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

[Nathan Higgers]

Well, ACKTCHUALLY....
View attachment 1778855

Pressing D to Dispoot.

I'm not gonna believe some random twitter account (oh it has a blue checkmark, it's not like you qtards have spent the past 4 years shitting on blue checkmarks, now you use them as a source? curious...)
Besides, that guy's name rhymes with Vagina and I'd respectfully bully him if I saw him in person (while wearing my mask).

 

[Dr J]

The question is, of course, what the hell does SCOTUS do even if all of Texas' legal challenges are correct?

Well, if this were a smaller election like for Senate or Representatives or smaller, the Supreme Court would just set aside the election results and order a new election. The only reason, I suspect, that's not an option here is that somebody's got to be inaugurated on January 20th

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Pressing D to Dispoot.

I'm not gonna believe some random twitter account (oh it has a blue checkmark, it's not like you qtards have spent the past 4 years shitting on blue checkmarks, now you use them as a source? curious...)
Besides, that guy's name rhymes with Vagina and I'd respectfully bully him if I saw him in person (while wearing my mask).

noch wieder:
what's a ballot counter
and what's a poll observer

 

[Revo]

Its not just a-logging its art, plebeians like you wouldnt understand.

Could you show me your art aka drawing/photoshopings made by only you not by the internet.

 

[Gehenna]

Well, if this were a smaller election like for Senate or Representatives or smaller, the Supreme Court would just set aside the election results and order a new election. The only reason, I suspect, that's not an option here is that somebody's got to be inaugurated on January 20th

Its worth noting, but astronomically unlikely to happen, that what you said is not -technically- true. SCOTUS has the power to say that something is outside the remit of the Constitution. They could, hypothetically as a matter of constitutional law, say that the circumstances of the election are so inordinary that the deadline does not count in this regard as the founders, and the document, could not have foreseen it and thus the deadline is null and void for the time and criteria they would set out in their decision.


I would rate it more likely for them to crown one of the candidates as ruler DIRECTLY then for them to ever choose this option. But as a matter of power and law, SCOTUS could wave away that deadline entirely. Just some fun facts about the law here.

 

[Dr J]

Well, let me black pill you there a little. SCOTUS is not above making deals. Potentially quiet, legally binding ones. If Biden offers to make a legally binding contract saying he won't pack the courts.... It never has to be announced, you never have to know about it, but if SCOTUS knows about it then you lose on of the big motivators towards Trump.

If the contract is secret and nobody knows about it, what's to stop him from breaking it? How are SCOTUS going to take him to task without making the contract public and thereby compromising themselves as well as Biden?
Not to mention a contract from Biden saying he won't pack the courts has only one, inevitable conclusion

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

The CIA overthrowing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister is what eventually led to the Iranian Revolution twenty years later.

The Shiite fundies would have overthrown the socialists anyways even if the Shah weren't put back in power.

 

[Gehenna]

If the contract is secret and nobody knows about it, what's to stop him from breaking it? How are SCOTUS going to take him to task without making the contract public and thereby compromising themselves as well as Biden?
Not to mention a contract from Biden saying he won't pack the courts has only one, inevitable conclusion

I never said it was a good idea, just that it is a deal that can be struck. I wouldn't trust the deal, but such a deal might solidify Breyer and possibly Gorsuch.

 

[murdered meat bag]

You can FOIA the video footage. Really, you could have submitted a FOIA request the instant it came out, or hounded a politician to do so.

the rebuttal of the state election investigators is the claim I made. What is your response to their response? "they're lying?" Based on... what?
You literally just admitted that you haven't seen the full video of the event. So you don't even know if they were putting ballots in the bins; you are just assuming they didn't.
If you ever find yourself in a legal situation, love of god, please represent yourself and let us all watch the court footage.

right, i haven't seen the whole thing because the state hasnt shown the whole thing. which means you havent seen the whole thing either. this is a tough spot to be in during a debate because you're at the mercy of a third hand account.

the video the state alleges is evidence that clears them of wrong doing doesnt clear them. you couldn't take those state farm clips out and arrange them in such a way to fashion a narrative that vindicates the state. thats conjecture.

all you have left is the statements made by the official which are anecdotal. since that doesnt prove anything you're now hiding behind "the state has the whole thing but you have to petition them for it".

in otherwords, you dont have the evidence to prove "this election was secure and legit" to be true

 

[Mr Cuddles]

Statements of the observers who weren't told to leave, and who have yet to provide video evidence of their being told to leave? Statements which have thusfar been trotted out in front of committees and not bundled into any actual lawsuits? And are you telling me that a news outlet would rush out a story without having the full idea of what's going on?

