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

[The High Prophet of Truth]

Well by 3:00 PM today, the 4 states should have their rebuttal ready and sent in. I can't wait to see how they'll defend all this.

 

[Meat Target]

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?

We need a "Glowing" sticker. Can you swing it, @Null?

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

lol no, Conservatives will just seethe then cope that, "at least the Supreme Court fixed our election for 2024, here's how Trump can win that year guys!"

But on the other hand, the opposite option, giving Texas something that gives Trump a solid chance at this point, will result in actual terrorism.

Read your Jefferson. Liberty is not the same as safety. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. However, I do think fears of terrorism in the US are overblown. You'll get a shitload of demonstrations though.

said the dude who's a-logging ethan ralph.

I thought your position was that this site is solely for laughing at people like Ralph.

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

I could see these scenarios as being a good compromise

1) The SCOTUS rules for the GOP but Trump steps down and we get Pence
2) The SCOTUS rules for a contingent election and we get Trump/Harris
3) Biden or Trump gets in but lacks a majority in either House or Senate.
4) Biden gets in, gets the Senate but loses the midterms demonstrating that the ballot-rigging was one-time thing. Also, he isn't able to pass amnesty and gerrymander the electorate. So elections are still competitive.

In each case, it depends on the government being as bipartisan as possible. However, I'm not convinced the US works like this. US politics is kind of a winner takes all system

Another option is that the Convention of the States happens and the power of the Federal government is severely curtailed.

We need a "Glowing" sticker. Can you swing it, @Null?

That's not a glowpost. He's asking a hypothetical and it doesn't meet the 'imminent lawless action' standard. Also, there's no Glowing sticker because the correct response is to report it to the mods. Stickies don't mean anything, except maybe 'Late' from people who aren't @ConfederateIrishman who uses it in a slightly non-standard way to mean 'I've been saying this for ages'. Everyone else uses it to mean 'What you posted has already been posted'.

 

[A Pox]

I stand with Holk Holgan's right to act like a sperg around the clock. Be strong brother, only you can fight the fascist chuds by posting on the internet.

 

[JimmyNugget]

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

It’s what I’ve been saying. Texas bitching about Pennsylvania has a bad precedent. Texas, as a state, has no ball in what happens in a swing state. Texas did their job in their elections, that’s all that should matter. The GOP makes the lawsuits for that, and they failed. These states are essentially suing because they’re mad, which sets a horrid precedent.
It’s like you want the New England to litigate the South into the Stone Age. Allowing states to sue over other state’s rights is a godawful idea.

 

[Gehenna]

Well by 3:00 PM today, the 4 states should have their rebuttal ready and sent in. I can't wait to see how they'll defend all this.

Poorly. I cannot see any possible real legal defense and I hope they stick to ONLY legal defenses for their sake.

If any of them go off half-cocked and make the same arguments to SCOTUS that the lawyers in PA did to their guys, I am... well, if any do that I am doing an about face and giving Trump better than fifty odds. Which is why I sincerely believe no one will do this.

 

[DeadFish]

We need a "Glowing" sticker. Can you swing it, @Null?

I need to rephrase that. Meant a person.

We already see that happening on the left with the riots. Some portlanders go some where else to burn stuff up. Head back home. No harm no foul.

If states start telling the federal goverment to go fuck themselves then how would that affect crime?

I mean the historical equivalent would be privateers. How would that work out if America did split into two nations again?


How would it affect tax collection and gun laws?

 

[Revo]

Read your Jefferson. Liberty is not the same as safety. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. However, I do think fears of terrorism in the US are overblown. You'll get a shitload of demonstrations though.

I thought your position was that this site is solely for laughing at people like Ralph.

I could see these scenarios as being a good compromise

1) The SCOTUS rules for the GOP but Trump steps down and we get Pence
2) The SCOTUS rules for a contingent election and we get Trump/Harris
3) Biden or Trump gets in but lacks a majority in either House or Senate.
4) Biden gets in, gets the Senate but loses the midterms demonstrating that the ballot-rigging was one-time thing. Also, he isn't able to pass amnesty and gerrymander the electorate. So elections are still competitive.

In each case, it depends on the government being as bipartisan as possible. However, I'm not convinced the US works like this. US politics is kind of a winner takes all system

Another option is that the Convention of the States happens and the power of the Federal government is severely curtailed.



That's not a glowpost. He's asking a hypothetical and it doesn't meet the 'imminent lawless action' standard. Also, there's no Glowing sticker because the correct response is to report it to the mods.

That's true, but ethan ralph thread is full with unfunny and exceptional newusers with a few exceptions nowadays.

 

[Dr J]

Well by 3:00 PM today, the 4 states should have their rebuttal ready and sent in. I can't wait to see how they'll defend all this.

They literally go full retard every time they try to defend or justify their actions. The one thing you can expect is that they will make fools of themselves

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

If states start telling the federal goverment to go fuck themselves then how would that affect crime?

Not necessarily. E.g. the US and UK are separate states but if I commit a crime in the US which is also a crime in the UK and then flee to UK the US will extradite me. Same if I commit a crime in an EU state and flee to the UK. Even after a hard Brexit, there'd still be mutual legal assistance treaties because those predate the EU.

In a hypothetical US with a less powerful federal government, you'd be extradited between states pretty easily.

That's true, but ethan ralph thread is full with unfunny and exceptional newusers with a few exceptions nowadays.

Oddly enough I tried to catch up on it yesterday and came to the same conclusion. The Farms is ailed by more than just political spergs. Though I suppose you'd say 'You would say that as a political sperg wouldn't you'.

