# ‘So Much For the Party of Lincoln’: Head of Texas GOP Calls For State to Secede From



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

[These are strange times.

It is like America is boiling over.
We have all heard things like this before, but now it is coming from highly respected men.]

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of a long-shot Texas lawsuit that challenged election results in several states where Donald Trump lost the popular vote, the head of the Texas Republican Party has already twice suggested that the Lone Star State should seek to secede from the United States of America.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) earlier this week filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, claiming that "electoral irregularities" prevented anyone from knowing who "legitimately" won the 2020 election.

Paxton's lawsuit, which was later endorsed by 17 other Republican attorneys general and more than 100 GOP lawmakers, was summarily rejected by all nine justices.

In response, Texas GOP Chairman Allen West on Friday erroneously claimed that the high court's ruling-which was widely expected among legal experts and court watchers-created a precedent that allows states to act unlawfully in the administration of elections, leading him to float the idea that the Lone Star State should look into forming a separate nation. In other words, he is preaching secession.

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences," West said in a statement.

"This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."

A few hours later, West gave an interview where he again indicated that Texas and those states that backed its election lawsuit should form a separate nation.

The comments-which echoed statements made earlier in the week by far-right conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh-were met with harsh criticism by attorneys, lawmakers, and political pundits from both sides of the aisle.

"I believe should immeditely retract this, apologize, and fire Allen West and anyone else associated with this. My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no," he tweeted.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...llowing-scotus-loss/ar-BB1bSfW4?ocid=newclick


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Saying you want to secede is akin to the Liberals claiming they want to move out of the country. These people sound just as silly.

Also, maybe if more Reps backed Trump instead of acting like cowards we might not be in this shape.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Sasquatch said:


> Saying you want to secede is akin to the Liberals claiming they want to move out of the country. These people sound just as silly.
> 
> Also, maybe if more Reps backed Trump instead of acting like cowards we might not be in this shape.


If Tx and Ok go . . . I may have to load my van and Jeep . . . make a one way move to somewhere in Tx . . .

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

dwight55 said:


> If Tx and Ok go . . . I may have to load my van and Jeep . . . make a one way move to somewhere in Tx . . .
> 
> May God bless,
> Dwight


I'm with you. If it happens we maybe neighbotrs, which would be great, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Lotta talk no action.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Serious question? I’m retired and living on social security. If someone in my situation moves to Texas and Texas seceded, what happens to my SS income? I’m thinking it would stop and me and the wife would soon become very hungry homeless beggars.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Chiefster23 said:


> Serious question? I'm retired and living on social security. If someone in my situation moves to Texas and Texas seceded, what happens to my SS income? I'm thinking it would stop and me and the wife would soon become very hungry homeless beggars.


Americans retire every day to foreign countries and still get their checks. The problem is people who paid in but not enough to collect. They get screwed. Unless they do not pay out of spite. Which is entirely possible.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Chiefster23 said:


> Serious question? I'm retired and living on social security. If someone in my situation moves to Texas and Texas seceded, what happens to my SS income? I'm thinking it would stop and me and the wife would soon become very hungry homeless beggars.


I'll take a chance on being a free beggar . . . rather than a comfortable serf. Besides that . . . I can still work . . . there is a job there somewhere for me.

With free speech canceled . . . 2nd amendment tossed . . . not allowed to use deadly force to defend life, family, or property . . . I ain't livin' there. If I wanted that, I'd move to Panama . . . at least before I died . . . I'd have some really good bananas.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

There has been talk of secession here in Texas for years, it has no legs, yet. But, we would be more then happy to welcome Dwight and the Squatch into the fold. Of course, we may have to give the Squatch a flea bath first. :vs_smirk:


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

How about some reality? Trump only barely won Texas with 52% of the vote. Biden got 46.5%. Obviously, Texas is not some bastion of conservatism. Actually, only a few states are. Heck even in my Mississippi, Trump only received 57.5% of the vote.

My point is, silly as this talk is of secession is, even if it were sincere, a state would not vote to secede with a simple majority. Back before the Civil War, when Texas actually voted to secede, the count was 166 for - 8 against. Show me one state that would vote like that today.


----------



## UncleMorgan (Mar 19, 2018)

Some people say that Texas has no right or power to secede from the United States of America. 

However, that may not be the case. And the truth of the case may have already been fully tested and proven at law.

Texas did, in fact secede from the United States at the time of the Civil War. 

After the Confederacy was defeated by force of arms, ft, Texas was formally re-admitted into the United States of America in 1870.

