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

[Meat Target]

Hoo boy, here we go. Things just got spicier.


View attachment 1779064

I've made my peace with the idea that Biden will be president next month, sketchy or otherwise. But hell, will my balls be blue if we don't get a shitshow out of this.

 

[Dr J]

Also, there's no fucking way that either the UK, the European governments, or even the EU are going to use force against each other.

That's because the latter two have no force to use. They don't even have any force to threaten to use. Only the Frogs have nukes. The Germans have like thirty working helicopters out of four hundred and a lot of their shells are duds. They're not going to threaten a nuclear powered Britain

So his ability to get irritating RINOs primaried seems to be extraterritorial.

Or would be, were it not for the fact that Boris Johnson is also an irritating RINO (Or CINO, as would be more accurate here)

 

[murdered meat bag]

Alrighty, autist. I go back to the route I said before. This is the evidence that you use to suggest that it was fraudulent.
The counter-point is that this video is incomplete, and according to testimony from the GA election officials, the observers were not forced to leave and indeed simply left because the ballot counters were told to leave. (IE, people opening the ballots and counting the number of ballots overall opened). The ballots under the table had been opened throughout the day and put there after being opened. The people scanning are not scanning in 'new' ballots, but rather ballots that have been opened throughout the day. The full footage of the event shows this, and nothing in the edited video makes clear that a) observers were told to leave or b) the scanners were using ballots which had not been opened earlier in the day.

Sound familiar? Now, everything but the point about the video being incomplete is the statement of the Georgia election officials as to the validity of your claims.

Now, like I said you have to do when this all began, you need to rebut the election official. If you can't, then we can't conclude anything about this video.

the statement by the official is contradicted by the lady in the video. who do we believe? at least she has the state farm footage in front of her pointing out her claims while the offical has a boomer news segment. I have a female version of your official with real video the whole world has seen.

Is the next assumption "officials do not lie in investigations"?

because an FBI lawyer is going to jail for lying to the FISA courts.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Begrudginly cooperative?

Relationship status: It's complicated.

The EU has heavily briefed against the UK post-Brexit but I still think there's about a 50% chance they'll agree on a Canada style free trade agreement in the end. Albeit after spending months trying to get the UK to be bound by EU rules judged by EU courts with no say in either.

Or would be, were it not for the fact that Boris Johnson is also an irritating RINO (Or CINO, as would be more accurate here)

This has sadly turned out to be true.

 

[Dr J]

Begrudginly cooperative?

You are talking about the same EU who have said, both privately and publicly, that they want to punish Britain for daring to leave them?

 

[HumanHive]

Ohio: "I'm in support of neither party, no I don't know if it's even required for me to file this "
lolwut

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF

View attachment 1779065
View attachment 1779066

It SICKENS me.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

Narrowly tailored? Scroll to the 'facts' portion of the complaint. It says a looooooooot of things which have nothing to do with the constitutional argument, which instead are trying to argue fraud rather than "this was done incorrectly and unconstitutionally."

If the Texas team only argues very very narrowly from the bulk of their complaint, sure. If they try to go over everything, no, this is just a compilation of "we don't like that"

A lot of people are missing the fact you are merely analyizing only the evidence provided in court and how it stands under legal scruntiny, which so far it hasn't.

Arguing that there is more evidence that can be provided or that the courts are ignoring the real evidence is not really the argument he is trying to make here.

From what I have seen so far you better hope the Texas suit is not tied in any way to Trump's lolyers and keeps to their own arguments and/or evidence, otherwise they are just going to waste the SC's time and piss them off.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the statement by the official is contradicted by the lady in the video. who do we believe? at least she has the state farm footage in front of her pointing out her claims while the offical has a boomer news segment. I have a female version of your official with real video the whole world has seen.

Is the next assumption "officials do not lie in investigations"?

because an FBI lawyer is going to jail for lying to the FISA courts.

lmao the lady in the fucking video made the initial claim. The official rebutted. And then... there was no counter-rebuttal. You don't get to point back to the original thing and go BUT LOOK! LOOK! I SAID THAT FIRST!
The rebuttal is being made to the claims the woman in the video presents. jfc how is this hard

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

So 20 states supports the lawsuits while 6 out if the 20 are actually joining right?

Looks like another optics game where the other states don't want to get their hand dirty or want to avoid the after math depending on outcome. It might even be just political pandering or inner circle padding... If something positive happens then they also benefit because "We were morale support guys."

 

[DeadFish]

Relationship status: It's complicated.

The EU has heavily briefed against the UK post-Brexit but I still think there's about a 50% chance they'll agree on a Canada style free trade agreement in the end. Albeit after spending months trying to get the UK to be bound by EU rules judged by EU courts with no say in either.


This has sadly turned out to be true.

Right. The situations dont compare. Europeans may not like each other but are willing to work together.

America could turn into a north and south Korean type deal.

The two cant compare when it comes to law enforcement, benefits, gun laws, tax collection infrastructure stewardship and inter state commerce.

Or how would it affect immigration?
Lets say Im from cali. Just bought a house in Texas. Now cause of election fuckery Texas leaves the Union.

Or just arrived from Mexico and got my green card. Considering non white vote over whelming democrat then how will they be treated?

 

[murdered meat bag]

Hahah dumb nigger, I don't have to prove this election was secure and legit. I don't fucking care if you deny reality; I just want to make you look stupid because you trip over basics. The vote being verified is a direct statement - the election was secure and legit. You've had lots of opportunity to prove it otherwise, and failed.

I don't need to point to official statements without the video. I am pointing to the fact that after the officials referenced the video, there were no further motions regarding this "evidence." The state could not give a shit less whether you accept their statements, because you are neither a judge, a litigant, or an electoral commission member. You have nothing conclusive to present in this argument, just conjecture.

