- Joined
- May 25, 2020
On the broader scale, yes, but I don't necessarily mind sorting through a haystack for a needle. It's a hobby. The problem was that I kept looking through the scattershot, and it kept failing to pass the bar of a single response from election officials. It has thusfar been that the GA one is the one that is going somewhere and presents something that doesn't require me to already agree with it. While some of the 'kraken' lawsuits were laughably bad, I don't really let them influence how I view ones that actually make claims and present arguments.A lot of the shoddy overall execution falls into a few reasons.
1: Time limits are thoroughness' bane. Everything was on a TIGHT time limit, and proving fraud is something that can take months and years. People had to go with sub par stuff out of necessity.
2: Everything was very scattershot. Multiple lawsuits from multiple individuals, a handful from Trump's team, some from concerned citizens, some from governmental bodies, some from independent lawyers, some from the campaign. All of them tugging on different or even the same threads.
3: Opposition. Whether its people who just want to take a loss and move on, people who don't want Trump to 'steal' the victory, or actual nefarious bastards... its hard to argue that the forces that be have tried really hard to prevent things actually being looked into.
By preference, I'd have liked a neat, orderly investigation. But that was never in the cards.
In terms of making a cleaner case overall, for people who don't mind rummaging, yeah, there is no way to make an orderly event realistically.
No, they could do a lot - you might think it's stupid or counterproductive, but it would be something. If a city banned white people from being on its police force, that'd be retarded but it would be something. I mean in terms of literally anything, they came up with jack squat. More people looking at something is an opportunity rarely realized.Well to be fair that's kind of a bad comparison: Anti-racism protests really can't do anything anyway, discrimination is illegal and anti-racist protestors are actually calling for like segregation and actual discrimination which isn't going to yield anything to anyone who isn't A) a democrat or B)smooth brain on how the law works. BLM in comparison contradicts themselves, they got cops to get body cameras, then when it proved BLM's claims hurt Black criminals they whined and bitched until they were taken away or didn't have to be on full time all the time. In fact they argued to remove them afterwards.... lol. That's why they aren't successful. Occupy wallstreet is a can of worm's probably saved for another discussion though.
This is a different cases as in it covers the entire political spectrum and heck even non-political people are starting to get a little curious and suspicious. This isn't a partisan effort in this case like the aforementioned this is something a little more unified as surprising as it is. As time progresses and people start rising and questioning more and more, unlike riots and protests, this might bear fruition as people put pressure on the establishment to give concise and clear answers to what's going on, because as this current SC crap is showing chaos is unraveling right before us because professionals of the establishment aren't being truly forthcoming or cooperative.
There are two legal bodies which are as yet not saying he is which are relevant. The SCOTUS is one, and GA is the other. Texas and the house of representatives are fucking irrelevant. They cannot issue anything regarding this election - they have to convince the SCOTUS to contest it. GA is investigating that case. If the SCOTUS doesn't hear this shit and GA doesn't flip (or even if it decerts and electors go for Trump instead), contest is over and all relevant legal bodies weighed in.all legal bodies concerned in 2020 are not saying Biden is the president. there's X amount of states and government officials contesting this right now. That all legal bodies didn't bother to contest the election in 2016 isn't applicable to 2020.
semantically, nothing was failed to be sustained because the courts ruled on standing. there was no standing before the election because there was no harm, and now there is no standing because of laches. Again, this is why texas is asking SCOTUS to intervene with original jursidiction.
Texas could have used this route to argue for at the SCOTUS the instant those states changed their voting laws through a means which did not fit the constitution's definitions that it cites. Its standing would be pretty obvious: any state which operates unconstitutionally threatens the harmony of the union. The arguments against standing/lache counterarguments have failed in every other court so far, whether you like it or not.