Texas could not have been re-admitted to the United States if it had nor (in fact) seceded.

So it is clear that Texas can secede whenever it chooses to do so, exactly as it has seceded once before.

Of course, it will probably have to fight a another War of Secession if it does so. But I think Texas is now a nuclear power, so that might not be as open and shut as it was the last time around.

The opinion has been bandied about that joining the United States of America is an irrevocable act. That it is an act that endures for perpetuity.

I disagree.

No discussion of the right or power to secede is considered in the U.S. Constitution.

But it is addressed indirectly, by specific omission.

The U. S. Constitution specifically states that any power not specifically delegated to the Federal Government, or to the States, is reserved to the People.

We the People can delegate our right and power to secede from the United States to to our respective States if we choose to do so. A simple majority vote would be quite sufficient for that purpose.

Or we could just exercise it ourselves.

Moreover, it is contrary to the Public Policy of the United States for any "perpetuity" to exist. And for any irrevocable agreement to exist. You cannot enforce a lease longer than 99 years because the courts have held that any longer period of time is , in fact, a perpetuity. You likewise cannot enforce an irrevocable Power of Attorney.

(See Black, 2nd Law.)

It is also worth noting that no law existed before the Civil War making it unlawful for any State to secede, exactly as no such law exists today.

The issue at the time was settled by war, not law. 

In war, the winner prevails--and neither right nor law have anything to do with it.

If Texas secedes, I doubt that it will do so alone. 

The Federal Government will have a very big bullet to bite, indeed, if a large part of the former United States of America reorganizes into a Free Confederation of States.

Blockading some Southern ports (an illegal act and an Act of War that preceded the Civil War), marching a few troops around, and firing off a few cannon may not be enough to get the job done this time.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Chiefster23 said:


> Serious question? I'm retired and living on social security. If someone in my situation moves to Texas and Texas seceded, what happens to my SS income? I'm thinking it would stop and me and the wife would soon become very hungry homeless beggars.


That government hook in your ass hurts, huh? This is how they get you. They make it to where you can't (or more importantly think you can't) survive without them (the .gov) and then you have to go along with whatever fornicating bullshit they come up with. Imagine a world where you prepared to not rely on SSA. A world where is the nanny-government threatened to cut off your monthly handout you could say "F U, .gov, I am fine without your lying asses". It has been their goal for a long long time, and they are succeeding brilliantly at it. You can see if even on this forum of alleged preppers. The Couch Patriots that MG talks about. "I would give them hell, but I can't survive without them, so......" The .gov set their hooks deep and securely in folks mouths, asses, and balls. Sucks.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

******* said:


> How about some reality? Trump only barely won Texas with 52% of the vote. Biden got 46.5%. Obviously, Texas is not some bastion of conservatism. Actually, only a few states are. Heck even in my Mississippi, Trump only received 57.5% of the vote.
> 
> My point is, silly as this talk is of secession is, even if it were sincere, a state would not vote to secede with a simple majority. Back before the Civil War, when Texas actually voted to secede, the count was 166 for - 8 against. Show me one state that would vote like that today.


It cracks me up to hear anyone tout election numbers this year as if they had any fornicating validity at all. 52% you say.......Says who? The same fornicating liars who manufactured this Biden "win"? To quote someone I suspect you secretly voted for: "Come on, Man!!" You are another that has the .gov hook so embedded in your man-parts you can't think straight. "Gimmee my danged old SSA, cause I wants it and I wants it now. I don't mind your screwing my ass and the asses of all good Americans in the process, I can use the SSA blood money to buy Chinese Vasoline to make is less hurtful".

I don't mean to be an asshole this morning (and I have no doubt at all that I am being), but it just hurts my soul to read the things I do here about people, preppers of all things, depending on the .gov and making huge life decisions based on that fact.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> It cracks me up to hear anyone tout election numbers this year as if they had any fornicating validity at all. 52% you say.......Says who? The same fornicating liars who manufactured this Biden "win"? To quote someone I suspect you secretly voted for: "Come on, Man!!" You are another that has the .gov hook so embedded in your man-parts you can't think straight. "Gimmee my danged old SSA, cause I wants it and I wants it now. I don't mind your screwing my ass and the asses of all good Americans in the process, I can use the SSA blood money to buy Chinese Vasoline to make is less hurtful".
> 
> I don't mean to be an asshole this morning (and I have no doubt at all that I am being), but it just hurts my soul to read the things I do here about people, preppers of all things, depending on the .gov and making huge life decisions based on that fact.


Nope. He's right.