 

[CrippleThreat]

Well by 3:00 PM today, the 4 states should have their rebuttal ready and sent in. I can't wait to see how they'll defend all this.

"Trump bad. And while we did take a week for the media to at least project the winner, this election is still the most secure and fair out of literally any and all prior elections! Please don't start a civil war!"

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Has this been posted yet?
https://twitter.com/MIAttyGen/status/1336412439986966535/photo/1

>their votes were counted - in some cases multiple times
How do you fuck up this bad? Don't they get that's the exactly the problem?

>these insignificant attempts
So they are going to ignore it like arrogant tools, cool.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

It’s like you want the New England to litigate the South into the Stone Age. Allowing states to sue over other state’s rights is a godawful idea.

If the South tries to violate and undermine the US Constitution, and such a violation brings negative effects back onto New England, then New England should have every right to litigate the South back into the stone age.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

It’s what I’ve been saying. Texas bitching about Pennsylvania has a bad precedent. Texas, as a state, has no ball in what happens in a swing state. Texas did their job in their elections, that’s all that should matter. The GOP makes the lawsuits for that, and they failed. These states are essentially suing because they’re mad, which sets a horrid precedent.
It’s like you want the New England to litigate the South into the Stone Age. Allowing states to sue over other state’s rights is a godawful idea.

The act of suing doesn't make a horrible precedent, but yes, the act of their getting something from it would.
In essence, any state which afterwards sees a potential flaw in another states' federal electoral procedure would have the go-ahead to sue that state to overturn their vote / results.

If the South tries to violate and undermine the US Constitution, and such a violation brings negative effects back onto New England, then New England should have every right to litigate the South back into the stone age.

Which part, specifically? Thusfar the arguments have been that these states have violated their own states' constitution, and the constitutional argument has hinged on wording which says that the legislatures shall determine the selection of electors. States' constitutions are not really important to this line of argument.

You then have to argue that the legislatures not overturning those changes which allowed for mail-in ballots does not constitute permission, and that this lack of permission is in effect robbing the state legislatures of their constitutionally appropriated duty. This is the tightrope you're gonna have to hope they walk on real carefully.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Funny how Kim was cheering biden last month but now she wants trump to pardon Brandon Bernard. he should be pardoned but it's funny how the media shitted on him for 6 years calling him racist but now wants him to pardon someone...black. I thought he was racist?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/entertainment/kim-kardashian-brandon-bernard/index.

Kim Kardashian West tweets Trump to stop Brandon Bernard's execution …

archived 10 Dec 2020 17:45:40 UTC

archive.today

 

[Gehenna]

The act of suing doesn't make a horrible precedent, but yes, the act of their getting something from it would.
In essence, any state which afterwards sees a potential flaw in another states' electoral procedure would have the go-ahead to sue that state to overturn their vote / results.

I'm... actually okay with this. So that's hardly horrible. It would encourage every single state to have the most rigorous standards possible for their elections. Short term, an absolute mess. long term, beautiful.

 

[Dr J]

3) Biden or Trump gets in but lacks a majority in either House or Senate.
4) Biden gets in, gets the Senate but loses the midterms demonstrating that the ballot-rigging was one-time thing. Also, he isn't able to pass amnesty and gerrymander the electorate. So elections are still competitive.

How are SCOTUS going to provide for these? They're not a court of hypnotists, you know.
The best compromise is for SCOTUS to completely invalidate the election in all the disputed states, thereby guaranteeing a contingent election. Trump wins the contingent election? Well, we know why that is.

 

[murdered meat bag]

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)

I'm not saying the official is lying, i'm saying his anecdotal statements aren't evidence of anything. Why don't you believe trump when he says the election was rigged and that it was done by getting dead people to vote? Its the other side of the same coin. Without objective evidence, I have no reason to believe the official as you have no reason to believe trump.

"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.

now you've resorted to misconstruing the debate.
I said there was video of suitcases of ballots being pulled at night.
you rebutted the suitcase video with another one where the state explains that suitcases.
I found that video and pointed out how the video evidence doesn't correspond to the statements of the state.
we both agree that your evidence is shoddy, "clearly incomplete" as you said.

we're back to the video of the suitcases.
You assert there is another video out there.
you do not provide the video.
you have no evidence to rebut the video of suitcases.

. The assumption that it was secure and legit holds.

The assumption has be proven true, we don't start the debate holding the assumption to be true. As the person saying the assumption is true has the onus to provide proof. you start at 0% and work your way to 100%, not you start at 100% and i have to chip it away to 0%.

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.

You were complaining that i was making you prove a negative and are now asking me to do so. yes, you have to prove "the election was secure and legit" because that's how logic goes.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

I'm... actually okay with this. So that's hardly horrible. It would encourage every single state to have the most rigorous standards possible for their elections. Short term, an absolute mess. long term, beautiful.

Agreed.

Red states are going to have any forthcoming voter ID law challenged anyways, what do we have to lose?
Extra rigor never hurt anyone.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

How are SCOTUS going to provide for these? They're not a court of hypnotists, you know.
The best compromise is for SCOTUS to completely invalidate the election in all the disputed states, thereby guaranteeing a contingent election. Trump wins the contingent election? Well, we know why that is.

Fair enough. How about this one

5) The SCOTUS kicks it back to state legislatures in the disputed states. RINOs in said legislatures give it to Biden because 'Muh will of the people'

Ok, not really a compromise. However it could happen.