2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

Status
Not open for further replies.
IDontKnow902 said:
This one's not in the US, but... SkyNews Australia maybe? They sure as hell didn't like what Biden was saying prior to the election, and they're still not very supportive of him now.
Click to expand...
I guess you can count One America News, but they're not exactly mainstream. I'm surprised a foreign outlet is even a bit iffy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Pointless Pedant and ThatOneLurker
Disgruntled Pupper said:
No they won't. Almost no one had the balls to simply stand up and walk out of the room and go back to their desks when it was happening before, why would they now that their only hope of not being fucked for doing so is gone? White people have jerbs, and they can't risk losing those jerbs, and when they get home they wanna grill, and really being told you're the source of all evil and being required to confess your sins isn't that bad and the poor African Americans do have a hard time and we have to be nice and....
Click to expand...
Yeah people here keep saying that people will fight back, and that Trump will be able to fight back, but will they? It just seems like everything is to stack in favor of everything getting worse.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Nguyen Van Phuoc, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 3 others
Slimy Time said:
With all the shit that happened in the UK with the past elections and referendums, I never heard wild accusations of fraud thrown around. It was always "the voter is stupid/uninformed", "Boris tapped into the alt-right" and so on. Never like this recently has there been such wild accusations of fraud, maybe beyond the typical "russia, russia russia" line.
Click to expand...

Well but Brexit still passed and Boris still won. There were signs that the Conservatives would be replaced by the Brexit party when they tried to filibuster Brexit, which is why Boris replaced May and won the election dramatically.

The UK is an anarchotyrannous shithole to be sure and it's a travesty people get arrested for tweets or that Darren Grimes got investigated for interviewing David Starkey, but my point is that it can't violate the fundamental invariant that you get the government and the referendum result you vote for. Eventually. And the home secretary criticized the Grimes investigation (archive). Eventually.

A hypothetical uniparty USA would violate that invariant.

The point is not that the UK is perfect more that it isn't sufficiently fucked that the existing parties get swept away or the country declines into chaos or tyranny. There are things governing systems can get away with and there are things they cannot, not without a serious meltdown. What is troubling about the current state of the US is that the Democrats seem to be intent on violating that invariant and then gaslighting everyone that everything is fine.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Marchesa of the Vast, iRON-mAn and 1 other person
NJBear said:
I redid this blog 4 times. I asked for help here and 6 other forums. Even /pol ignored it. They just want to post cringe "it's okay to be White" on telephone poles at 3 am. Whites cannot even hire American when asked.
View attachment 1711827

One big Yawn.

https://waronwhitesnj.wordpress.com/

Whites are cowards. Just look at the whole BLM/Antifa matter. It's anti White at the core. Whites hid and hope they will be eaten last.
Click to expand...
I cannot help you friend. I wont do any direct action.

Ive said it over and over the most I can offer is economic ties which dont feed the corporations funding this bs.

If you want help on that end let me know.
 
jje100010001 said:
Interesting note:

Why Trump Will Triumph in PA Litigation

The State Supreme Court has Violated the US Constitution
macris.substack.com macris.substack.com
Click to expand...
***********
If you’ve been following the mainstream media, you’ve probably read that Trump intends to file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania to “stop counting votes.” Most likely, this has been presented as an outrageous evil, unjustifiable by any standards of common decency, and grossly unconstitutional. Is that really the case? Or is it more complex than that?

There will be a lawsuit, no doubt; and it will involve a lot of votes being thrown out. The plaintiff (Trump and/or the Republicans) will win, because Pennsylvania’s highest court has almost certainly violated the Constitution of the United States. That’s why, in the weeks ahead, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to rule in favor of Trump.

Let’s wind the clock back about a week to explain how we got here.

On October 28, 2020, in Republican Party of Pennsylvania vs. Boockvar, SCOTUS declined “a motion to expedite consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari”. Let’s explain what that is, and what’s at stake, and why Trump is going to follow up.

  1. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. In this case, SCOTUS was being asked to issue a writ against the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the highest court in that state.
  2. A petition [for a writ of certiorari] is a request by a litigant in the lower court, to a higher court, asking the higher court to order the lower court to issue the writ. In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had decided against the Republican Party, so the Republican Party petitioned the Supreme Court of the US.
  3. Petitions can take a long time to resolve. A motion [to expedite consideration of a petition] is a request, by a litigant who has filed a petition, that the higher court accelerate its process of review. In this case, the Republican Party had filed the motion to expedite.
Translated into common English: In Boockvar, the Republican Party sent a request to the US Supreme Court to review a lower court case, and then asked them to hurry up about it. The US Supreme Court declined the motion to expedite, e.g. it refused to hurry up. But - and this is very important - it did not deny the petition for the writ of certiorari.

Thus the situation as it stands is that there is still a petition before the Supreme Court to review the situation in Pennsylvania, it just refused to do so before the election.

Now that raises the question: What’s the situation in Pennsylvania? Let’s work through that.