Here in Alabama, we'd have to have our own little war against Jefferson and Montgomery counties, and a couple others before secession could happen. 
It ain't as clean and simple as you might believe.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

******* said:


> How about some reality? Trump only barely won Texas with 52% of the vote. Biden got 46.5%. Obviously, Texas is not some bastion of conservatism. Actually, only a few states are. Heck even in my Mississippi, Trump only received 57.5% of the vote.
> 
> My point is, silly as this talk is of secession is, even if it were sincere, a state would not vote to secede with a simple majority. Back before the Civil War, when Texas actually voted to secede, the count was 166 for - 8 against. Show me one state that would vote like that today.





Prepared One said:


> There has been talk of secession here in Texas for years, it has no legs, yet. But, we would be more then happy to welcome Dwight and the Squatch into the fold. Of course, we may have to give the Squatch a flea bath first. :vs_smirk:


Seceding and Trump do not necessarily go hand in hand. There have been formal groups for years advocating independence.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/texas-secessionists-2019/


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

stevekozak said:


> It cracks me up to hear anyone tout election numbers this year as if they had any fornicating validity at all. 52% you say.......Says who? The same fornicating liars who manufactured this Biden "win"? To quote someone I suspect you secretly voted for: "Come on, Man!!" You are another that has the .gov hook so embedded in your man-parts you can't think straight. "Gimmee my danged old SSA, cause I wants it and I wants it now. I don't mind your screwing my ass and the asses of all good Americans in the process, I can use the SSA blood money to buy Chinese Vasoline to make is less hurtful".
> 
> I don't mean to be an asshole this morning (and I have no doubt at all that I am being), but it just hurts my soul to read the things I do here about people, preppers of all things, depending on the .gov and making huge life decisions based on that fact.


Yep! You're right! You are an asshole and have been for a long time now. You attack Anybody that expresses an opinion or set of circumstances different than yours. Different people live different lives. Those lives determine what they believe in and how they end up.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

I don't know what the answer is to our current problems but Balkanization of our country is not it. I do think some of these news anchors working hand in hand with leftist democrats who hide news and lie to us need to feel our wrath.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Chiefster23 said:


> Yep! You're right! You are an asshole and have been for a long time now. You attack Anybody that expresses an opinion or set of circumstances different than yours. Different people live different lives. Those lives determine what they believe in and how they end up.


Well, enjoy your Ponzi scheme money and put on your good shoes so you don't slip when you get on the bus, Sir. I see things for what they are and call them out. For the record, I don't "attack Anybody that expresses an opinion or set of circumstances different than yours", but I can see why you might think so while you are feeling butthurt. I'll not hold it against you, though.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

stevekozak said:


> It cracks me up to hear anyone tout election numbers this year as if they had any fornicating validity at all. 52% you say.......Says who? The same fornicating liars who manufactured this Biden "win"?


Well if you go back 4 years, he only got 58% in Mississippi. Real simple. Prove your theory in a court of law... not in a news conference or a Tweet. Prove it where you have to provide real evidence. Rudy says he has evidence of fraud but have you seen him provide that in a court of law? When a judge asked him if he was claiming fraud occurred... he said no. But put him in a press conference and he claims fraud. Funny, huh?

I don't want your opinion, Trump's opinion, or Rudy's opinion. I want facts proven in a court. Their "evidence" is so shaky, even conservative judges throw out the case before it even starts. Oh, and that military intelligence analyst (Spider) that Sidney Powell was using as proof, never worked in military intelligence. He was a mechanic. Point being anyone can & will claim anything. But when you do it in court, if you fail to tell the truth... you go to jail. There is a reason Trump & his lawyers say one thing in a press conference and something different in court.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

> I don't want your opinion, Trump's opinion, or Rudy's opinion. I want facts proven in a court. Their "evidence" is so shaky, even conservative judges throw out the case before it even starts.


Aren't you forgetting a key detail?

They are not allowing cases to be heard. How are you supposed to show evidence if you can't get in the courtroom?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> Well if you go back 4 years, he only got 58% in Mississippi. Real simple. Prove your theory in a court of law... not in a news conference or a Tweet. Prove it where you have to provide real evidence. Rudy says he has evidence of fraud but have you seen him provide that in a court of law? When a judge asked him if he was claiming fraud occurred... he said no. But put him in a press conference and he claims fraud. Funny, huh?
> 
> I don't want your opinion, Trump's opinion, or Rudy's opinion. I want facts proven in a court. Their "evidence" is so shaky, even conservative judges throw out the case before it even starts. Oh, and that military intelligence analyst (Spider) that Sidney Powell was using as proof, never worked in military intelligence. He was a mechanic. Point being anyone can & will claim anything. But when you do it in court, if you fail to tell the truth... you go to jail. There is a reason Trump & his lawyers say one thing in a press conference and something different in court.


