Let's not forget Ted Cruz declined to endorses Trump at the convention and repeatedly denounced Trump as an inveterate liar.
But what's good for Ted is good for Ted, apparently.
"Trump rails against federal spending that he requested in his budget - The Washington Post" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-spending-stimulus-congress/2020/12/23/7a04ebd8-4549-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html?outputType=amp
"Trump rails against federal spending that he requested...
"Fact Check: Does Spending Bill Provide More Funds to Foreigners Than Americans?" Fact Check: Does spending bill provide more funds to foreigners than Americans?
The omnibus spending bill that they passed that included the monies you were complaining about was part of the budget request that was originally requested by the executive branch.
Invaded by whom?
You people are making the democrats 2016-2020 look like pikers.
Mission accomplished, Trump- did in 5 years what the Soviets, ChiComs, and assorted rabble tried to do for decades- destroy the Republican Party.
First of all, "a" judge? Like, one? Try 60.
Some of these cases were tossed because they failed to even allege anything that would've affected the elections outcome. Some were taken and they LOST the case. Others were tossed because they were shitty and/or malicious cases.
You know what...
It's flatly false that these people have not had a chance to bring evidence.
Where they have, they were making allegations that would not have affected the outcome of the election, which is a hurdle you have to clear in electoral law. And lying to a judge (which you'd be doing if you made...
You left that out the batshit crazy theory of the case, which goes something like this- "the Vice President of the United States has a legal, Constitutional right and indeed, duty, to single-handidly decide whether he himself should stay in office for a second term."
I thought I had seen...
Read the PA circuit Court ruling and tell me they've been even trying to bring any "facts" to court.
I believe the phrase was something along the lines of "you need to have both allegations, and evidence to support them. Here we have NEITHER."
I've been pretty consistent throughout
Thought they were shitty when Obama used them. Thought they were shitty when Trump used them.
Nothing incoherent in my position on this issue.
Because the case was predicated on bullshit, perhaps?
You honestly want one state (say, California or New York) to be able to disenfranchise voters in another state (say, Texas or Utah)?
Show me the constitutional mechanism under which thats even remotely plausible let alone legal.
For #1 I am referring to the fact that they have not once brought a claim to court that would have materially affected the outcome of the election if the claim were true.
This is an objective fact, not an opinion.
At least some of, if not all of the following, are true.
1. They make accusations that they refuse to provide proof for and refuse to bring those claims to court as they know there are repercussions for lying to a judge under oath.
2. The cases they do bring and provide evidence for would...