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

[The Wicked Mitch]

I hope you win.

So do I, at this point moreso for the sake of the US and indeed all of us rather than my own financial gain.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

This is getting even closer to reality.
View attachment 1777077

Daily reminder that Youtube only exists because the Federal Government intentionally ignores antitrust violations. It costs too much, on the order of billions a year in losses to run. If not for Alphabet being allowed to violate antitrust law and use their monopoly in search and advertisement to support their monopoly in internet video hosting, Youtube would die overnight.

 

[It's HK-47]

TX v State Motion 2020-12-07 FINAL | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint, Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.

www.scribd.com

Actually, the entire lawsuit from Texas is based on precedent already set by the Supreme Court. Their specific angle against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan is that their entire election was unconstitutional because they changed the rules around just prior to 11/3, they conducted their elections in a way that violated their own election laws and Constitutional election laws in general, and in the case of Pennsylvania, the state did not properly segregate all of their ballots from before and after the deadline, making it completely impossible to determine which ballots are which, effectively ruining the entire batch.

You could absolutely posit the argument that it's unfair that ballots, even legal ones, are discarded if they aren't tabulated before the end of the day, but that's the way it's always been carried out. It's called election day, not election week or election month. If the state was incapable of tabulating all of its ballots before the deadline, that's not the responsibility or the failing of the Union, that's the failing of the state to adhere to the standard to which everyone else is being held, the standard to which everyone else--even Florida-- was capable of performing.

If a single state holds their election in a way that violates the Constitution and alters the outcome of the election for all other states concerned, I don't think it's unreasonable for the other states to sue them as a result. It's like I said: This is a very interesting circumstance.

 

[Coconut Gun]

Funny, their state SC said it was cool. I thought you speds were all sperging for states rights?

You guys just don't want votes counted. You don't care that it would disenfranchise voters. You will do anything to ensure that your daddy wins, even if it means undermining democracy. At least have the balls to admit it

Well, let's see if the SCOTUS agrees.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Well, let's see if the SCOTUS agrees.

If they agree with me, will you stop it with the "election fraud" bs?

 

[LolCalmDownGoy]

So that's the talking point you autistic faggots are going to switch to now?

Trying to cry hypocrite at the right and demand we lay down and take it up the ass like real men(tm)?

Yeah, no. Trump is your president, live with it, you shitty gimmickposter.

Why won't you act like our strawmen depictions of your beliefs demands?

The right understands the left is stupid and wrong. The left thinks the right is a harry potter villain.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Funny, their state SC said it was cool. I thought you speds were all sperging for states rights?

You guys just don't want votes counted. You don't care that it would disenfranchise voters. You will do anything to ensure that your daddy wins, even if it means undermining democracy. At least have the balls to admit it

What did their state legislature say?

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Daily reminder that Youtube only exists because the Federal Government intentionally ignores antitrust violations. It costs too much, on the order of billions a year in losses to run. If not for Alphabet being allowed to violate antitrust law and use their monopoly in search and advertisement to support their monopoly in internet video hosting, Youtube would die overnight.

This is something I have to constantly drill into the heads of "mug free market" dweebs; these platforms don't make money, if there wasn't another agenda, they wouldn't keep hemorrhaging cash into it.

 

[jje100010001]

This is something I have to constantly drill into the heads of "mug free market" dweebs; these platforms don't make money, if there wasn't another agenda, they wouldn't keep hemorrhaging cash into it.

Same with CNN, the WaPost, etc.- much of MSM nowadays exists to push narratives and influence policy, any actual incidental reporting comes on the side.

With Youtube, Twitter, and Google, we may truly be seeing the terrifying twilight of the free internet- I expect dissenters to be first shoved into the wilds where algorithms will ignore them (you will never be able to find blacklisted topics/sites in the search engines), and finally snuffed out under the wide-reaching pretenses of 'hate speech' maybe a few more years down the line (a la the dark web crackdowns).

If conservatives ever want a chance, that parallel web infrastructure needs to be built starting now. Even with a 230 victory, it won't stop this inevitability, as these sites are still controlled by people who despise them- they'll find other ways.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

What did their state legislature say?

Their SC said it was fine. I thought you speds wanted your states rights? You are fine with your daddy taking the election stuff to the SC, but states can't do that? You're making it obvious you don't care what it takes, even election fraud, as long as your daddy wins

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Same with CNN, the WaPost, etc.- much of MSM nowadays exists to push narratives and influence policy, any actual incidental reporting comes on the side.

With Youtube and Google, we may truly be seeing the terrifying twilight of the free internet.

Reminder that Obama legalized the US spreading propaganda domestically without marking it as propaganda

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Their SC said it was fine. I thought you speds wanted your states rights? You are fine with your daddy taking the election stuff to the SC, but states can't do that? You're making it obvious you don't care what it takes, even election fraud, as long as your daddy wins

Their SC has to adhere to law as set forth by state legislature, did they rule in accordance with such?

 

[JohnDoe]

This is very good, it means Trump has a legitimate chance and they are pulling out all the stops in order to try to save themselves. To be honest, I'd be concerned if they didn't do this.

Seems like this kind of decision makes them a publisher though, doesn't it? And thus no longer under the protections of 230. Just prosecute them already.