Actually, a judge doesn't have to toss out a case on shakey evidence. A slight procedural mistake is enough.

I also think we use the word, "conservative," too much.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> Aren't you forgetting a key detail?
> 
> They are not allowing cases to be heard. How are you supposed to show evidence if you can't get in the courtroom?


I'm not a lawyer but here is my understanding. When you present a case, every judge looks over your complaint and the evidence first. He looks to see if you have standing, meaning that you have a Constitutional right to make such a charge against that entity. He also initially determines if you filed the complaint in a timely manner and if the remedy you request is valid & Constitutional. Seems all these cases are thrown out before they start because of these issues. My understanding getting your case heard requires a pretty low standard so when they are thrown out, that tells you something.

For example. When a state modified its election rules due to Covid, the time to file a complaint is then... not months later when you lost the election. That can get a case thrown out. Funny thing regarding that involves Texas, the state that was charging other states with not following their own election rules. Well several months back, the Republican governor of Texas changed their rules to allow a longer early voting period. He did this without going thru the legislature but did so by executive order. Some other Republicans took him to the state Supreme Court... and they lost. So Texas did exactly what these other states did.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Actually, a judge doesn't have to toss out a case on shakey evidence. A slight procedural mistake is enough.
> 
> I also think we use the word, "conservative," too much.


Agree on both parts. I listed some other reasons why a case can get thrown. Sure there are more.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

It's my opinion (only), some judges don't want them and their families killed.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> It's my opinion (only), some judges don't want them and their families killed.


I think they do their job, no matter the threat. And actually, the threat right now is coming from the far right. Just read some posts here about folks wanting to take up arms. Folks here even want the Insurrection Act invoked to be used to get rid of judges and others. Wonder who would make that determination? Folks like that scare me. I do believe our court system is far from perfect but I'll take it any day over folks hoping for armed takeover.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> I think they do their job, no matter the threat. And actually, the threat right now is coming from the far right. Just read some posts here about folks wanting to take up arms. Folks here even want the Insurrection Act invoked to be used to get rid of judges and others. Wonder who would make that determination? Folks like that scare me. I do believe our court system is far from perfect but I'll take it any day over folks hoping for armed takeover.


Let's look and see where the threats really are:
https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-o...y-stabs-2-trump-supporters-in-washington-d-c/

AntiFa isn't on what we refer to as the right.

Taking up arms, as what Antifa is doing? Let's be fair.

Now, what are patriots wanting? They want the Globalists and the Deep State actors rooted out, whether they are bureaucrats, judges or whatever. The ones who are actually violent? AntiFa? They want the destruction of the constitution.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

******* said:


> I think they do their job, no matter the threat. And actually, the threat right now is coming from the far right. Just read some posts here about folks wanting to take up arms. Folks here even want the Insurrection Act invoked to be used to get rid of judges and others. Wonder who would make that determination? Folks like that scare me. I do believe our court system is far from perfect but I'll take it any day over folks hoping for armed takeover.


No disrespect intended but...you seem to always side with the "left" side of things.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Let's look and see where the threats really are:
> https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-o...y-stabs-2-trump-supporters-in-washington-d-c/
> 
> AntiFa isn't on what we refer to as the right.
> ...


Obviously, there are threats from the extremists from all persuasions. Many would say what some Republicans have done, in trying to throw out millions of votes is against the Constitution too. I just wish everyone would chill and let the Constitution rule.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Robie said:


> No disrespect intended but...you seem to always side with the "left" side of things.


I believe ******* operates on common sense, rational thought, truth, and other simple ideas.

And those are NOT Leftist values.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> Seceding and Trump do not necessarily go hand in hand. There have been formal groups for years advocating independence.
> 
> https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/texas-secessionists-2019/


League Of The South has been in existence since 1994.
https://leagueofthesouth.com

Not only secession physically, but culturally as well.
Of course, the rabid Left, such as SPLC, has called this a "white supremacist" organization.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> Obviously, there are threats from the extremists from all persuasions. Many would say what some Republicans have done, in trying to throw out millions of votes is against the Constitution too. I just wish everyone would chill and let the Constitution rule.


Sorry, but it's too easy to say both sides when the attacks come from one side.

