Wisconsin to decertify 2020 election

[Matt Dillon]

For a while we would remain bigger and more wealthy, but eventually isolation would bankrupt and weaken us.

We don't have to be isolated, just get better deals on certain things and produce some more things domestically.

 

[Monad Portal]

For a while we would remain bigger and more wealthy, but eventually isolation would bankrupt and weaken us.

No it wouldn't.

self reliance and domestic production would ensure our bright future.

You've fallen for globalist brainwash. you're stupid.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Fine. let other nations destroy their own people with unemployment and joblessness.


It's a short sighted strategy, don't fall for it.

It would take all of them combined to get as much as we provide.

 

[Monad Portal]

They only do it to a faction of their people, not all of them, an underclass that will not die out, but continue just above hunger level.

They do it to everybody in due time. It's the principal of dehumanization of other people that ultimately must be rejected in total.

you cannot let that camel get it's nose under the tent.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I realize you aren't very bright, but obviously if the drop boxes were unconstitutional in 2022 they were also unconstitutional in 2020......

An interesting argument that flies in the face of the Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings when they declined in 2021 to take up the issue in Fabick v. Wis. Elections Comm' and ruled that the election was valid in Dec of 2020 in Trump v Biden.

https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-not-allowed-april-election

as for the constitutionality, the basis of the finding was that only the state legislature is authorized to set law regarding voting procedures.......as the court held...


since the legislature had not passed a statute providing for them, their use was in violation of the constitution.......

ROFLMAO. So if something violates the law it also violates the Constitution? Can you provide a legal ruling that supports that idiotic argument?
The judge didn't rule anything violated the Constitution. He said it violated the law written by the legislature because the WEC issued this as guidance instead of as a rule.

But even further the judge's ruling doesn't overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Trump v Biden where the ruled that similar issues were not entitled to relief under the doctrine of laches.

The time to challenge election policies such as these is not after all ballots have been cast and the votes tallied. Election officials in Dane and Milwaukee Counties reasonably relied on the advice of Wisconsin's statewide elections agency and acted upon it. Voters reasonably conformed their conduct to the voting policies communicated bytheir election officials. Rather than raise its challenges in the weeks, months, or even years prior, the Campaign waited until after the votes were cast. Such delay in light of these specific challenges is unreasonable.

https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap002038.html

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

sorry you don't understand the law, but seriously who gives a fuck whether you are ignorant or not.......there is only one meaning for the word constitution......

The funny thing is there is only one spelling of the word "constitution" and it isn't spelled "l-a-w".
The other funny thing is there is no legal ruling that says that if something violates a law then it also violates the Constitution.

 

[Matt Dillon]

The funny thing is there is only one spelling of the word "constitution" and it isn't spelled "l-a-w".
The other funny thing is there is no legal ruling that says that if something violates a law then it also violates the Constitution.

What was done with voting in Wisconsin in 2020 violates their state Constitution and is therefore invalid.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

you should read the case......

I did read the case.
The ruling is here.
https://will-law.org/wp-content/upl...ting-Pls-Summary-Judgment-signed-1-19-221.pdf
Please cite the exact part that you claim is where the judge claims the 2020 election was unconstitutional. It's only 2-1/2 pages long.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What was done with voting in Wisconsin in 2020 violates their state Constitution and is therefore invalid.

Sure. So where did a court rule that?

Because the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite in Trump v Biden.
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap002038.html

The time to challenge election policies such as these is not after all ballots have been cast and the votes tallied. Election officials in Dane and Milwaukee Counties reasonably relied on the advice of Wisconsin's statewide elections agency and acted upon it. Voters reasonably conformed their conduct to the voting policies communicated by their election officials. Rather than raise its challenges in the weeks, months, or even years prior, the Campaign waited until after the votes were cast. Such delay in light of these specific challenges is unreasonable.

...
Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration. The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.
...
The Campaign is not entitled to relief, and therefore does not succeed in its effort to strike votes and alter the certified winner of the 2020 presidential election.

 

[Monad Portal]

An interesting argument that flies in the face of the Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings when they declined in 2021 to take up the issue in Fabick v. Wis. Elections Comm' and ruled that the election was valid in Dec of 2020 in Trump v Biden.



ROFLMAO. So if something violates the law it also violates the Constitution? Can you provide a legal ruling that supports that idiotic argument?
The judge didn't rule anything violated the Constitution. He said it violated the law written by the legislature because the WEC issued this as guidance instead of as a rule.

But even further the judge's ruling doesn't overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Trump v Biden where the ruled that similar issues were not entitled to relief under the doctrine of laches.


https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap002038.html

these were bad/partisan decisions by corrupt judges.

 

[Matt Dillon]

these were bad/partisan decisions by corrupt judges.

Pretty sure what he linked is different than what's going on in the OP.

It is, this is a different investigation..

https://www.wpr.org/gableman-vos-si...on-investigation-judge-orders-release-records

This article appears to be fairly unbiased except the "baseless claims" comment, IMO.

The state legislature will take care of it.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I did read the case.
The ruling is here.
https://will-law.org/wp-content/upl...ting-Pls-Summary-Judgment-signed-1-19-221.pdf
Please cite the exact part that you claim is where the judge claims the 2020 election was unconstitutional. It's only 2-1/2 pages long.

