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

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

This is the dumbest post I have read today; Look, there is how things work on paper, and then there is how things actually work.

The truth hurts their fee-fees, though. They want their daddy to win by any means necessary

 

[Gehenna]

You can't make backroom deals with SCOTUS. Not really. The justices have a cushy job that they can't get fired from and Biden can't offer them anything that they wouldn't get automatically from ruling in Trump's favour.

All the justices swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The contested states' changes to the election laws was unconstitutional. Really this shouldn't be an argument.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. While on paper SCOTUS is meant to be separate from it all, in practice that has basically never been the case. They aren't as bitterly partisan (Except Kagan and Sotomayor...) as the legislature, but they are given to making political calculations.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

You can't make backroom deals with SCOTUS. Not really. The justices have a cushy job that they can't get fired from and Biden can't offer them anything that they wouldn't get automatically from ruling in Trump's favour.

All the justices swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The contested states' changes to the election laws was unconstitutional. Really this shouldn't be an argument.

That's a very optimistic take. I think most of them will look at this, but this is still politics. Everyone is vulnerable, to money or threats. Though they'd be stupid to think they'd be fine under Biden, and I hope they're smart enough to know that.

 

[Retarded Forever]

Twatter are known to astroturf hashtags. They did it with #TrumpBodyCount when #ClintonBodyCount was gaining too much, organic, traction

There are more people parroting CNN, then their are people shouting Stop the Steal. Reality has a liberal bias because reality wants you living in a pod eating a maggot sausage.

 

[Dr J]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. While on paper SCOTUS is meant to be separate from it all, in practice that has basically never been the case. They aren't as bitterly partisan (Except Kagan and Sotomayor...) as the legislature, but they are given to making political calculations.

Fucking hell. I know that in practice they don't work that way. I'm saying that if they worked the way they were supposed to this wouldn't even be up for discussion

 

[mindlessobserver]

they will just ignore it or find a judge to shut it down. the Mandate will go to SCOTUS very very fast-

The same SCOTUS that would have taken a steaming dump on them by refusing to hear the grievance over the election? The nightmare scenario becomes possible if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the Texas case, precisely because it forecloses on the US Courts being a peaceful and legal method of addressing grievances between the States. There won't be lawsuits about Bidens COVID mandates. They will tell the Federal Government to go get fucked, and then we are really up shit creek. And that is just over wearing masks and not eating indoors. Imagine what happens when Biden decides he wants to relocate some Refugees to Omaha, or ban "Military Grade Weapons" in Texas. You think the meatball is spicy now.

 

[Gehenna]

Fucking hell. I know that in practice they don't work that way. I'm saying that if they worked the way they were supposed to this wouldn't even be up for discussion

Your phrasing could have used some work then.

 

[murdered meat bag]

You could have FOIA'd the whole footage - you've failed the Don.

See, my argument? I'm not making it as matter of fact. I'm looking at the footage, and I'm saying, "What is this?" The GA officials provided an explanation. You have yet to offer a rebuttal to their explanation. Not just you, but the legal people, who would already have had access to the entire footage, have not offered a rebuttal.

You are literally asking me to prove a negative. You assert that the evidence was fraudulent. Officials testify and recount that it was not, and you provide this video evidence - which they provide explanation for. Got it? At this stage, here's what you have to do, because the burden of proof has been shifted back to you. This is an important concept.

You have to show evidence that the election officials are lying or misrepresenting the facts in their case. You have yet to demonstrate that the statement "the election was secure and legit" is false, because you've buckled and crumbled under every request to prove it.

Literally the most you have is "but isn't it POSSIBLE that it was fraudulent? Couldn't it be TRUE that lots of votes were fraudulent? On the basis of this POSSIBILITY, discount 80 million votes."

the rebuttal to their explanation is that the video evidence put forth is faulty: it doesn't show what the official is saying happened. it shows a clip of the official in front of the monitor, a clip of a person dragging a table, a clip of the official again, clip of people putting ballots inside boxes. at no point do we see the ballots being counted, placed in a box, placed under the table and pulled back out. the video footage itself doesn't clear the state . All that's left is the officials statement which is anecdotal. remember we agreed to play by retard atheist logic rules. anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence.

the burden goes back to you to provide evidence that proves the statement "this election was secure and legit". you're now saying "i have the evidence but you have to petition the state for it". that means you don't have anything and i have no reason to petition the state because the onus of proof is on you; to win this, you'd file the foia to provide the full video that proves your statement true. you've even started to hide behind "i'm not declaring this video is proof of a secure, legit election, i'm just saying "gee whiz what's this"". you don't have proof.

You have to show evidence that the election officials are lying or misrepresenting the facts in their case.

the video of the state farm footage is misrepresented for the reasons laid out earler. can you rebut that? this was your evidence that i found the video of btw. did you even watch it? or did you hear a third hand account of the video and assumed it to be true?

You are literally asking me to prove a negative

"this election was secure and legit" is a positive

 

[Dr J]

Your phrasing could have used some work then.

Yes, probably

 

[Polyboros2]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. While on paper SCOTUS is meant to be separate from it all, in practice that has basically never been the case. They aren't as bitterly partisan (Except Kagan and Sotomayor...) as the legislature, but they are given to making political calculations.

