Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...
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 - 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...