"We hereby claim Michigan"

[micky]

"We hereby claim Michigan" His excellency Dirty Donny Trump

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 5:11:34 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> "We hereby claim Michigan" His excellency Dirty Donny Trump

Sure. Let him come to my house to claim it in person.

Cindy Hamilton

[trader_4]

One outcome that would be sweet would be for some of Trump's BS claims
to make it to the SC and for it to be a unanimous decision against him.
That would drive him nuts, he thinks at least the three justices he
appointed surely would vote not by the law and what's right, but out
of loyalty to him. However the SC isn't going to get involved in most
of his BS, because most of it is based on lies, so the SC won't
even take them. They may have to take the PA case though because they
are already involved.

That one is interesting, but I think the answer is simple. I don't have
the full details, but the argument by team Trump was that someone in PA
extended the time for mail ballots to be received. I think the PA SC
may have done it in response to a lawsuit. That may have been illegal.
But now what? Should the US SC fix one wrong thing by doing something
worse? What would the remedy be? The only right thing left I see is to
allow the ballots that arrive by the new deadline to be counted. The
voters committed no crime, no fraud, they followed the rules that they
were given at the time. To deny them their constitutional right to vote
because the court made a mistake in extending the deadline by a few days
would be far worse than any mistake the PA court made. And I would hope
that would be the ruling if it comes to that.

[hub...@ccanoemail.ca]

>
> the argument by team Trump was that someone in PA
>extended the time for mail ballots to be received.
>
>

It could be argued that the pandemic has created the need
for the extraordinary number of mail-in ballots - and
therefore extra time to collect and count - upholding
the sacred right of everyone having a vote ..
Legal "technicalities" should not override this.
John T.

[rbowman]

Sacred right?

[hub...@ccanoemail.ca]

sacred :

secured against violation, infringement, etc.,
as by reverence or sense of right

dictionary . com

... not the opposite of unholy left ! :-)

John T.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:36:40 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

>> It could be argued that the pandemic has created the need
>> for the extraordinary number of mail-in ballots - and
>> therefore extra time to collect and count - upholding
>> the sacred right of everyone having a vote ..
>> Legal "technicalities" should not override this.
>> John T.
>>
>>
>
> Sacred right?

Senile, right, lowbrowwoman? <G>

[Bob F]

Except for the 200,000 kicked off the rolls illegally in Georgia, and
300,000 plus in N.C.

[rbowman]

There are no 'sacred' rights that weren't bought without bullets or
whatever the technology was at the time. Mao had that one right.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:40:26 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> There are no 'sacred' rights that weren't bought without bullets or
> whatever the technology was at the time. Mao had that one right.

So how did you come by your sacred right (that you make so much use of ) to
keep blathering and gossiping endlessly, senile gossip? <BG>

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:12:35 -0500,

hub...@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

>
>>
>> the argument by team Trump was that someone in PA
>>extended the time for mail ballots to be received.
>>
>>
>
>
>It could be argued that the pandemic has created the need
> for the extraordinary number of mail-in ballots - and

That was probably the argument that the PASC accepted, but Trader is
right. The US Constituion says the state legisltures should make the
rules, not the courts, and therefore the PA SCourt can't change what the
legislature did.

But Trader is right, there is no fair remedy, since not only did they
vote based on what the Pa SC said, but the USSC implicitly ratified that
twice by not taking the case each time it was brought to them. If they
take it now it will only be to say that.

There have also been some cases of mail not delivered on time. The USPS
says it delivered more ballots the day after the election than on
Election Day.

I think that new one with the three names, named after a rabbit, should
recuse herself if she is going to vote for stumpie's position, but if
she wants to vote against it, I don't mind her voting. Though I think
such a twin standard is considered improper, and if so she just
shouldn't vote.

[trader_4]

On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 7:52:03 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:12:35 -0500,
> hub...@ccanoemail.ca wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> the argument by team Trump was that someone in PA
> >>extended the time for mail ballots to be received.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >It could be argued that the pandemic has created the need
> > for the extraordinary number of mail-in ballots - and
>
> That was probably the argument that the PASC accepted, but Trader is
> right. The US Constituion says the state legisltures should make the
> rules, not the courts, and therefore the PA SCourt can't change what the
> legislature did.
>
> But Trader is right, there is no fair remedy, since not only did they
> vote based on what the Pa SC said, but the USSC implicitly ratified that
> twice by not taking the case each time it was brought to them. If they
> take it now it will only be to say that.
>
> There have also been some cases of mail not delivered on time. The USPS
> says it delivered more ballots the day after the election than on
> Election Day.
>

Good to see we agree on something.

Another hysterical moment, Ruddy, the rabid squirrel was on the radio ranting
that because the Republicans that were in place to watch the counting could
not get close enough to the ballots as they were counted, then all those
ballots have to be found and examined. And if they can't be identified and
found, then those votes have to be tossed out. Now, IDK how you would be
able to find which votes to toss without being able to find the ballots.
But let's say you could. Ruddy would throw out all those votes, just
because Republican officials could not get as close as they wanted?
Without any evidence of fraud? Stunning. And the rules for all this are
set in place BEFORE the election, typically they don't change for decades.
Officials of both parties are present, the rules, procedures, what they can
or cannot do are set. If team Trump had a problem with the rules,
they should have brought it up BEFORE the election, not near the end
of counting. Team Trump really only has one problem and it's big.
They have lost the election.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 6 Nov 2020 05:20:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 7:52:03 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:12:35 -0500,
>> hub...@ccanoemail.ca wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> the argument by team Trump was that someone in PA
>> >>extended the time for mail ballots to be received.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >It could be argued that the pandemic has created the need
>> > for the extraordinary number of mail-in ballots - and
>>
>> That was probably the argument that the PASC accepted, but Trader is
>> right. The US Constituion says the state legisltures should make the
>> rules, not the courts, and therefore the PA SCourt can't change what the
>> legislature did.
>>
>> But Trader is right, there is no fair remedy, since not only did they
>> vote based on what the Pa SC said, but the USSC implicitly ratified that
>> twice by not taking the case each time it was brought to them. If they
>> take it now it will only be to say that.
>>
>> There have also been some cases of mail not delivered on time. The USPS
>> says it delivered more ballots the day after the election than on
>> Election Day.

I meant to add that this was just a side comment by. Though it
amplifies the need for the extra 3 days, I don't think it's a legal
reason I don't think it affects the legal case one way or the other.

>>
>
>
>Good to see we agree on something.
>
>Another hysterical moment, Ruddy, the rabid squirrel was on the radio ranting
>that because the Republicans that were in place to watch the counting could
>not get close enough to the ballots as they were counted, then all those
>ballots have to be found and examined. And if they can't be identified and
>found, then those votes have to be tossed out. Now, IDK how you would be
>able to find which votes to toss without being able to find the ballots.
>But let's say you could. Ruddy would throw out all those votes, just
>because Republican officials could not get as close as they wanted?
>Without any evidence of fraud? Stunning. And the rules for all this are
>set in place BEFORE the election, typically they don't change for decades.

I only read half-way through this line when I decided to reply. And
that's what I was going to say. The rules they used might have been 50
or 100 years old, at least 30.