I think a good example of that, which isn't involving anyone sitting, is recess Supreme Court appointments. Basically, if the Senate was in recess, the President could appoint a Justice, and the Senate would have to wait until the session after next to vote on it. So the Senate rules lawyered a way to never actually officially recess and the Supreme Court held it up.

Now you can say both are fair interpretations of the law, but it looks an awful lot like the Court didn't want to deal with shitter appointments that were temporary than there was superfluous rules written for the Supreme Court.

 

[I-chi]

The truth hurts their fee-fees, though. They want their daddy to win by any means necessary

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I showed that Trumpfter by calling out his daddy! This has to work, unlike the last hundred times, then the Farms will totally think I'm cool finally!"

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I showed that Trumpfter by calling out his daddy! This has to work, unlike the last hundred times, then the Farms will totally think I'm cool finally!"

I don't give a shit what some retards on here think of me. If I did, I'd join in the Trump cult along with you. Instead I have a bunch of autistic manchildren angry with me because I don't like Trump

You seem really mad that I don't like the grifter that you are in love with. It's okay, little guy. We all have different tastes. That's what makes life fun.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

I don't give a shit what some retards on here think of me. If I did, I'd join in the Trump cult along with you. Instead I have a bunch of autistic manchildren angry with me because I don't like Trump

You seem really mad that I don't like the grifter that you are in love with. It's okay, little guy. We all have different tastes. That's what makes life fun.

I read this in the Hulk Hogan voice like other's here have. And it is as hilarious as they say it is.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I read this in the Hulk Hogan voice like other's here have. And it is as hilarious as they say it is.

Not gonna lie, reading it back in his voice cracked me up. Especially the end part

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the rebuttal to their explanation is that the video evidence put forth is faulty: it doesn't show what the official is saying happened. it shows a clip of the official in front of the monitor, a clip of a person dragging a table, a clip of the official again, clip of people putting ballots inside boxes. at no point do we see the ballots being counted, placed in a box, placed under the table and pulled back out. the video footage itself doesn't clear the state . All that's left is the officials statement which is anecdotal. remember we agreed to play by retard atheist logic rules. anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence.

the burden goes back to you to provide evidence that proves the statement "this election was secure and legit". you're now saying "i have the evidence but you have to petition the state for it". that's not evidence and i have no reason to petition the state because the onus of proof is on you. you've even started to hide behind "i'm not declaring this video is proof of a secure, legit election, i'm just saying "gee whiz what's this"". you don't have proof.


the video of the state farm footage is misrepresented for the reasons laid out earler. can you rebut that? this was your evidence that i found the video of btw. did you even watch it?


"this election was secure and legit" is a positive

Oh, you mean literally the one clip? Right. The officials have been speaking to what was happening the entire night, which would then explain the clips. The video clip is clearly incomplete, and you would need the rest of the video footage to verify or disprove the officials' statements. You really think that electoral committees and courts haven't gotten that, or that it doesn't exist?

You assertion is that the official is lying, but you can't prove it without the footage. My assertion is that without the footage, there is nothing conclusive - IE, nothing proved.

The onus of proof isn't on me, by the by. Your "rebuttal" up there is that you are pointing at the clip and screaming that it is exactly what you assert it is. You are restating your original accusation.
See where I'm going? Without complete footage of the event, you literally cannot respond to the election officials' claims, because those claims concern information that this clip cannot verify or disprove.

"The election was secure and legit" is the assumption. You point to this video with an antithesis - it wasn't. Some proof has been provided to that assertion. Then comes the rebuttal, "this information is incomplete, and throughout the rest of the day, x y and z happened which explains this." Now the assumption is that it was secure and legit again. The ball came back to you, and you just pointed to your first step again. The assumption that it was secure and legit holds.

I do not need proof of "the election being secure and legit" because if you cannot prove that it was fraudulent, then we go with the default. Are you new to, like, everything law and civics?
(btw, my evidence was literally just the statements that the election officials gave, not some fucking boomer news report)

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Livestream going, Crowder is interviewing TX AG before he (and other AGs) go meet with Trump this morning.

edit: even more states might file today as well beyond the existing 19 states and states might also intervene, not just amicus.

Came here to post that. Here's an archive because there's no way that's staying up on Youtube. Audio only.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Looks like all states are making themselves party because if the SCOTUS were to favor Texas, this would have longstanding implications and precedent for states' suing each other in matters relating to disputes between state legislatures, judiciaries, and constitutions.

IE, more states

Hm. Maybe it's just that it got posted to the docket late or something? I don't remember MISSOURI,ARKANSAS, LOUSIANA, MISSISSIPPI,SOUTH CAROLINA,AND UTAH being in here before.

 

[DeadFish]

So lets say there is a civil disruption of sorts over this. How will this affect programs such as vet benifits, social security and Medicare?

How would those beneficiaries affect the outcome of this whole ordeal?

How would this affect law enforcement? Could I during these troubles go rob a bank in California and hide out in Texas to evade justice?

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

"this election was secure and legit" is a positive

"This election was the most secure in US history!" is the most positive.

 

[Gehenna]

"This election was the most secure in US history!" is the most positive.

Technically, both sides of this are making positive claims and neither has really succeeded in backing up theirs fully.

Its part of why the SCOTUS case is going to be a clusterfuck.