An America where the people no longer have a voice

B

BartenderElite

Verified User
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
 
BartenderElite said:
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

They are all traitors and terrorists. Everyone of them.
 
BartenderElite said:
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

lets say this lawsuit is victorious and allows Trump to maintain residence in the white house..........how would you feel about the 2nd Amendment then?
 
BartenderElite said:
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

The People have never had a voice.

Never.

If you believe otherwise, that's as delusional as believing Trump somehow stole it or seeks to do so.
 
Hello BartenderElite,

BartenderElite said:
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

"Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."

...

"The Texas suit argued that changes made by the four states to voting procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic to expand mail-in voting were unlawful. Texas makes the remarkable request of the Supreme Court to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of the voters."

...

"Texas also asked the Supreme Court to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.

Democrats and other critics have accused Trump of aiming to reduce public confidence in U.S. election integrity and undermine democracy by trying to subvert the will of the voters.

“The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country,” Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

[Texas AG] Paxton, an ally of Trump on a range of issues, faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media."

...

"Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said, “These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless.” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, called the lawsuit “genuinely embarrassing.”

A spokeswoman for the office of Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican, said: “With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia.”"

Reuters: Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election in long-shot lawsuit
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello BartenderElite,



"Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."

...

"The Texas suit argued that changes made by the four states to voting procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic to expand mail-in voting were unlawful. Texas makes the remarkable request of the Supreme Court to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, essentially erasing the will of the voters."

...

"Texas also asked the Supreme Court to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be cast, a date set by law in 1887.

Democrats and other critics have accused Trump of aiming to reduce public confidence in U.S. election integrity and undermine democracy by trying to subvert the will of the voters.

“The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country,” Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

[Texas AG] Paxton, an ally of Trump on a range of issues, faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media."

...

"Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said, “These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless.” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, called the lawsuit “genuinely embarrassing.”

A spokeswoman for the office of Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican, said: “With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia.”"

Reuters: Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election in long-shot lawsuit
Click to expand...

I've seen other experts express similar opinions, and want to believe that's true.

But I also have heard that this goes to actions the 4 states took that may have been unconstitutional - extending the period they could receive mail-in ballots, for example. I don't know enough about the law to understand those complaints or whether they are legit. But if SCOTUS gets even slightly partisan, they might decide that there is enough ambiguity to punt it to the state legislatures. And then all bets are off.
 
Hello BartenderElite,

BartenderElite said:
I've seen other experts express similar opinions, and want to believe that's true.

But I also have heard that this goes to actions the 4 states took that may have been unconstitutional - extending the period they could receive mail-in ballots, for example. I don't know enough about the law to understand those complaints or whether they are legit. But if SCOTUS gets even slightly partisan, they might decide that there is enough ambiguity to punt it to the state legislatures. And then all bets are off.
Click to expand...

It is a wild long-shot last gasp.

It has every chance that a snowflake has on the surface of the sun.
 
BartenderElite said:
Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to all those votes for Biden from people that don't exist?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
only cowards and slaves accept such an unconstitutional and tyrannical edict from the government. you're a failed american if you need the government to tell you what the constitution means
Click to expand...

I don't need the gov't to tell me. I just know there are reasonable limits.

For example, even though we have the 1st amendment and free speech, slander is not allowed. I think the majority of Americans are okay w/ that, and since this is all basically a societal contract, that's sufficient.

Similarly, we have the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. But grenade launchers are not allowed, and I think the majority of Americans are okay with that, as well.
 
BartenderElite said:
I don't need the gov't to tell me. I just know there are reasonable limits.

For example, even though we have the 1st amendment and free speech, slander is not allowed. I think the majority of Americans are okay w/ that, and since this is all basically a societal contract, that's sufficient.

Similarly, we have the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. But grenade launchers are not allowed, and I think the majority of Americans are okay with that, as well.
Click to expand...

the government was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. - thomas jefferson.

No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” - thomas jefferson

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top