Nothing regarding this video is going to get you anywhere in a court of law, because there has yet to be a rebuttal to any of the state election officials' explanations. If you had grounds for a counterargument, some means by which you could cast doubt on those officials' claims, you'd have yourself a case. See: all of the attempts in GA thusfar.

Video evidence? Why would people be mic'd up. I don't know what world you live in but in mine CCTV doesn't record sound. All we see is people leaving together as a group and that group being identified as observers where less than a few minutes later ballots are being pulled from under a table in nonstandard packaging and are being processed. The news reported the observers as being instructed to leave and the observers themselves support that assertion. It is clear that counting was still continuing as this county would go onto report a massive drop massively favouring biden and closing near 200k in his favour.

Now you have election officials claiming differently, but these are some of the same election officials who either the news negligently misreported or are lying to protect electoral impropriety.

Here's a question for you Jack, if the observers left by their own accord by a mistaken belief, that counting had stopped once the envelope openers had left, did the election officials not interrupt this process by informing the observers what was going on?

 

[DeadFish]

Okay in a hypothetical situation, what could SCOTUS rule that would appease both sides?

No there Isnt.

The democrats are temporarily embrassed tyrants. Any thing that doesnt give them absolute power is seen as offensive and a transgression worthy of extreme retribution.

On the other side?
Well they just witnessed cities burned, seen rioters get let go after being caught commiting arson. Not even a warning. Just released without charges. Any one who defends them selves against said rioters get trump on murder charges. If one even dares speaks again the democrats the media snears them as a racist and bigot. You have online mobs trying get people fired for wrong think. Got elected officials calling for violence against their political opponents and making purge lists. Mastercard and google denying online vendors to livelihood based on their political views. You got celebs making mock ups of decapitated heads of the president and right wing voters.

And now the worst offense. Corrupting a national election. Thats the equivalent of me pissing on Mohammed grave.

There is no way to make everyone happy.

You cant make peace with people who want you dead.

 

[Dr J]

but such a deal might solidify Breyer and possibly Gorsuch.

Not if they have any sense.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

I haven't bothered to read the Texas lolsuit in full

nothing you said after this means anything

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It is really not that hard; Conservatives have a much higher tolerance for anger

And if their decision exhausts said tolerance?

 

[Gehenna]

Not if they have any sense.

Breyer is ideologically linked to the left, but has principles. Such a deal could allow the former to usurp the latter.

Gorsuch is an old Bush-ite Republican, the exact kind that have the most faith in the system. Normally, I'd say he'd be a lock out of that faith, he'd WANT to believe it even if INTELLECTUALLY it is a bad idea. I am only willing to say he is a possible though, because the man is very quiet so I don't know if he has been souring on that view as many of his peers have.

 

[CrippleThreat]

Not sure if late, but here's the Georgia hearing:

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Wrong, the elected Reagan was obviously an android and we've been being played this whole time by an organization fighting for a NWO!

Spoiler: PIC RELATED

View attachment 1778860View attachment 1778863

I thought the nWo died out after Kevin Nash tore his quad in 2003?

 

[SmugAutist]

SCOTUS is in an unenviable position. Doing nothing is not an option, but doing something will cause chaos regardless of what they do. Too many States have now thrown their backing behind this to ignore, doing nothing would cause chaos. If they side with Biden, those states have enough impetus and the growling anger is reaching the point you can't just say "Well the right will lie down". The states ARE acting, and they are the slowest, most cumbersome to get moving to begin with. The base is -far- more active, supporting Biden would cause chaos. The left is -nuts-, actively rioting, you have calls for gulag lists, and calls to violence... so siding with Trump is just more chaos that's already promised to occur even if he loses, so if they side with Trump... chaos.


No matter what SCOTUS does, it will chaos cause. Its... kinda glorious if you think about it.

It seems that there's going to be a storm no matter what. The only question that SCOTUS is going to have to ask itself is if they want to weather that storm with Trump at the helm, or with Sleepy Joe. The lawsuit has already divided the states by actual territory, which is something I thought wouldn't happen again because it wasn't a Mason-Dixon division and the divides of today are more rural vs urban. Beanie man is probably looking like Nostradamus right around now.

 

[murdered meat bag]

? And are you telling me that a news outlet would rush out a story without having the full idea of what's going on?

we just had lin wood and nick sandman beat news outlets for rushing stories without knowing whats going on

 

[JambledUpWords]

Trending right now: