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

[Very Honest Content]

Sorry champ, HK-47 already said mos stuff like that will for now be in the doomsday thread. You'll have to focus on that one for now for the quality of post you're looking for.

Here's the simple chart:

View attachment 1744551

I also just read mostly highlight posts so my perceptions may be warped by that too, but then again I already admitted that as much in the post. Don't fret too hard however, that graphic was a highlighted post that I've already read though. How's that backseat working out for you while you attempt to mod from it by the way, champ?

If you need to cast Melania for a movie version of this, I'd go with Famke Janssen.

 

[Meat Target]

Lessile Jones for Kamala?

Even I wouldn't be that uncharitable to Cameltoe. I'm sure Rihanna or Beyonce would take up the role. Leslie Jones would be Stacey Abrams.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

No, it was legal in PA, state wide. There was a PA Supreme Court ruling about this IIRC. The suit was saying that because their counties didn’t but because another did offer it for 3 days over the legal minimum it somehow violated the equal protection clause. That’s a hard argument to make in the first place, and even harder because it falls under the constitutional law definition of strict scrutiny.

You're conflating 2 different things.

Ballot curing in PA is illegal by virtue of not being explicitly allowed. As shown here by this chart of states where ballot curing is legal. The republican counties didn't do it because it isn't allowed, democrats did, 14th amendment. Iirc democrats also made the argument in court that different counties vote in different ways which might mean that one vote accepted by one county would be rejected by another, this is classic violation of the equal protection clause and it's what won bush the election.

The whole supreme court thing you're thinking of is with mail in votes where PA supreme court violated the constitution by ruling that rewrote the mail in voting law to say votes can be accepted 3 days late when deciding that stuff is up to the legislature as outlined in the constitution. It also triggered a poison pill in the law that can possibly invalidate all mail in votes in PA.

 

[Smarty Pants]

Even I wouldn't be that uncharitable to Cameltoe. I'm sure Rihanna or Beyonce would take up the role. Leslie Jones would be Stacey Abrams.

This. We'll need a high yella playing Kamala for sure. That ape Leslie Jones would never pass as police mommy.

 

[Techpriest]

You're conflating 2 different things.

Ballot curing in PA is illegal by virtue of not being explicitly allowed. As shown here by this chart of states where ballot curing is legal. The republican counties didn't do it because it isn't allowed, democrats did, 14th amendment. Iirc democrats also made the argument in court that different counties vote in different ways which might mean that one vote accepted by one county would be rejected by another, this is classic violation of the equal protection clause and it's what won bush the election.

The whole supreme court thing you're thinking of is with mail in votes where PA supreme court violated the constitution by ruling that rewrote the mail in voting law to say votes can be accepted 3 days late when deciding that stuff is up to the legislature as outlined in the constitution. It also triggered a poison pill in the law that can possibly invalidate all mail in votes in PA.

You’re being a fucking moron. If something is not explicitly allowed by law, it can be inferred to be allowed if it is also not explicitly forbidden in law. This has been something that has come up before in court.

 

[ChikN10der]

This thread has better seethe, at least in the highlight posts, the doomsday thread has much more quality cope, which kind of makes sense, if only there could be dimensional merge of the two;


Recount in Florida in 2000: triggered automatically by the state constitution.

Court case titled: BUSH V. Gore. Gore didn't contest the recount, he wanted it completed like he had a legal right to under the Florida constitution. Bush contested the result of that recount from being finished because he saw he was going to lose it potentially and the electoral college would have swung to making Gore president elect instead. So, this is a factually incorrect statement setting groundwork up for some more of them in the comment following them, but hey, copium futures are through the roof these days so what can you really expect from deep thoughts?

See why local moderators posting unfounded and outright false claims about a recount 20 years ago helps engender problems in current year yet, anyone, anyone, Bueller?

That wasn't an Obama/Biden era action.

