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.
EmuWarsVeteran said:
Obviously the mistake was giving niggas the right to vote, if this is to be believed.
Click to expand...

The mistake was giving Democrats the right to count the votes unsupervised.

ConfederateIrishman said:
Regardless of any prediction or civil war (I still doubt it short term personally), the struggle for legitimacy is real and honestly it is kind of morbidly hilarious how quickly things are devolving into a medieval sucession crisis:

>The Lord of Ohio has announced that Biden is the true King of the land!
>The Elector-Princes of the South refuse to certify the results and are putting political pressure to ensure more lesser nobles back the rightful King.
>Pretender Biden crowned himself with a new title, "The office of the President-Elect" a de jure title he made up to gain more legitimacy
>Disputed King Trump is currently resorting his levees to ensure his commanders are loyal to him and will not defect to Pretender Biden
>Factions are pushing out propaganda to convince the functionaries of Govrenment (the judical system) that their faction candidate is the rightful King.

I guess this is what happens when too much of your government is based on implied traditions based on precedent and then those traditions are slowly undermined.
Click to expand...

Cast thine allegiance with Ser Donnie from Queens, rightful King! He shall grant us liberfy!

Just a boy said:
It helps that Trump actually was the president-elect at the time of that article, which I think people take more issue with than the office part, though office of the president-elect is still autistic either way.
Click to expand...

Also even though the Democrats were already complaining about whitelashes and Russia and saying he'd be impeached once they took back the House, they didn't dispute the actual election. All the results were certified with no legal challenges, so far as I can tell. Probably because they knew any legal challenge would show they had cheated, just not enough.

Edit, actually it turns out I was wrong. There were court cases but it seems like they happened before the election. This is from October 2016

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/voter-intimidation-democrats-clinton-230857
https://archive.vn/LqOHF

The Democrats biggest victory in the current round of cases came Friday, when a federal judge in Ohio granted an injunction against Trump's campaign, as well as Trump backer Roger Stone and a related group called Stop the Steal, amid allegations that they were planning to harass voters at the polls. But that order from a Democratic appointee was quickly halted Sunday by a panel of three appeals court judges, all of whom are Republican appointees. As a last resort, Democrats made their pitch for help to the Supreme Court, an uphill climb given the current 4-4 split and the need to win over five justices to reverse the stay.

Trump and his Republican backers have already beaten a similar Democratic lawsuit in federal district court in Arizona. But several other cases making the same set of arguments are still on the move against Trump, the state GOP and Stone, though they too remain mired in lower district courts. Hearings are scheduled for Monday in Las Vegas, Greensboro, North Carolina, and Philadelphia, on different parts of the lawsuits.

Both Democratic and Republican sources tracking the litigation said they had their doubts a Supreme Court appeal would be very effective. But they also acknowledged that coupled with the other cases still ongoing, it all would have the tangential effect of keeping the issue alive in front of the press and for Democratic constituencies that Clinton needs to show up at the polls by Tuesday.

“You can add it to the mix,” Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic operative and former spokesman for Nevada Sen. Harry Reid. “Look at some of the photos of what’s going on in Vegas. Hispanic voters get the drill.”

Republicans also complained that the cases were little more than a way to rile up Clinton’s base.

Timothy La Sota, lead attorney for the Arizona Republican Party, questioned the timing of the Democratic lawsuits early last week just as Clinton was mired in the latest turn in the FBI investigation saga. “They’re desperate to change the storyline,” he said.

“These lawsuits were big on nasty hot-button words like ‘conspiracy’ and the Ku Klux Klan Act but bereft of actual substance,” he said. “Their goal was to use a lot of nasty words and sort of hope that that would carry them.”

In an interview Sunday, Stone complained that his planning for the Stop the Steal effort had been slowed by the litigation. “The fact is I’m spending all my time with lawyers,” he said.

Still, Stone said Stop the Steal’s exit polling is full steam ahead, and it will involve sending hundreds of volunteers to about 20 Democratic-dominated and mostly urban precincts in eight battleground states — Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — “to see if there’s a pattern” where the voting machines do not produce the same results as what he sees in his polls.
Click to expand...

Interesting how they alleged voter suppression in FL, MI, NV, NC, PA, OH, VA, and WI in 2016 and those are all states they seem to have ballot stuffed in 2020.

I also found this from September 2017, way after the election

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-challenge-to-president-trumps-2016-election/
https://archive.vn/wip/oLd3F

Clinton was asked during an interview on National Public Radio if she would consider challenging the result of November’s election. “I wouldn’t rule it out,” she answered.

The former secretary of state claimed, “There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be [possible to challenge the election results].” She then added, “I don’t think they’re on strong ground,” leading to the bizarre conclusion that she refuses to rule out a legal challenge that she admits has essentially zero chance of success.

