The Court issued a ruling today denying the motion to dismiss, but ordering Dr. Ayyadurai to file an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 21.)

The ruling noted that the Complaint failed to properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that Dr. Ayyadurai had not adequately pled a claim related to election manipulation. The Court noted that "although the plaintiff makes vague allegations of election irregularities in his Complaint, the allegations do not state a plausible claim under the Equal Protection Clause or any other plausible cause of action."

The Court also pointed out that it appeared that Dr. Ayyadurai had sued the wrong party in suing the Secretary rather than the Governor of Massachusetts, since it was the Governor who certifies the election results (which were certified after suit was filed).

The Order closes by stating that "the court could dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. It is more efficient, however, to order plaintiff to file an amended complaint adding any necessary party or parties, clarifying his claims, and stating whatever relief he now seeks."

In other words the Court is giving Dr. Ayyadurai a chance to fix all the pleading and party deficiencies in his filings, which is fairly routine, especially with pro se litigants.


Edit: An amusing side note to this is that Dr. Ayyadurai has filed nine lawsuits in Federal Court in Massachusetts since 2016 (the year he and actress Fran Drescher split according to wiki).

His list of Defendants include Gawker Media, LLC (Libel, Slander); Floor 64, Inc. (Libel, Slander); the City of Cambridge (Civil Rights violation); the University of Massachusetts (Civil Rights violation); Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Libel, Slander); Erin Elizabeth Flinn (Libel, Slander); City of Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh (Civil Rights violation); and a prior suit against William Francis Galvin as Sec. of State for Mass. (election related).

I bet he's a fairly proficient pro se litigant as far as these things go by now.

Fun rabbit hole.
fooz
How long do you want to ignore this user?


edit: should have refreshed, didn't see post above.
Sazerac
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
if the only interference they are going to publish is "social media amplification" that's a bunch of BS sour grapes. That is a ripple on the surface of what our own media did 10,000x times worse.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fasthorse05 said:

I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, then I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from out written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
Misplaced how? I'm mad as hell! Our court system is in shambles and has absolutely failed us. DOJ is practically worthless. And I have zero clue what will happen if the EO is invoked.
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

fasthorse05 said:

I'll be honest, I'm aware of the EO Trump signed in 2018, and hear about it often on various threads, websites, and comments. I'm also aware of the DNI's report being due on Friday the 18th from Ratcliffe.

If the report does indeed show some form-a little or a lot--of foreign influence in our election, then I'm past the point to where I'd like to see Trump invoke the damned thing.

Every opinion on the law pertaining to outside funding to the elections process has been pretty cut and dried, except maybe to a Democrat. From what I can tell, this decision is a complete break from out written law.

On Friday, DNI Ratcliffe is supposed to deliver a report about any outside foreign influence on our elections. If there is some, I honestly hope Trump invokes the EO from 2018. I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I've frickin' had it. I'f there's violence, so be it. I've been steadfastly against that, but there comes a point.

Please tell me my emotions are misplaced.
Misplaced how? I'm mad as hell! Our court system is in shambles and has absolutely failed us. DOJ is practically worthless. And I have zero clue what will happen if the EO is invoked.
I'm to the point that I'm ready for whatever the consequenced of the EO being invoked might be. We cannot exist as a unified country if this type of election fraud is allowed to stand. If Americans are to have any faith in our free elections and system of government, the corruption has to be rooted out and brought to justice now - not next year, not in 2022 or 2024. Now. If the courts and law enforcement in D.C. refuses to do it then the President needs to use whatever legal means he has at his disposal to keep this travesty from occurring.

Once again it appears that President Trump will have to stand in the gap for the American people in order to save the country.
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, I try not to pontificate too much on legal issues, decisions, and debates, because unless someone reads the actual decision a judge writes, and the reason why they wrote it, most folks rarely have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to SCOTUS decisions, or any other judicial decision.

So, when I made the 'misplaced" comment, I was hoping you would say "yes, it's a bad decision, but I can see where the judge arrived at her decision". I'd rather not get this F'n angry, and feel the gd hateful to an entire group of people, most of which have little idea their party has done this. A hell of a lot on them post on this board.

Basically, the decision seems to be antithetical to the written law, and it sounds like there isn't a damned good reason for the judge to rule like she did.

