Rand Paul Calls Out Stephanapo—whatever On Journalism

[Pogo]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

 

[j-mac]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

There wasn’t a dispute between states. There was one state whining about what another state was doing that had no effect on them.

 

[Pogo]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

 

[j-mac]

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

There wasn’t a dispute between states. There was one state whining about what another state was doing that had no effect on them.

It had an effect on all of us...

 

[colfax_m]

It had an effect on all of us...

Nope. Texas got their electoral votes cast. So did every other state.

The only one’s trying to disenfranchise people were the ones working to get the electoral votes thrown out. In other words, Texas was using an imagined injury to justify a very real injury on others.

 

[j-mac]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

 

[j-mac]

It had an effect on all of us...

Nope. Texas got their electoral votes cast. So did every other state.

The only one’s trying to disenfranchise people were the ones working to get the electoral votes thrown out. In other words, Texas was using an imagined injury to justify a very real injury on others.

No, the injury is if it were ever properly investigated and found that these states funny business changed the outcome, Texas is hurt by this, and all one has to do is look at the recent EO's concerning Keystone, and Illegal immigrants...

 

[colfax_m]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

The STATE constitution, yes. Pennsylvania writes its own constitution. Texas writes ITS own constitution. Neither state has a say how the other state runs itself. It ain't exactly rocket surgery.

Just as I run my own household. I decide what's for dinner. I have no standing to sit here and dick-tate what YOU should have for dinner. Nor do you have any right to sue me because I didn't have the Shit Sandwich you tried to dick-tate.

Not sure I can dumb down any deeper than that. Just accept fucking Reality.

Here's another one. North Carolina (also known as "here") ALSO changed its ballotry laws during the process. Texas didn't complain about that. NOBODY complained about that. Why do you think that is? What could be the difference between North Cackalackee and Pennsylvania? They both voted, they both adjusted in flight, the only difference between 'em is who won the vote.

DING DING DING DING DING

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

Read #82.

 

[colfax_m]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

Read #82.

They didn’t violate the constitution. You misinterpreted the constitution.

Furthermore, Texas did the same thing they’re accusing other states of doing

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

Read #82.

They didn’t violate the constitution. You misinterpreted the constitution.

Furthermore, Texas did the same thing they’re accusing other states of doing

They violated the constitution.
Recall Biden.

 

[colfax_m]

They violated the constitution.

Says who?

 

[Pogo]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

Read #82.

They didn’t violate the constitution. You misinterpreted the constitution.

Furthermore, Texas did the same thing they’re accusing other states of doing

They violated the constitution.
Recall Biden.

Yes, I recall Biden. Don't you?

The memory is the second thing to go...

 

[j-mac]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

From the TX AG;

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020"

 

[colfax_m]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

From the TX AG;

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020"

These claims were already heard in court and the petitioners lost because the states did not violate the constitution.

 

[j-mac]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

The STATE constitution, yes. Pennsylvania writes its own constitution. Texas writes ITS own constitution. Neither state has a say how the other state runs itself. It ain't exactly rocket surgery.

Just as I run my own household. I decide what's for dinner. I have no standing to sit here and dick-tate what YOU should have for dinner. Nor do you have any right to sue me because I didn't have the Shit Sandwich you tried to dick-tate.

Not sure I can dumb down any deeper than that. Just accept fucking Reality.

Here's another one. North Carolina (also known as "here") ALSO changed its ballotry laws during the process. Texas didn't complain about that. NOBODY complained about that. Why do you think that is? What could be the difference between North Cackalackee and Pennsylvania? They both voted, they both adjusted in flight, the only difference between 'em is who won the vote.

DING DING DING DING DING

I have no clue why you are trying to be so abrasive here, I am trying hard not to be, so I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a notch or two...

First, I think the integrity of our electoral system is a tad more important than what you decide to do in your household...

Second, I'll let the TX AG explain it....

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020 "

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

From the TX AG;

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020"

These claims were already heard in court and the petitioners lost because the states did not violate the constitution.

No, they weren't....dismissed for standing means that the hearing in court doesn't take place...

 

[colfax_m]

No, they weren't....dismissed for standing means that the hearing in court doesn't take place...

