Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33869

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The idea of a machine that creates your paper ballot that gets scanned is ok, but I see as many security flaws with that, as with anything else. And it can slow down the vote counting, or do you feed the paper into the scanner or just a ballot box?

 

maybe, but it is nice to see a printout of your choices so you can at least verify it recorded what you wanted. but agreed, from there, fuckery could occur. and yes, you feed it into a scanner which is also the ballot box. my impression is the machine that you actually use to vote does not record any of the voting information. it's basically a printer with a touch screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hiphopopotamos

Hiphopopotamos 20869

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The idea of a machine that creates your paper ballot that gets scanned is ok, but I see as many security flaws with that, as with anything else. And it can slow down the vote counting, or do you feed the paper into the scanner or just a ballot box?

 

You feed the paper into the scanner as you're leaving the polling area.  I like the idea of a paper ballot where I can confirm my choices - and that exists as a hardcopy backup in the event there needs to be a hand recount.  Sure - the scanner can still fuck things up - but I'll take it over that fucking scroll-wheel digital only palm pilot looking voting machine.

Edited by Hiphopopotamos
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15783

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The idea of a machine that creates your paper ballot that gets scanned is ok, but I see as many security flaws with that, as with anything else. And it can slow down the vote counting, or do you feed the paper into the scanner or just a ballot box?

 

It's the safest way to do electronic voting and it allows for super accurate counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted

I still think it's hysterical that Rudy G. is back trying helplessly to get back at Biden, when the best thing Joe Biden has ever done in his life was to end Rudy's campaign in 2008, with just one line.

Quote

"Rudy's entire campaign is just a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

Drop the mic, Joe. We're done here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85321

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Since all the trumpers believe hannity implicitly, do those that live in the UP now believe they are Canadian?

All but one county in the UP voted for Trump so.......

THROW THOSE ILLEGAL VOTES OUT! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8717

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I missed Sharpiegate.  Assuming it's not worth my time.

Yes. Internet rumors that sharpies were given to Trump voters and the marker invalidated their votes. Or something. A lawsuit was filed and dismissed but not before the attorney admitted he wasn’t alleging fraud

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89659

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

It's one thing to attempt to stage a coup. On it's surface, and if you can mentally filter out the horrific consequences of its potential to succeed, you kinda have to respect the balls of it all. However, it's quite another thing to do so in such a publicly lazy and incompetent manner shepherded along the way by the biggest fucking buffoons imaginable. It's the most elaborate clown show ever. It should be way funnier than it actually is.

Given that the Michigan GOP leaders in the MI legislature publicly stated last week that under Michigan law, they could not select electoral college voters (since they are already chosen by the parties/candidates), and that under Michigan law they can not override the popular vote....basically even they admitted they have absolutely no power to fuck with the vote....I'm guessing that Trump did not pick up on that, since Tucker/Hannity/Laura probably didn't mention that on their shows.

Which means they are there to entertain Trump's fantasies, will say "sure, we'll look into it", and then fly back home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm a little uneasy with a politician from out of state filing the ethics complaints.  But these trump attorneys who are ginning up fraud accusations in an attempt to reverse the election results need to be sanctioned.

I don't know where the line is for frivolous vs. simply impassioned and ill-advised, but I do know there is one. This particular story is a hard one, because while the dumbass suits need to be booted off the docket with extreme prejudice, I'm not comfortable with the precedent of punishing people for having overzealous political loyalties.

Laugh at them all you want. Only dumbasses would hire them as lawyers going forward, anyway. But I'm not sure about disbarment. 

Of course, it may be a moot point. Most of them are going to go broke suing Trump to collect their legal fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Diggity

Snake Diggity 4622

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The idea of a machine that creates your paper ballot that gets scanned is ok, but I see as many security flaws with that, as with anything else. And it can slow down the vote counting, or do you feed the paper into the scanner or just a ballot box?

 

I really like the machine with printed ballot that is then scanned.  It allows for a 3 way match (machine, scanner, hand count of printed ballots); of course, the hand count would only apply in disputed or close elections.  It also allows voters to confirm their vote was registered correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85321

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And Arizona confirmed that voting with a sharpie would in no way invalidate the vote. Qanon and trumpkins didn't believe it.

To my knowledge they were fine tipped sharpies which read easier in the machine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I don't know where the line is for frivolous vs. simply impassioned and ill-advised, but I do know there is one. This particular story is a hard one, because while the dumbass suits need to be booted off the docket with extreme prejudice, I'm not comfortable with the precedent of punishing people for having overzealous political loyalties.

Laugh at them all you want. Only dumbasses would hire them as lawyers going forward, anyway. But I'm not sure about disbarment. 

Of course, it may be a moot point. Most of them are going to go broke suing Trump to collect their legal fees.

I'm comfortable with finding that using the court system to try and overthrow the election based on lies and innuendo is more than having overzealous political loyalties.  Overzealous political loyalties involves going on tv or wherever to make stupid points.  You use your law license to abuse the court system in this way, you should lose  your license.  There is no good faith reason to be bringing these suits.  

They have all violated their oath to "support the United States Constitution."  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29353

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I don't know where the line is for frivolous vs. simply impassioned and ill-advised, but I do know there is one. This particular story is a hard one, because while the dumbass suits need to be booted off the docket with extreme prejudice, I'm not comfortable with the precedent of punishing people for having overzealous political loyalties.

Laugh at them all you want. Only dumbasses would hire them as lawyers going forward, anyway. But I'm not sure about disbarment. 

Of course, it may be a moot point. Most of them are going to go broke suing Trump to collect their legal fees.

They should be sanctioned at the very least. If we can’t police our profession well enough to keep some members from destroying American democracy, we should probably just go ahead and let anyone practice law.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...