So yes, I'd rather have you put me in my place and say I shouldn't be mad as hell, but it's seems to be justified.
M-K-TAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fasthorse05 said:

Well, I try not to pontificate too much on legal issues, decisions, and debates, because unless someone reads the actual decision a judge writes, and the reason why they wrote it, most folks rarely have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to SCOTUS decisions, or any other judicial decision.

So, when I made the 'misplaced" comment, I was hoping you would say "yes, it's a bad decision, but I can see where the judge arrived at her decision". I'd rather not get this F'n angry, and feel the gd hateful to an entire group of people, most of which have little idea their party has done this. A hell of a lot on them post on this board.

Basically, the decision seems to be antithetical to the written law, and it sounds like there isn't a damned good reason for the judge to rule like she did.

So yes, I'd rather have you put me in my place and say I shouldn't be mad as hell, but it's seems to be justified.
You want to really be pissed? The PA mail in ballot case was just scheduled for conference by SCOTUS for January 8, 2021. The scheduling is done by Roberts, BTW. By this order, it is clear he is kicking the can down the road and really does not want to hear this case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-542.html
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I probably can't get any angrier than I already am, and since I expect a fair amount of civil strife in the coming weeks, I'm hoping our POS Chief Justice will get off his judicial ass and review the violence that's getting ready to engulf some of our cities due to the Dems and media scaring the crap out of everyone if the EO is invoked, because they will. In fact, I think it's going to be bloody in some cases.

I have a lot more respect for Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer than I'll likely ever have for Roberts. The first three stand for something, Roberts doesn't seem to believe in anything, unless of course, he really is being blackmailed.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG






Colbeck Affidavit
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:



This is BS. The report is critical to a national presidential election and is flat out unacceptable. There is no excuse for this crap other than they are dragging thier feet. Well, make their feet hurt.

Ratcliff needs to drop the hammer make these folks work 16 hour days right through the holidays until it gets finished. Show them what it's like in the real world when deadlines get missed.
MooreTrucker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So Ratcliffe won't sign it if it doesn't include China, which COULD kill it there, and even if he does sign it, these idiots are saying it won't be done in time to matter?
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've mentioned this before, but if Trump does invoke the EO, we better, by god, have strong evidence since the fur is going to fly everywhere. I don't really care if the other side *****es, but I do care if there's a tiny bit of truth to the *****ing.

If the reason the DNI intel guys don't want to include certain topics is political, the screw that. But if the reason for the intel officials reticence is weak, or very thin intelligence, then I don't want it included either.

I'm convinced the machines (among many other forms of cheating) are the absolute main source of election fraud. I know this would otherwise be a 12 month investigation, but we damned well better be able to find a way to deliver the goods by the first week of January. Of course, our crooked judicial system may stop any genuine attempts, but maybe that would also be a good reason to invoke the the EO.

We've GOT to be able to deliver solid evidence to a judge who doesn't think morals are giant pictures on a wall.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


So comedy shows is where she gets her news?
M-K-TAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:



So comedy shows is where she gets her news?
Disgusting. The only joke is Jocelyn Benson. I really hope she ends up in jail.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Joe Biden and the democrat party say they want to unify/move on.

Well an easy way to do that is to completely audit the election. If everything was on the up and up, and if they truly want to bring everyone together, that would be a GREAT start.

Ernest Tucker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reload8098 said:

Gyles Marrett said:

will25u said:


This is all so freaking ridiculous. Liberals are going to be using corona as an excuse for everything corrupt they want to do for the next 100 years.

If they are going to play this game why can't they install cameras to watch the audit. BS!


Rip this effing barriers down and cause a scene. If they are going to treat it like a circus, make it a circus.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Le sigh.

fooz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:

Le sigh.




eta: direct pdf link

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.35.1.pdf
Red Fishing Ag93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ratcliff is a damn American Hero and if he doesn't sign this thing you can bet your last Yen that that Deep State is just dragging their damn feet.

DC has outgrown itself.

Obama's untouchable SES people stand between Ratcliff and Americans vs. The Truths.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TRADUCTOR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
v
v
v
Gyles Marrett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:


If they refuse to hear the Texas case that they had a constitutional duty to hear, there's approximately a 0% case they hear this.

Roberts and the gang are in the back of the SC playing duck duck goose to pass the time.
First Page Last Page
Page 401 of 597
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.