Let the constitution rule? I agree. Protect the law of the land instead to f pulling a coup at all costs so to get back to the agenda of tyranny.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> No disrespect intended but...you seem to always side with the "left" side of things.


So what? You ever see me say anything about taking away my right to bear arms? I'm in the middle, where much of the country is. I'm actually very conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. You think the Republican party today is? Have you seen our national debt rise under this Republican administration? I'm neither left or right but think the Constitution is sacred. I've seen as much damaging comments from the far right as the far left. The Constitution has to rule even when it is inconvenient for you... such as with this election.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

> I just wish everyone would chill and let the Constitution rule.


I agree.

With that said, the Constitution isn't going to do anything by itself. It's a piece of parchment.

It takes people who are concerned about things and questioning things to to bring it to the attention of those tasked with it's interpretation.

Many people believe Justice Roberts was acting unconstitutionally when he changed Obamacare to read "tax".


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Sorry, but it's too easy to say both sides when the attacks come from one side.


When folks on this board hope for an armed takeover and replacement of judges, do you consider that an attack on the Constitution? One side?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> I agree.
> 
> With that said, the Constitution isn't going to do anything by itself. It's a piece of parchment.
> 
> ...


Agree completely!


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

So....the court is not infallible?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I believe ******* operates on common sense, rational thought, truth, and other simple ideas.
> 
> And those are NOT Leftist values.


Thank you sir! I am very simple.  I also operate under my understanding of the teachings of my Savior.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> So....the court is not infallible?


That is why we have appeals. But one court's opinion is infallible until changed by itself... the Supreme Court.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

******* said:


> That is why we have appeals. But one court's opinion is infallible until changed by itself... the Supreme Court.


Something tells me you are against the appeal made to the Texas ruling and that it's a waste of time.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Denton said:


> Let's look and see where the threats really are:
> https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-o...y-stabs-2-trump-supporters-in-washington-d-c/
> 
> AntiFa isn't on what we refer to as the right.
> ...





> Former CIA Officer and Counterintelligence Expert Uncovers Obama Crime Database Hides BLM and ANTIFA Violence But Inflates White, Right-Wing Violence


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-violence-inflates-white-right-wing-violence/


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> When folks on this board hope for an armed takeover and replacement of judges, do you consider that an attack on the Constitution? One side?


That's a bit of a simplistic way of stating it.

When powers such as Soros, corporations and China are installing state AGs, buying judges and politicians; when your freedoms are at stake as well as your very way of life; when you realize that foxes can't be trusted to guard the hen house and you watch the Elite pull out all the stop in order to remove the only obstacle they've had in decades, don't you imagine ideas will be pondered?

Last night, a group of Christian Trump supporters were set upon and badly beaten. Don't be concerned about people behind keyboards, people who you've gotten to somewhat know, type on this site. You'd be wise to be concerned about the actions of Soros' street soldiers who are harming people and destroying things.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Double thanks^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

When AntiFa was Confronted by the Proud Boys, yesterday, guess who went cowering behind the cops.

On the other hand, they are tougher than nails when they spot a lone target:
https://thelibertyloft.com/video-an...s-man-in-sacramento-beating-him-with-weapons/


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Speaking of numbers, be mindful that the percentage of voters who "supposedly' voted for Trump or Biden is subjective, in determining what a State might do/react to a very culturally divided Nation like we find ourselves entrenched in now. Let's not forget many of us voted for Trump in the past 2 elections strictly because of the alternative candidate. Likewise, how many Biden voters were just turned off by Trump's bravado routine and voted for the gentler/safer candidate?


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

A Watchman said:


> Speaking of numbers, be mindful that the percentage of voters who "supposedly' voted for Trump or Biden is subjective, in determining what a State might do/react to a very culturally divided Nation like we find ourselves entrenched in now. Let's not forget many of us voted for Trump in the past 2 elections strictly because of the alternative candidate. Likewise, how many Biden voters were just turned off by Trump's bravado routine and voted for the gentler/safer candidate?


Do you believe that more people legally voted for Biden than voted for President Trump?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> Something tells me you are against the appeal made to the Texas ruling and that it's a waste of time.