There's the cope and seethe I came here for. (The pollster who is getting paid regardless of whether you LARP as an 18 year old white male Trump voter or a 64 year old pacific islander female Biden supporter to them, just so long as you finish their poll though in the first place, doesn't care about your lies to them, just so you know.)

When Russel Greer sues prostitutes for not touching him his penis, why do they even need a lawyer right?

Since I'm pretty sure nobody else will do it, I'll just say it here too, if you're one of the apparently fuckin white males who switched top of the ticket votes this time for President/VP, thank you, I'm already preparing to hold the new administration's feet to the fire to keep them on the correct course, hope you'll do the same in an attempt to make them earn your support by doing the right thing four years from now.

"You guys are obsessed with a lost cause, lol, cope and seethe! Now let me tell you how Gore was the real winner in 2000"

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

This. We'll need a high yella playing Kamala for sure. That ape Leslie Jones would never pass as police mommy.

Viola Davis?

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

You’re being a fucking moron. If something is not explicitly allowed by law, it can be inferred to be allowed if it is also not explicitly forbidden in law. This has been something that has come up before in court.

But if it's ambiguous if it's allowed or not and creates an unequal status where some counties decide it's allowed and some don't, that's a violation of the 14th amendment because the outcome isn't equal

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

You're conflating 2 different things.

Ballot curing in PA is illegal by virtue of not being explicitly allowed. As shown here by this chart of states where ballot curing is legal. The republican counties didn't do it because it isn't allowed, democrats did, 14th amendment. Iirc democrats also made the argument in court that different counties vote in different ways which might mean that one vote accepted by one county would be rejected by another, this is classic violation of the equal protection clause and it's what won bush the election.

The whole supreme court thing you're thinking of is with mail in votes where PA supreme court violated the constitution by ruling that rewrote the mail in voting law to say votes can be accepted 3 days late when deciding that stuff is up to the legislature as outlined in the constitution. It also triggered a poison pill in the law that can possibly invalidate all mail in votes in PA.

I'd be amazed if the current SCOTUS would rule what happened in Philadelphia and Michigan is legal.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

According to "Barnes" and "Nina Frei".

Your standard of proof is quite flexible. Tucker ain't gonna read this bro.

It's weird, with the case being so over and pointless, why are we seeing more and more dedicated trolling of people trying to follow the case?

Every single thread on kiwi farms dot net is completely pointless and will accomplish nothing. Amber lynn won't fuck any of you. Chris Chan is a delusional retard who has managed to accomplish more than the losers obsessed with him.

None of you are better than anyone. Shut the fuck up and post on topic news or discussion thereof.

Oh? So now Barnes is no longer a reliable source because he dared criticize Powell?

As for your second point: why are you even on the website if you hate all the content on it?

 

[babadook]

Can't afford hats after spending all the money on Warhammer figurines

 

[There'll be another time]

Can't afford hats after spending all the money on Warhammer figurines

The solution is to clearly eat the warhammer figurines instead

 

[MrJokerRager]

I'd be amazed if the current SCOTUS would rule what happened in Philadelphia and Michigan is legal.

Basically at that point, the GOP could never use the Supreme Court as a tool to drive out votes. Since they voting in useless fucks. Demoralize the voting base even more. Might also lead to a situation where people could start outright ignoring the SCOTUS as it has happened before.

 

[ChikN10der]

Oh? So now Barnes is no longer a reliable source because he dared criticize Powell?

As for your second point: why are you even on the website if you hate all the content on it?

Why are you in this thread if you hate all the content on it?

I like the political discussion in that it's allowed and uncensored. I don't know who barnes is supposed to be, and you didn't give any explanation as to why his opinion is relevant on anything.

Sort of like people posting styx videos. Ok some guy has an opinion, whoop dee shit.