Sure. So where did a court rule that?

Because the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite in Trump v Biden.
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap002038.html

This is a different case. This is the Gableman-Vos investigation.

https://www.wpr.org/gableman-vos-si...on-investigation-judge-orders-release-records

The source appears to be unbiased except for the "baseless claims" part, IMO.

I also found this, which is well-documented but has bias:

https://americanvotersalliance.org/...1/06/1.-Bought-and-Sold-for-Big-Tech-Gold.pdf

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is a different case. This is the Gableman-Vos investigation.

https://www.wpr.org/gableman-vos-si...on-investigation-judge-orders-release-records

The source appears to be unbiased except for the "baseless claims" part, IMO.

The Gableman -Vos investigation is garbage. It can't overturn any election. But it appears they want to hide their "evidence" from the public since a court had to rule they were required by law to turn over 700 documents they were trying to hide. It seems you didn't read the entire article. What is it with conservatives that they can't read past a headline?

This is the judge who was asked to order the turning over of the documents by the "special counsel."

"I believe that it's for every man now to determine whether I erred to examine these documents," Remington said. "This has been much to do about nothing ... These documents do not support the argument that there has been an investigation, much less the conclusions that have been made by the Office of Special Counsel."

The judge that looked at the investigation said the special counsel didn't really conduct an investigation and that the conclusions were not supported by this lack of investigation.

I also found this, which is well-documented but has bias:

https://americanvotersalliance.org/...1/06/1.-Bought-and-Sold-for-Big-Tech-Gold.pdf

Ah, the garbage document that has been thrown out of every court it was presented to. You really need to stop living in your partisan bubble.
https://www.nbc15.com/2022/03/02/br...sin-election-report-ctcl-derides-allegations/

One of the judges dubbed the claims a “conspiracy theory.” U.S. District Judge William Griesbach, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, refused to block the grant money in October 2020

 

[PostmodernProphet]

ROFLMAO. So if something violates the law it also violates the Constitution? Can you provide a legal ruling that supports that idiotic argument?

not what I said, not what the court said........if you want to see a legal ruling that supports what I actually said, read the one that held the WI election violated the constitution......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The funny thing is there is only one spelling of the word "constitution" and it isn't spelled "l-a-w".
The other funny thing is there is no legal ruling that says that if something violates a law then it also violates the Constitution.

nor has anyone but you said otherwise...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I did read the case.
The ruling is here.
https://will-law.org/wp-content/upl...ting-Pls-Summary-Judgment-signed-1-19-221.pdf
Please cite the exact part that you claim is where the judge claims the 2020 election was unconstitutional. It's only 2-1/2 pages long.

The Court further declares that WEC’s Memos are administrative rules under Chapter 227
of the Wisconsin statutes and are invalid not only for the reasons described above, and but also
because they should have been, but were not, promulgated as rules.

the constitution provides that only the state legislature can establish the rules.....
the state legislature did not establish these rules.....
therefore these rules are invalid......

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing in this supports your claims or assertions

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_III... of the Wisconsin,of which have been repealed.

PRS logically and factually disproved your claims and assertions in Post #173....you're just blowing smoke and throwing anything against the wall hoping it will stick. You've failed.

But like all MAGA minions, you can never honestly admit error or concede a point...just like your orange faced god. Pathetic.

Denying and discarding the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, eh?

How typical for a liberal.

 

[Into the Night]

1. A simple question that you cannot answer....your RQAA neologism is an empty and meaningless dodge.

The question was already answered. RQAA.

2. Congress didn't, genius.

It did. It's not the first time they've violated the Constitution either.

The People did in a fair election.

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.

Both parties from all 50 states conceded to the outcome prior to the certification ceremony by State senators.

Denial of history. Seven States never chose their electors.

See, the senators only acted upon WHAT THEIR INDIVIDUAL STATE ELECTORS decided upon.

Denial of history. Seven States never chose their electors.

By law and rule, Biden won enough electoral votes to be President.

Nope. The law was broken.

So your oft parroted mantra bears no basis in reality.

You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.

However, if what you say is true, and the very same system that put into place all those congressional and senatorial seats for the GOP is okay by you, then that makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.

Compositional error fallacy. Election fraud by Democrats has been a problem for some time. This is the first time it faulted the election.

3. Only a complete idiot would accuse someone of trying to "wish away" evidence when that idiot refuses to acknowledge facts spawned by the very people he supports...and offers no facts of his own in rebuttal.

RQAA. I have already shown you some of the evidence.

But like all intellectually dishonest and limited MAGA minions, you think squawking "fallacy" somehow makes the FACTS you can't disprove magically go away.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean Universal Truth nor 'proof'.

One insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant MAGA parrot, squawking nonsense into the night. Carry on.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

More babbling from a MAGA parrot attempting to look intelligent by stringing together words that bear no logical assessment of the chronology of the posts.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The pussy is the fat boy braggart who only talks the talk and never walks the walk. Fuck off, fat boy.

Insult fallacy. Trolling. No argument presented.