In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but (in Justice Alito’s words) “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.” The exact text is 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, which stated: “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” I agree with Justice Alito: That is unambiguous.

Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was invalidated, that much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void. The exact text is: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.”

To again put this into common English, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that said mail-in ballots had to arrive by 8PM on election day to be counted, and then said that if the Court over-ruled that law, the entire law that permitted mail-in ballots was invalid.

In the face of this clear text, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, made the following decrees, summarized here by SCOTUS:

  1. Mailed ballots don’t need to be received by a election day. Instead, ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. Note that this is directly contravenes the text above.
  2. A mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
In doing so, PAs’ high court expressly acknowledged that “the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous” and conceded the law was “constitutional,” but still re-wrote the law because it thought it needed to do so in the face of a “natural disaster.” It justified its right to do so under the Free and Equal Elections Cause of the PA State Constitution.

Now, if you are a conservative, you are already angry. You despise this method of jurisprudence, which elite Harvard lawyers might call “living Constitutionalism,” and you believe that judges should enforce laws as written by lawmakers. You believe this case never should have gotten to SCOTUS because what the State Supreme Court did was egregious! .

However, if you’re of a more liberal inclination, you’re probably happy with this outcome. You’re happy because it’ll help Biden win, of course; but in general, you’re likely to be fine with a high court establishing a new right if you think it protects oppressed people from majoritarian tyranny.

If you’re a committed progressive, in fact, you likely will want to dismiss the entire case as just another defeat for outdated textualism in the face of living constitutionalism. It’s easy to frame this case as one of reactionary judges clinging to the letter of the law, while progressive justices overturn the letter of the law to reflect its true spirit. This is the view that CNN and MSNBC are promoting.

Had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court simply ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional under PA’s Free and Equal Elections clause, this would have been a classic “textualism” vs. “living constitutionalism” case. But it’s not.

There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. Justice Alito writes: “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

Justice Alito is referring to the following clauses of the US Constitution:

  • Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which states “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
  • Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which states “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.”
Again, translating this into common English, the US Constitution grants state legislators the exclusive right to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and to direct the appointment of the electors.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t just say “Act 77 is unconstitutional.” It re-wrote Act 77 itself, by judicial fiat, creating new rules for time, place, and manner, of holding elections. In doing so, the State Supreme Court violated the US Federal Constitution.

And that’s the real case here. The US Supreme Court is going to rule that the State Supreme Court violated the US Constitution, the State Supreme Court’s ruling is going to be overturned, and the votes that arrived after 8 PM on election day will be discarded. On that basis, Trump will win Pennsylvania.
************

I can't archive via mobile right now.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, TLS, Parthenos and 30 others
Hey, so we found 14,000 in Michigan.

1604674457276.png


Now there's 21,000+ in Pennsylvania.

Thank god for Weaponized Autism. Can't believe they were using a script and fucking Ancestry.com to find these. I bet the DNC never saw THAT coming.
 

Attachments

  • Like
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, TLS, Parthenos and 34 others
JohnDoe said:
***********
If you’ve been following the mainstream media, you’ve probably read that Trump intends to file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania to “stop counting votes.” Most likely, this has been presented as an outrageous evil, unjustifiable by any standards of common decency, and grossly unconstitutional. Is that really the case? Or is it more complex than that?

There will be a lawsuit, no doubt; and it will involve a lot of votes being thrown out. The plaintiff (Trump and/or the Republicans) will win, because Pennsylvania’s highest court has almost certainly violated the Constitution of the United States. That’s why, in the weeks ahead, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to rule in favor of Trump.

Let’s wind the clock back about a week to explain how we got here.

On October 28, 2020, in Republican Party of Pennsylvania vs. Boockvar, SCOTUS declined “a motion to expedite consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari”. Let’s explain what that is, and what’s at stake, and why Trump is going to follow up.

  1. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. In this case, SCOTUS was being asked to issue a writ against the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the highest court in that state.
  2. A petition [for a writ of certiorari] is a request by a litigant in the lower court, to a higher court, asking the higher court to order the lower court to issue the writ. In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had decided against the Republican Party, so the Republican Party petitioned the Supreme Court of the US.
  3. Petitions can take a long time to resolve. A motion [to expedite consideration of a petition] is a request, by a litigant who has filed a petition, that the higher court accelerate its process of review. In this case, the Republican Party had filed the motion to expedite.
Translated into common English: In Boockvar, the Republican Party sent a request to the US Supreme Court to review a lower court case, and then asked them to hurry up about it. The US Supreme Court declined the motion to expedite, e.g. it refused to hurry up. But - and this is very important - it did not deny the petition for the writ of certiorari.

Thus the situation as it stands is that there is still a petition before the Supreme Court to review the situation in Pennsylvania, it just refused to do so before the election.

Now that raises the question: What’s the situation in Pennsylvania? Let’s work through that.

In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but (in Justice Alito’s words) “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.” The exact text is 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, which stated: “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” I agree with Justice Alito: That is unambiguous.

Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was invalidated, that much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void. The exact text is: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.”