If we are talking about the same thing, that was not an appeal. I mean there is nowhere one can go to appeal a Supreme Court ruling. When one state has an issue with another state, in some instances the complaint can be brought straight to the Supreme Court, and bypass the lower courts. That is what happened here. But once again, one must have standing... a Constitutional right to bring an action against that entity. What the Supreme Court said was Texas, or any other state, has no Constitutional right to question another state's voting practices. That is a Constitutional power invested in each state. Each state has their own laws & procedures & if not followed, must be brought up in state court. It is called state's rights and most conservatives cherish that. At least they used to.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

******* said:


> If we are talking about the same thing, that was not an appeal. I mean there is nowhere one can go to appeal a Supreme Court ruling. When one state has an issue with another state, in some instances the complaint can be brought straight to the Supreme Court, and bypass the lower courts. That is what happened here. But once again, one must have standing... a Constitutional right to bring an action against that entity. What the Supreme Court said was Texas, or any other state, has no Constitutional right to question another state's voting practices. That is a Constitutional power invested in each state. Each state has their own laws & procedures & if not followed, must be brought up in state court. It is called state's rights and most conservatives cherish that. At least they used to.


The Supreme Court ruled correctly.
You stated it very well.
A welcome breath of fresh air.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

******* said:


> If we are talking about the same thing, that was not an appeal. I mean there is nowhere one can go to appeal a Supreme Court ruling. When one state has an issue with another state, in some instances the complaint can be brought straight to the Supreme Court, and bypass the lower courts. That is what happened here. But once again, one must have standing... a Constitutional right to bring an action against that entity. What the Supreme Court said was Texas, or any other state, has no Constitutional right to question another state's voting practices. That is a Constitutional power invested in each state. Each state has their own laws & procedures & if not followed, must be brought up in state court. It is called state's rights and most conservatives cherish that. At least they used to.


Both parties have the right to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation. ... The party requesting the input of the U.S. Supreme Court files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> Both parties have the right to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation. ... The party requesting the input of the U.S. Supreme Court files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari


Sorry, what decision are you talking about?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I'd supply the link but Im sitting next to a campfire cooking my dinner, using my cell phone and it's tough to navigate.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Robie said:


> Both parties have the right to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation. ... The party requesting the input of the U.S. Supreme Court files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari


I'm confused.
Where are you going to appeal a decision of the US Supreme Court?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> I'd supply the link but Im sitting next to a campfire cooking my dinner, using my cell phone and it's tough to navigate.


The modern man!  My suggestion is to put your phone down & enjoy the moment. We can debate any time.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

******* said:


> The modern man!  My suggestion is to put your phone down & enjoy the moment. We can debate any time.


Im out here 3-4 nights a week enjoyo the campfire.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The Supreme Court ruled correctly.
> You stated it very well.
> A welcome breath of fresh air.


Thomas and Alito are dolts?

Mark Levin explained it much better than I can, but the point was that it simply isn't so. This is exactly where the case was supposed to go and Texas most certainly did have standing. The will of not only Texas but the majority of America was thwarted and those states violated not only their own constitutions but the federal constitution to do so. 
Were their violations only impacting their own states, Texas would have no standing.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

stevekozak said:


> Do you believe that more people legally voted for Biden than voted for President Trump?


I can't speak to what I believe to be the actual vote numbers could/would be, because I acknowledge that the Elitist's propaganda plan that was enacted long ago has created a mass population of idiots and the data is subjective. I do, however adamantly believe that the election was rigged and was preplanned to be manipulated in the swing States. These swing states are known prior to an election and in the grand scheme of a national election, make easy and identifiable targets.

In summary... we have been played right before our eyes.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Denton said:


> Thomas and Alito are dolts?
> 
> Mark Levin explained it much better than I can, but the point was that it simply isn't so. This is exactly where the case was supposed to go and Texas most certainly did have standing. The will of not only Texas but the majority of America was thwarted and those states violated not only their own constitutions but the federal constitution to do so.
> Were their violations only impacting their own states, Texas would have no standing.


The filing by Texas had nothing to do with fraud, or even the vote itself.
Texas was challenging the way other states run their elections. Nothing more.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The filing by Texas had nothing to do with fraud, or even the vote itself.
> Texas was challenging the way other states run their elections. Nothing more.


I know that and I referred to that.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The filing by Texas had nothing to do with fraud, or even the vote itself.
> Texas was challenging the way other states run their elections. Nothing more.


Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint,* in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
It's not a states rights issue. If the election rules in a state were changed by other than a vote by the legislature of that state then the electors chosen were awarded by an illegal vote, and those electors affect the votes from other states.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

keith9365 said:


> It's not a states rights issue. If the election rules in a state were changed by other than a vote by the legislature of that state then the electors chosen were awarded by an illegal vote, and those electors affect the votes from other states.


Sounds good but did you notice the state supreme courts in those states ruled against that theory. As I stated earlier, Texas did exactly that. Their Republican governor extended the early voting period by executive order. Other Republicans took him to the Texas Supreme Court... and they lost. Once again theories are nice but we go with fact. Fact proven in a court of law.

