Posted on Nov 24, 2020
Opinion: The Thieves Who Stole Our Election Got Sloppy
734
11
5
3
3
0
Here's the news that our favorite news media (major newspapers, broadcast networks, cable news, etc) aren't covering. Why would they? It exposes their perfidy...
Opinion: The Thieves Who Stole Our Election Got Sloppy
Posted from theepochtimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2020
Election 2020
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 2
4
4
0
This is another accusation that will go nowhere in court. It's easy enough to claim something is illegal to people who want to believe it. It is quite something else to get a court to agree with you. So far the Trump team as failed in that miserably. We've seen similar claims before this election and they have fallen apart in court, most of them catastrophically.
To be clear there are all kinds of little things that people can piss and moan about in any election. Trump has gotten people all riled up time after time of falsehoods, it was inevitable that has he has sucked people down slowly in a fact free reality that this next step would be something most would follow him in.
To be clear there are all kinds of little things that people can piss and moan about in any election. Trump has gotten people all riled up time after time of falsehoods, it was inevitable that has he has sucked people down slowly in a fact free reality that this next step would be something most would follow him in.
(4)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Bernard Walko They are not illegal and saying it over and over again won't make it so. Trump's campaign went to court and found out they the actions of the states were indeed not illegal. Once again easy for people to claim all kinds of nonsense on the internet, quite something else to prove it.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Bernard Walko - Once again, what I see is how our legal system works. The law isn't 100% congruent with some idea of "right and wrong" otherwise we wouldn't have spent decades in a stupid drug war against pot.
Many people didn't think Trump had the legal ability to declare whatever emergency he wanted and then move around funds Congress didn't authorize (e.g. the wall), I know I questioned it. He got taken to court over it, he won in court and as it turns out he did indeed have such legal authority. I may not like that he did it, I may not think it's right, but it was legal. That's our system.
I don't know if you are a resident of PA, but if you are how you change it is you elect people who want to change the current laws. What power the governor has is dependent on the laws and constitution of the state. If you are not a resident of PA (as I am not) you don't have sufficient standing to change their laws.
Many people didn't think Trump had the legal ability to declare whatever emergency he wanted and then move around funds Congress didn't authorize (e.g. the wall), I know I questioned it. He got taken to court over it, he won in court and as it turns out he did indeed have such legal authority. I may not like that he did it, I may not think it's right, but it was legal. That's our system.
I don't know if you are a resident of PA, but if you are how you change it is you elect people who want to change the current laws. What power the governor has is dependent on the laws and constitution of the state. If you are not a resident of PA (as I am not) you don't have sufficient standing to change their laws.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Bernard Walko - The thing is our system of electing officials it what is legal, not what is right as you say. Is it "right" that people's votes for president count more in some states than others? It is "right" that some people have to choose between going to their job and voting? There are all kinds of rights and wrongs in this regard and many of them are subjective.
As far as what you are thinking about (and I'm extrapolating this based on the article), I'd argue those would fall in the subjective category. Denying a legal voter the realistic ability to vote I'd put in the wrong category, but expanding things like deadlines, that seems a bit more subjective.
Giving legal voters more ability to vote (as long as they are indeed legal voters) seems to be falling more on the right side. The other question is does the governor have the legal ability to do so in an emergency? That depends on the laws of the state (case, statutory and constitutional).
As far as what you are thinking about (and I'm extrapolating this based on the article), I'd argue those would fall in the subjective category. Denying a legal voter the realistic ability to vote I'd put in the wrong category, but expanding things like deadlines, that seems a bit more subjective.
Giving legal voters more ability to vote (as long as they are indeed legal voters) seems to be falling more on the right side. The other question is does the governor have the legal ability to do so in an emergency? That depends on the laws of the state (case, statutory and constitutional).
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google