To again put this into common English, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that said mail-in ballots had to arrive by 8PM on election day to be counted, and then said that if the Court over-ruled that law, the entire law that permitted mail-in ballots was invalid.

In the face of this clear text, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, made the following decrees, summarized here by SCOTUS:

  1. Mailed ballots don’t need to be received by a election day. Instead, ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. Note that this is directly contravenes the text above.
  2. A mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
In doing so, PAs’ high court expressly acknowledged that “the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous” and conceded the law was “constitutional,” but still re-wrote the law because it thought it needed to do so in the face of a “natural disaster.” It justified its right to do so under the Free and Equal Elections Cause of the PA State Constitution.

Now, if you are a conservative, you are already angry. You despise this method of jurisprudence, which elite Harvard lawyers might call “living Constitutionalism,” and you believe that judges should enforce laws as written by lawmakers. You believe this case never should have gotten to SCOTUS because what the State Supreme Court did was egregious! .

However, if you’re of a more liberal inclination, you’re probably happy with this outcome. You’re happy because it’ll help Biden win, of course; but in general, you’re likely to be fine with a high court establishing a new right if you think it protects oppressed people from majoritarian tyranny.

If you’re a committed progressive, in fact, you likely will want to dismiss the entire case as just another defeat for outdated textualism in the face of living constitutionalism. It’s easy to frame this case as one of reactionary judges clinging to the letter of the law, while progressive justices overturn the letter of the law to reflect its true spirit. This is the view that CNN and MSNBC are promoting.

Had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court simply ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional under PA’s Free and Equal Elections clause, this would have been a classic “textualism” vs. “living constitutionalism” case. But it’s not.

There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. Justice Alito writes: “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

Justice Alito is referring to the following clauses of the US Constitution:

  • Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which states “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
  • Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which states “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.”
Again, translating this into common English, the US Constitution grants state legislators the exclusive right to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and to direct the appointment of the electors.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t just say “Act 77 is unconstitutional.” It re-wrote Act 77 itself, by judicial fiat, creating new rules for time, place, and manner, of holding elections. In doing so, the State Supreme Court violated the US Federal Constitution.

And that’s the real case here. The US Supreme Court is going to rule that the State Supreme Court violated the US Constitution, the State Supreme Court’s ruling is going to be overturned, and the votes that arrived after 8 PM on election day will be discarded. On that basis, Trump will win Pennsylvania.
************

I can't archive via mobile right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the PA claim is really solid. I figure the rest are less so or we'd be hearing more about them. Not to say they won't fly, just that they're not as clear cut.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and jje100010001
captkrisma said:
Someone should bring up to these kids that Marx drank and smoked and ate shitty food all while not caring about his wife and 7 kids because he spent all his money on booze, cigars, and shitty food.

His communist manifesto is more projection than anything else. "I wish people didn't rely so much on money" because motherfucker was always broke.
Click to expand...
The Marxist rank-and-file will resonate with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Parthenos, Ita Mori and 3 others
Secret Asshole said:
Honestly, I'm still feeling 75% Biden/25% Trump. There's just too many guns lined up, too many people want ignorance and want to go back to sleep. All I'm asking for is an investigation. If you've got a problem with that, then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Nah, fam. The only people who matter are the SCOTUS and state or federal legislature at this point. I wouldn't put a percentage on it til the case comes before the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Mikoyan MiG-29, jje100010001 and 5 others
RandomTwitterGuy said:
Maybe it is because i am from a stem background and evidence to me is something that has to be solid and can be tested, but this is fucking nothing and feelings.
Click to expand...

maybe you should read the fucking thread concerning the subject, the incidents reported in this thread or you know, take that stem degree of yours and stuff it up your ass
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Gustav Schuchardt and 7 others
RandomTwitterGuy said:
So first one: This shows nothing. Local Election will often enough be different then National. I know STRANGE, but that is again a felling not EVIDENCE

Second: Could be bad or incompetent graphics department. What is the methodology there and where are the numbers from?? Is there a intern typing them in or is there a direct API hook op.

Third: Republican with a claim with no evidence.

Fourth: That the voting machines is shit is nothing new back in 2000 there where issues with them and 2004, 2008, 2012. That is not conspiracy it is shit government's not wanting to pay for proper equipment so they go with the lowest price provider.

5th. We don't know what it is on it.
Could be the words "Fuck you nigger" in bold and it was moist.

Again a lot of conjecture at best and hearsay at worse. I know you want this to be true so you can be the victim, but there is fucking nothing so far. Maybe it is because i am from a stem background and evidence to me is something that has to be solid and can be tested, but this is fucking nothing and feelings.

Also a fucking tweet as evidence. Evidence is something that can be tested or proven.
Click to expand...
For the first one, it would be reflected in other states. This hasn't been reflected in any states other than disputed ones.
Second: don't know enough to answer
Third; was confirmed filed
4th: only down in red areas that are hundreds of miles away?
5: why is a poll worker sperging and flipping off a random paper? Where did he get that paper
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Marchesa of the Vast and jje100010001
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back