The ultimate law of the land, the US Supreme Court, just ruled it was a state's right issue. Just because you disagree doesn't change the fact.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> Sounds good but did you notice the state supreme courts in those states ruled against that theory. As I stated earlier, Texas did exactly that. Their Republican governor extended the early voting period by executive order. Other Republicans took him to the Texas Supreme Court... and they lost. Once again theories are nice but we go with fact. Fact proven in a court of law.
> 
> The ultimate law of the land, the US Supreme Court, just ruled it was a state's right issue. Just because you disagree doesn't change the fact.


The U.S. Constitution is not theory. 
The ultimate law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, even when it is ignored by the courts. 
Facts. Facts are we are in a time in our history when we are left to the whims of men who do not abide by their oaths but answer to their masters.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Denton said:


> Facts are we are in a time in our history when we are left to the whims of men who do not abide by their oaths but answer to their masters.


If you have been in denial and wearing blinders as the long-running plot has unfolded and recently without the cover of darkness anymore, you would be foolish to remain in denial. I pray that you heed Denton's warning as stated above.


----------



## Tanya49! (Jun 20, 2020)

Texas will be full of Californicators pretty soon just like Florida with New Jerkers.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Tanya49! said:


> just like Florida with New Jerkers.


That ship sailed 40 years ago.
Growing up in South Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties comprise South Florida) in the 50's and 60's was paradise.
Starting in the 70's we started getting pushed out by refugees from the Northeast, mostly Nu Yawk City, who brought their disgusting attitudes and politics with them.
By the 1980's it was becoming unbearable, all the beaches we grew up on were now walled off by condominiums full of yankees.

We made our escape in '95, and since my parents passed away I haven't been back.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> That ship sailed 40 years ago.
> Growing up in South Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties comprise South Florida) in the 50's and 60's was paradise.
> Starting in the 70's we started getting pushed out by refugees from the Northeast, mostly Nu Yawk City, who brought their disgusting attitudes and politics with them.
> By the 1980's it was becoming unbearable, all the beaches we grew up on were now walled off by condominiums full of yankees.
> ...


And now y'all may begin to realize why loud mouth New Yorkers disgust me so much. Even Presidents.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The Supreme Court ruled correctly.
> You stated it very well.
> A welcome breath of fresh air.


Also @Denton @*******

You'll all be tickled pink that the case is to be re-filed on Monday, with plaintiffs who have the right standing.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Also @Denton @*******
> 
> You'll all be tickled pink that the case is to be re-filed on Monday, with plaintiffs who have the right standing.


Too bad Monday will be too late.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Too bad Monday will be too late.


Your negativity on this matter has ceased to make me grit my teeth and started to make me laugh. This amount of negativity is too asinine to be real. Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> Your negativity on this matter has ceased to make me grit my teeth and started to make me laugh. This amount of negativity is too asinine to be real. Thanks for the chuckle.


What you fail to recognize is that each person's thoughts and attitudes are taught by life. Life experiences have brought you where you are as it did me, RPD and everyone else. Life experiences made me who I am and what I believe. If you want all to agree with you then you've set yourself up for disappointment. Not gonna happen.

I can tell you that all of us have had divergent backgrounds. Life taught me many things as it has everyone else. One can disagree with another based on emotion or fact without denigrating that person.

I like and respect many here. I don't always agree with them but they still are respected. With the above statement, you have shown you deal emotionally and with little respect.

Do I agree with his assessment? No. Yet I understand he has his opinion and I have mine. Actually I mostly do agree with him but not on this subject. My reasoning is different from his on this. Yet have you seen me get ugly over an opinion? OK, well maybe a troll or two. Generally I believe even you are allowed your opinion. And we are talking opinions not facts.

******* tends to deal in facts with a side of sarcasm. I don't always agree with him but I like his style and respect the man. Slippy, well he is who he is. He is respected here. I could go on but you get the picture. You can disagree without snide remarks.

I'm no psychologist, nor do I play one on TV. This wasn't learned in school but taught by life experiences.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

inceptor said:


> What you fail to recognize is that each person's thoughts and attitudes are taught by life. Life experiences have brought you where you are as it did me, RPD and everyone else. Life experiences made me who I am and what I believe. If you want all to agree with you then you've set yourself up for disappointment. Not gonna happen.
> 
> I can tell you that all of us have had divergent backgrounds. Life taught me many things as it has everyone else. One can disagree with another based on emotion or fact without denigrating that person.
> 
> ...