 

[Übertroon]

Did we ever get an explanation for this? Source

Also what's Joe Biden been up to since he fell chasing that dog? He seems to have gone underground again

 

[Pompano Mike]

You're making it obvious you don't care what it takes, even election fraud, as long as your daddy wins

I think this statement applies to you too. If SCOTUS makes a decision that nullifies the results in these states due to illegality, leading to Trump's second term, can you honestly say you won't be assmad about that? You know damned well you'd downplay or outright deny any indication that Uncle Joe benefitted from dirty dealing, so stop pretending that you're not just as partisan as your opponents.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I think this statement applies to you too. If SCOTUS makes a decision that nullifies the results in these states due to illegality, leading to Trump's second term, can you honestly say you won't be assmad about that? You know damned well you'd downplay or outright deny any indication that Uncle Joe benefitted from dirty dealing, so stop pretending that you're not just as partisan as your opponents.

Sure, but I know you guys won't. You'll just move the goalposts as you guys always do. Trump said something, so you guys 100% unquestionably believe what he says.

Did we ever get an explanation for this? Source
View attachment 1777089

Also what's Joe Biden been up to since he fell chasing that dog? He seems to have gone underground again

Am I missing something? More mail in ballots were requested than returned? That seems normal.

 

[Esophagus]

After learning about all the new censorship that will roll out on social media regarding the election results, I figured this gif is very appropriate for all the Biden supporters here:

 

[mindlessobserver]

TX v State Motion 2020-12-07 FINAL | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint, Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.

www.scribd.com

View attachment 1777067 View attachment 1777068 View attachment 1777069 View attachment 1777070

Actually, the entire lawsuit from Texas is based on precedent already set by the Supreme Court. Their specific angle against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan is that their entire election was unconstitutional because they changed the rules around just prior to 11/3, they conducted their elections in a way that violated their own election laws and Constitutional election laws in general, and in the case of Pennsylvania, the state did not properly segregate all of their ballots from before and after the deadline, making it completely impossible to determine which ballots are which, effectively ruining the entire batch.

You could absolutely posit the argument that it's unfair that ballots, even legal ones, are discarded if they aren't tabulated before the end of the day, but that's the way it's always been carried out. It's called election day, not election week or election month. If the state was incapable of tabulating all of its ballots before the deadline, that's not the responsibility or the failing of the Union, that's the failing of the state to adhere to the standard to which everyone else is being held, the standard to which everyone else--even Florida-- was capable of performing.

If a single state holds their election in a way that violates the Constitution and alters the outcome of the election for all other states concerned, I don't think it's unreasonable for the other states to sue them as a result. It's like I said: This is a very interesting circumstance.

The Robert's Court is notoriously squishy though. You just know they absolutely do not want to have to take up the Texas Lawsuit. The Supreme Court likes being a contemplative body where they get to review other peoples fact finding and the decisions of other courts. Even Bush V. Gore was simply a review of the ruling and fact finding of the Florida Courts. Texas is asking to come in cold and actually put these 4 states on trial in the Supreme Court. This is usually done over something mundane like water rights, or who exactly is responsible for fixing a bridge over a river that divides the two states.

At the same time though, refusing to hear the case carries its own risks. Texas could turn around and order its congressional and Senate delegations to dispute the election in Congress and probably be helped with a pile on by the 7 other states planning to send in Amicus. It's a real mess, made all the worse by the media lying and obfuscating the entire thing.

 

[DeadFish]

Google and youtubes parent company is alphabet. Now I aint got proof but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks it refers to America s alphabet agencies.

CIA FBI NSA and so forth.

Just a thought

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

TX v State Motion 2020-12-07 FINAL | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint, Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.

www.scribd.com

View attachment 1777067 View attachment 1777068 View attachment 1777069 View attachment 1777070

Actually, the entire lawsuit from Texas is based on precedent already set by the Supreme Court. Their specific angle against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan is that their entire election was unconstitutional because they changed the rules around just prior to 11/3, they conducted their elections in a way that violated their own election laws and Constitutional election laws in general, and in the case of Pennsylvania, the state did not properly segregate all of their ballots from before and after the deadline, making it completely impossible to determine which ballots are which, effectively ruining the entire batch.

You could absolutely posit the argument that it's unfair that ballots, even legal ones, are discarded if they aren't tabulated before the end of the day, but that's the way it's always been carried out. It's called election day, not election week or election month. If the state was incapable of tabulating all of its ballots before the deadline, that's not the responsibility or the failing of the Union, that's the failing of the state to adhere to the standard to which everyone else is being held, the standard to which everyone else--even Florida-- was capable of performing.

If a single state holds their election in a way that violates the Constitution and alters the outcome of the election for all other states concerned, I don't think it's unreasonable for the other states to sue them as a result. It's like I said: This is a very interesting circumstance.

Listen rethuglikkkan MAGAtard, following the US Constitution is voter suppression.

But seriously, if anyone is guilty of voter suppression because those ballots end up invalidated, its the election officials who specifically broke the roles. Its the people who specifically went out of their way to harvest/cure fraudulent ballots, then went ahead and mixed them with legitimate ballots.
If PA ends up having its ballots invalidated, they need to blame the SOS & PASC, but most specifically the people who went ahead and mixed the ballots that the USSC specifically told them to hold aside with the regulars, then went and destroyed the evidence.