 

[Eggplant Wizard]

Ok, so let me clarify this for you. The current case was dismissed with prejudice. This was made mostly because they didn’t have the evidence to back their complaints, and had failed when allowed to amend to provide more evidence (all they did was change their legal argument slightly). Dismissed with Prejudice means you cannot amend further and cannot appeal your case upwards. It’s done when the judge deems the case to be so without merit that it isn’t worth the time of any higher court to even look at.

This might seem a bit unfair. But there’s remedies for this which is what the trump campaign is trying. The appeals court can be petitioned to look at the dismissal, and determine if the judge was correct to deem it worth dismissing with prejudice. The appeals court looks at the case as filed, because what they are evaluating is if the case as it currently is, has enough merit to be allowed to appeal. Not potential evidence, but current evidence. If they say the judge ruled correctly, the case is thrown out and you have to start again with a new case and complaint. If they say there is enough merit in the case that dismissal with prejudice was an overreach, then the case can be amended further and appealed.

Basically, to get to the Supreme Court at all you have to have enough merit in your case to go through several layers of judicial scrutiny. Then you have to have the Supreme Court decide your case is worth their time. The Supreme Court doesn’t take every case handed to it. A lot of the time, they just kick it back down to a lower court, or say the earlier ruling stands as the current appeal doesn’t have enough merit. The Supreme Court deals mostly with constitutional questions. Basic criminal cases are not going to come before it.

In that case then the Supreme Court can hear it. With whatever evidence they bring along into the room. There is not a “Sorry, no Supreme Court for you pal” option in a judge’s power. You can keep going to the top by simply stating that these rulings are rushed and politically biased while demanding a fair trial. This is also a national level issue that has a massive effect on both of the other branches of government (removing votes from the count migt flip a house and/or Senate race), This would actually be the Supreme Court doing its job.

 

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

I'm already preparing to hold the new administration's feet to the fire to keep them on the correct course, hope you'll do the same in an attempt to make them earn your support by doing the right thing four years from now.

CNN has decided to throw BLM pets under the bus starting with Kapernick.
View attachment 1744578

Also, strangely:
View attachment 1744584

>2020
>Mumia Abu-Jamal

I already did the fucking 90's once and these fucks just keep trying to relive something they were fucking toddlers for, nigga STOP.

IT'S TIME TO STOP

And Mumia did that shit, even my naive Bad Religion listening 90's punk rock ass knew that. The second people started talking about that as a real cause is when you leave and never see them again, because you now knew they're fucking retarded.

You’re being a fucking moron. If something is not explicitly allowed by law, it can be inferred to be allowed if it is also not explicitly forbidden in law. This has been something that has come up before in court.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

According to "Barnes" and "Nina Frei".

Your standard of proof is quite flexible. Tucker ain't gonna read this bro.

It's weird, with the case being so over and pointless, why are we seeing more and more dedicated trolling of people trying to follow the case?

Every single thread on kiwi farms dot net is completely pointless and will accomplish nothing. Amber lynn won't fuck any of you. Chris Chan is a delusional retard who has managed to accomplish more than the losers obsessed with him.

None of you are better than anyone. Shut the fuck up and post on topic news or discussion thereof.

If you hate this website so much than leave you Reagan loving faggot

Why are you in this thread if you hate all the content on it?

I like the political discussion in that it's allowed and uncensored. I don't know who barnes is supposed to be, and you didn't give any explanation as to why his opinion is relevant on anything.

Sort of like people posting styx videos. Ok some guy has an opinion, whoop dee shit.

Given how you get triggered over anyone disagreeing with you, maybe TheDonald.win should be the place you discuss politics on instead of this website if anyone “trolling” makes you mad.

I’m only saying this cause faggots like you who don’t understand this website ruin it by acting like this is some sort of hugbox

As for who Barnes is, he is a lawyer who is in contact with the Trump team and is more insightful than you’d ever be.

 

[Jaimas]

Except the parties at fault this time have no concept of shame, which makes getting them to self-confront nearly impossible.