Respect or not, we dare where we are, regardless of what people think. Understanding it or denying it. Head in the sand or head up and on a swivel.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> Your negativity on this matter has ceased to make me grit my teeth and started to make me laugh. This amount of negativity is too asinine to be real. Thanks for the chuckle.


Electoral votes are done on Monday ( today), filling a suit today is closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Joe Biden will be elected, nothing is going to change that.
My name is not Pollyanna, I can accept hard facts, deal with them, and move on with life.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

inceptor said:


> What you fail to recognize is that each person's thoughts and attitudes are taught by life. Life experiences have brought you where you are as it did me, RPD and everyone else. Life experiences made me who I am and what I believe. If you want all to agree with you then you've set yourself up for disappointment. Not gonna happen.
> 
> I can tell you that all of us have had divergent backgrounds. Life taught me many things as it has everyone else. One can disagree with another based on emotion or fact without denigrating that person.
> 
> ...


I am not sure why you have decided my last comment to RPD is disrespectful or product of emotion. It was a light-hearted comment based in fact. I did indeed chuckle. RPD has been consistent in denigrating the current President of the United States. For awhile, as I have told him, I have gritted my teeth at his characterization of the man and his accomplishment. Out of respect. Yesterday, it became funny to me that he feels the need to say something negative about President and the current situation every other post or so. So I chuckled. RPD is a man. I would like to think he would not react to common discourse in a junior-high-girl sort of way. I have great respect for RPD and while I don't agree with his opinions on this current matter, it does not change the fact that I respect him (and have told him so). I do not understand your thinking that I don't respect his life experiences or that I want everyone to agree with me. It is an internet forum. People are likely not going to agree. I understand that RPD's (and for that matter, anyone and everyone else's) life experiences may be different than my own. I extend them the courtesy of being able to express their opinions just as I expect them to allow the same from myself. There is nothing personal in the entire equation. We are all men here (well, other than the women) and put our pants on one leg a a time. There is no need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, as hopefully we are not wearing any. I like RPD, and like most other folks around here. Anyone that doesn't feel that I like them to their satisfaction, well.....be more likeable, I guess. I think we can disagree about subjects here without people getting flouncy.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

I think that this post has generated more replies than 
anything that I have posted.

I understand why Colonel West said what he said; whether he meant it or not.

There is something going on in America now that is new. An enemy has ensconced itself, and they are everywhere.

And whether there is a civil war or not, conservatives can feel a tension and hatred that is palpable.

This battle will be fought in individual skirmishes, not by armies.

You may have to blow someone away, when they try to drag you out of your car. Or when they come to your house, to teach you a lesson.

This fight will be low intensity, and low down.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Too bad Monday will be too late.


What I do, when something doesn't make sense, is to remember there's something I might not know. In this case, it's the process of certifying the electors' votes. Deadline for that is December 23rd.

https://apnews.com/article/when-do-electoral-votes-need-to-be-in-970e6b8c8474c77ac6ab4fb0d56caa5b

"IS THERE A DEADLINE BY WHICH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST OFFICIALLY HAVE ALL ITS VOTES IN?

Election Day is only one point in the process of the Electoral College, which decides who wins a U.S. presidential race.

After the polls close, states begin to count and certify popular vote results according to their respective rules. Federal law then requires governors to prepare, "as soon as practicable," official certificates to report the popular vote in the state. These documents, often signed by governors, must carry the seal of the state. One copy is sent to the archivist of the United States.

Electoral College electors in each state don't vote until Dec. 14. The electors' votes typically align with the popular vote in each state. But not all states require the votes cast by electors to mirror the popular vote. Certificates recording the electoral vote results in each state must be received by the president of the Senate and the archivist no later than *Dec. 23*.

The official results of the electoral votes are sent to the new elected Congress, which is set to meet in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2021, and announce the results."


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

MountainGirl said:


> rice paddy daddy said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad Monday will be too late.
> ...


I don't worry about process, so much as I care about the result. I think we all know what parts of the process were.

They stuffed the ballot boxes and hijacked the vote. They put a patsy into office, with a lady in waiting

If Biden makes it 2 years, it will be a wonder. Then, the lady in waiting gets to take his place.

And there you have the intended result.

This election will have catastrophic results.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

I want to make a note here, President Lincoln was a genius and he was tough; he was a better general than his generals, until he met Grant. Who was a whiskey drinking fighting man.

That is what these modern day sissified Republicans always play down. They want to be buddies with their opponents, instead of busting their heads.


----------