You think all the court cases were dismissed for standing?

All of them?

Texas’s case was dismissed for standing, but these claims were brought up by other people. The Texas lawsuit was a rehash of other claims that failed in lower court. The only reason anyone got excited about it is because it could be taken directly to the Supreme Court, which made Trump supporters excited given given strong belief in the court because Trump had stacked it with his appointees.

But as was widely predicted, it was dismissed because there’s no injury by Texas.

 

[Pogo]

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

The STATE constitution, yes. Pennsylvania writes its own constitution. Texas writes ITS own constitution. Neither state has a say how the other state runs itself. It ain't exactly rocket surgery.

Just as I run my own household. I decide what's for dinner. I have no standing to sit here and dick-tate what YOU should have for dinner. Nor do you have any right to sue me because I didn't have the Shit Sandwich you tried to dick-tate.

Not sure I can dumb down any deeper than that. Just accept fucking Reality.

Here's another one. North Carolina (also known as "here") ALSO changed its ballotry laws during the process. Texas didn't complain about that. NOBODY complained about that. Why do you think that is? What could be the difference between North Cackalackee and Pennsylvania? They both voted, they both adjusted in flight, the only difference between 'em is who won the vote.

DING DING DING DING DING

I have no clue why you are trying to be so abrasive here, I am trying hard not to be, so I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a notch or two...

First, I think the integrity of our electoral system is a tad more important than what you decide to do in your household...

Second, I'll let the TX AG explain it....

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020 "

Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Paul is making a completely dishonest argument by changing what Stephanopolous says. That's a strawman. And Stephanopolous calls him on it, over and over.

Watch the video.

He's also trying to snowjob the issue with this malarkey about cases not having standing and if they were looked at, they'd find.... whatever. If you don't have standing, you're not qualified to make the argument. For example Texas has no standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run its own elections. It ain't rocket surgery. Therefore whatever Texas thinks Pennsylvania did -------- IS IRRELEVANT.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has the supreme duty to hear and consider disputes between states. They had an obligation to hear the evidence, and the folded...

Texas-sized butthurt over what some other state is doing, is not a "dispute between states". There's nothing TO dispute. Fun fact, Texas is not in charge of Pennsylvania. Turns out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is. Who the fuck knew.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "TEXAS HAS NO STANDING" MEANS, Dickhead.

Well, but it is...See, When those four states cheated, they disinfranchised Texas voters by canceling their vote for fraudulent ballots accepted in those states...When those four states changed their election law through means other than the state legislatures, they violated the Constitution....

NOBODY disenfranchised Texas voters other than the Rump Admin's whining about ballot facilities in Houston and the like. Texas runs ITS election, Pennsylvania runs ITS election, Idaho runs ITS election, on and on through all 57 states. That got done.

If anybody IN PENNSYLVANIA experienced a problem where they were disenfranchised, ***THEY*** would have standing to bring a complaint. And those voters in Houston if denied the opportunity to vote, ***THEY*** would then have standing to bring a complaint.......... but it would go to AUSTIN, not HARRISBURG.

Suggesting that a Texan could jump up and say "those voters up there aren't doing it right", is literally madness. The Texas-sized AG (Asshole General) has as much ground to stand on as he does to complain about a vote in Sri Fucking Lanka.

So, what you are saying is that violating the Constitution has no effect on other states...I think you're wrong....Especially if it is every properly investigated, and found that this funny business had an effect in the outcome of the election...

They didn’t violate the Constitution.

But if they had violated the constitution, Texas wasn’t injured by it. The voters of the state could claim they were injured and sue.

Which they DID and they LOST, because they didn’t violate the constitution.

From the TX AG;

" Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.Dec 8, 2020"

These claims were already heard in court and the petitioners lost because the states did not violate the constitution.

No, they weren't....dismissed for standing means that the hearing in court doesn't take place...

Dismissed for having no standing means the plaitiff doesn't have a position TO STAND IN. It means the plaintiff can't be a plaintiff because they are INELIGIBLE to be a plaintiff. Like it or lump it.

Better duck, here comes another analogy. If I were to sue My Pillow for deceptive advertising, but I had to admit I had never bought from the company, then I would have no STANDING to sue them.