It won't work on the speds who mainline a 24/7 stream of Twitter, but who this does work on is people who aren't fully gone in the cult of woke.

All it takes is one brief moment of thoughtcrime and the way is paved for them to escape that shit.

Many won't, but there's a continual trickle of the ones who do.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Things are moving along.

 

[Techpriest]

But if it's ambiguous if it's allowed or not and creates an unequal status where some counties decide it's allowed and some don't, that's a violation of the 14th amendment because the outcome isn't equal

No? The fact that your county doesn’t do it doesn’t mean you can sue another for doing it. That county did not cause you injury in this case. Here’s something straight from the opinion on that.

As discussed above, Plaintiffs allege two possible theories of standing. First, Individual Plaintiffs argue that their votes have been unconstitutionally denied. Under this theory, Individual Plaintiffs must show that Defendant Counties’ use of the notice-and-cure procedure, as well as Secretary Boockvar’s authorization of this procedure, denied Individual Plaintiffs the right to vote. Second, the Trump Campaign maintains that it has competitive standing.
Both theories are unavailing. Assuming, as this Court must, that Plaintiffs state a valid equal-protection claim, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs have adequately established an injury-in-fact. However, they fail to establish that it was Defendants who caused these injuries and that their purported injury of vote-denial is adequately redressed by invalidating the votes of others. The Trump Campaign’s theory also fails because neither competitive nor associational standing applies, and it does not assert another cognizable theory of standing.

Basically, they have no evidence that in doing something totally legal, counties they were not in violated their constitutional rights. They do have a right to sue though as they have an injury in fact- their ballots were denied. But they do not and cannot sue counties they weren’t in for following a recommendation and theirs didn’t. There’s more though.

However, Individual Plaintiffs fail to establish that Defendant Counties or Secretary Boockvar actually caused their injuries. First, Defendant Counties, by Plaintiffs’ own pleadings, had nothing to do with the denial of Individual Plaintiffs’ ability to vote. Individual Plaintiffs’ ballots were rejected by Lancaster and Fayette Counties, neither of which is a party to this case. None of Defendant Counties received, reviewed, or discarded Individual Plaintiffs’ ballots. Even assuming that Defendant Counties unconstitutionally allowed other voters to cure their ballots, that alone cannot confer standing on Plaintiffs who seek to challenge the denial of their votes.
Second, Individual Plaintiffs have not shown that their purported injuries are fairly traceable to Secretary Boockvar. Individual Plaintiffs have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes. The only connection the Individual Plaintiffs even attempt to draw is that Secretary Boockvar sent an email on November 2, 2020 to some number of counties, encouraging them to adopt a notice-and-cure policy. However, they fail to allege which counties received this email or what information was specifically included therein.
Further, that this email encouraged counties to adopt a notice-
and-cure policy does not suggest in any way that Secretary Boockvar intended or desired Individual Plaintiffs’ votes to be cancelled. To the contrary, this email suggests that Secretary Boockvar encouraged counties to allow exactly these types of votes to be counted. Without more, this Court cannot conclude that Individual Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that their injuries are fairly traceable to Secretary Boockvar.

There’s more in that what they seek as redress is totally out of proportion to their damages, and not really possible to provide from the defendants.

Even if Plaintiffs had standing, they fail to state an equal-protection claim. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The principle of equal protection is fundamental to our legal system because, at its core, it protects the People from arbitrary discrimination at the hands of the State.
But, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, not all “unequal treatment” requires Court intervention. The Equal Protection Clause “does not forbid classifications.” It simply keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating similarly situated persons differently. The government could not function if complete equality were required in all situations. Consequently, a classification resulting in “some inequality” will be upheld unless it is based on an inherently suspect characteristic or “jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right.”

Really just read the opinion, he goes into detail on why the equal protection clause doesn’t apply here, and how their demanded recompense violates the 14th amendment and is disproportionate.