In that one respect, the failed presidential candidate is correct. Any such challenge would promptly be dismissed. The only question is which of several reasons a federal judge would cite when throwing out the case.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides, “Each State shall appoint, in such a 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.”

States are not even required to hold statewide democratic elections at all to award their Electoral College votes; they could just convene a statewide legislative session to do so. Each state has chosen to adopt the method of a statewide popular vote, but the Constitution does not compel them to do so. Each of the states that together gave President Trump 304 Electoral College votes—with only 270 votes constituting a winning majority—did so consistent with their state law. Each state has a mechanism for challenging the election result only within a limited timeframe, and Clinton failed to do so. Therefore no court would entertain her untimely assertion of any challenge
Click to expand...

You definitely get the impression she was kicking herself for not challenging the result between the election and the Dec 14th electoral college vote when it would have mattered. She also advised Biden not to concede 'under any circumstances', implying he should challenge any loss, as she presumably thinks her campaign should have done back in 2016.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ould-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156
https://archive.vn/jrD6Y

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said in an interview with her former communications director Jennifer Palmieri for Showtime's “The Circus,” which released a clip Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Shield Breaker, spiritofamermaid, AnitaSarsleezian and 9 others
HTTP Error 404 said:
As an aside, been watching normies on my facebook freak the fuck out because Republicans are moving from Twitter to Parler.

The unspoken sentiment is "hey no one ever said you go get out from under our boots, come back here so we can stomp on your neck some more!"
Click to expand...

Leftists always say "Create your own platform!" Someone does, and then they try to dox/harass the owner of the new platform, and get payment processors to stop doing business with the new website, because they are posting wrongthink.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Bibendum, George Geef, GenericReviewerDraco and 22 others
TwinkLover6969 said:

Both the dems and the republicans are going after them, for different reasons but still. I think they are gonna get fucked eventually.
Click to expand...
Dorsey sitting here talking about pushing the edges of moderation to users.

Nigger. You have that already. It's called the block button.

Whatever. Keep being a vapid airhead. Lord knows that's why the people really in charge of your company keep you around.
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Smarty Pants and Puerto Pollo
Holy shit. Fuck this Mr. Whitehouse faggot.

He quotes a study saying "as you know, about 25% of all tweets about climate change are generated by bots." He then goes on to insert his own narrative assumption by saying "most of them obviously push out climate denial"

Here's an idea on how to "combat disinformation" you schmucks: Senate hearings are dumb and should be nuked from orbit.

Dorsey then came back and said "oh we should keep bots around, they have their purpose." Watch out for that falling mask folks, it's breaking the sound barrier.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Lunacy
Reactions: ScatmansWorld, tigergrinder, secret watcher and 6 others
Zero Day Defense said:
Zuckerberg looks like he's computer generated
Click to expand...
dispooted.png
COMRADE ZUCKERBERG IS A BIOLOGICAL HOMO SAPIENS JUST AS YOU AND I
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: George Geef, The Notorious RGB, ditto and 26 others
Irritable Bowel Syndrome said:
I see the tradition of being a doormat goes back a long way.
Click to expand...

With that specific case, it had less to do with Republicans being doormats and more with how Nixon was so fucking paranoid of everything. He didn't challenge Kennedy's election because he both wanted to avert a constitutional crisis and didn't want his own dirty laundry getting uncovered.

Ironically enough, his attempts to avoid a repeat of 1960 led directly to Watergate which began the start of the GOP as the doormat party. Regan and the Bushes kinda sorta turned the tide on that but mainly because they only allowed the neocons and the Religious Right to have any real say in the party.

Reagan is when the Sixth Party System of corporatist uniparty fully solidified itself. It was already beginning in the 70's and some will argue that the official start was as early as 1968 but I'd say the Sixth Party System got going around the time of Nixon's resignation and was fully codified with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Neocons and neolibs are more or less identical on the hard policies of corporatism and globalism, the key difference is what flag they use as a fig leaf for their domestic level policies. With Neocons, it was the moral conservatives and Evangelical Christianity and with the Neoliberals, they use the Woke Left and before that, the progressive liberals.

There's a lot more fine differences but on the most base levels, neocons and neolibs are two sides of the same coin except one side uses cheap pandering to vague concepts of religious morality to cloak its actual intention and the other one uses identity politics as their gimmick to win votes.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Fek, GenericReviewerDraco, Exterminatus and 11 others
6MillionCoofs said:
Jill Stein brought legal challenges. Funded mostly by the Dems.

...why do you think they stopped?
Click to expand...
its a good question. ive only heard allegations that the recounts were revealing problems we have now- weird ballots, trump ballots going to clinton etc.

its like the "clinton hasnt concedes the 2016 election.

havent read anything concrete.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and Inventor of the Telephone
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back