Looks like that 2019 special election... uh. The board voted to redo the race? Basically, the guy broke NC law about ballot harvesting. That ain't just "a bit of fraud." (Also, how NC resolves its electoral shit through its own state courts doesn't fucking matter outside of NC.)

It is a refutation - really, just one line is a refutation. No-one who can compel the state to do it has compelled the state to do it, and no court case has compelled the state to do it. You crying about cheetos don gettin' done dirty does not compel the state to do it. Everything else is icing.

the vote itself is in question, so how could you use it as evidence of legitimacy without stumbling into circular reasoning? The officials referenced the video, just like the lady did. Now are you going to say that officials never lie to investigators? isn't that what got flynn in trouble? or that FBI lawyer? all you have is conjecture and no evidence of a legit election.

the states themselves haven't done anything to prove the election was legit other than saying it was. there are tools to prove so and they haven't used them.

it's not my fault the states haven't bothered to prove they did everything right.

 

[CeleryStalks]

Ohio: "I'm in support of neither party, no I don't know if it's even required for me to file this "
lolwut

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF

View attachment 1779065
View attachment 1779066

As hilarious as that is, this is apparently something that happens on a regular basis.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37

Skimming very quickly through the brief, Ohio doesn't wholly agree with Texas' arguments, but they do want the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the Electors Clause ASAP.
"Although Ohio does not endorse Texas’s proposed relief, it does endorse its call for a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause." - Page 4 (page 10 of the PDF).

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the vote itself is in question, so how could you use it as evidence of legitimacy without stumbling into circular reasoning? The officials referenced the video, just like the lady did. Now are you going to say that officials never lie to investigators? isn't that what got flynn in trouble? or that FBI lawyer? all you have is conjecture and no evidence of a legit election.

the states themselves haven't done anything to prove the election was legit other than saying it was. there are tools to prove so and they haven't used them.

oh my god do I have to explain this too

That someone questions the vote doesn't mean the vote is 'disputed.' If the vote was truly disputed, then states would not have verified their results. No-one fucking cares that such scholars of history and law as the people who slept through those classes are saying that it's disputed. That's the whole fucking reason you need a committee or a court to compel the states to declare their elections contested. Otherwise, you could just say I DON'T BELIEVE IT ! and everythign falls down.

Do you remember earlier, when you said she wasn't lying, but that her evidence was anecdotal? Right, you walked that one back because anecdotal is a retarded thing to say. I said your only response to her rebuttal is "she's lying" because that is what you're doing now. Without the full footage, you cannot say whether the elected official is lying or is not lying. COULD she be? Of course. But. People with access to the full footage have made no further motions.

They have used tools to prove they were legitimate far above and beyond what they needed to. How many of the audits and recounts were mandated by a court? Or a recount law? And how many of them were just courtesy? And when, in 2016, in 2012, in 2008, in 2004, in 2000 did the states audit and recount without being compelled to do so?

 

[murdered meat bag]

lmao the lady in the fucking video made the initial claim. The official rebutted. And then... there was no counter-rebuttal. You don't get to point back to the original thing and go BUT LOOK! LOOK! I SAID THAT FIRST!
The rebuttal is being made to the claims the woman in the video presents. jfc how is this hard

the counter rebuttal is "where is the video that backs up the official's claim?" it's there somewhere but you have to find it. certainly the state won't produce it because it 100% destroys the lady's claims.

 

[HumanHive]

oh my god do I have to explain this too

That someone questions the vote doesn't mean the vote is 'disputed.' If the vote was truly disputed, then states would not have verified their results. No-one fucking cares that such scholars of history and law as the people who slept through those classes are saying that it's disputed. That's the whole fucking reason you need a committee or a court to compel the states to declare their elections contested. Otherwise, you could just say I DON'T BELIEVE IT ! and everythign falls down.

Do you remember earlier, when you said she wasn't lying, but that her evidence was anecdotal? Right, you walked that one back because anecdotal is a retarded thing to say. I said your only response to her rebuttal is "she's lying" because that is what you're doing now. Without the full footage, you cannot say whether the elected official is lying or is not lying. COULD she be? Of course. But. People with access to the full footage have made no further motions.

They have used tools to prove they were legitimate far above and beyond what they needed to. How many of the audits and recounts were mandated by a court? Or a recount law? And how many of them were just courtesy? And when, in 2016, in 2012, in 2008, in 2004, in 2000 did the states audit and recount without being compelled to do so?

“Our elections are secure and lawful because experts tell us so.“

 

[Gehenna]

As hilarious as that is, this is apparently something that happens on a regular basis.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37

Skimming very quickly through the brief, Ohio doesn't wholly agree with Texas' arguments, but they do want the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the Electors Clause ASAP.
"Although Ohio does not endorse Texas’s proposed relief, it does endorse its call for a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause." - Page 4 (page 10 of the PDF).

"The Electors Clause means today what it meant a month ago. Ohio hopes this Court agrees. But either way, the States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted. The People need an answer, too. Until they get one, elections will continue to be plagued by doubts regarding whether the President was chosen in the constitutionally prescribed manner. * Ohio attempted to notify all parties, through the parties’ attorneys, of its intent to file this amicus brief on December 10, 2020. 2 Ohio is submitting this brief under Rule 37.4 to address these points."

The question in full. And it IS a big one.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Wow, Utah's ready to destroy their entire voting system to re-elect Trump. Fucking based *!

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337101425336328195

* lolno, they obviously wouldn't be joining this if there was any chance of success

 

[murdered meat bag]

oh my god do I have to explain this too

That someone questions the vote doesn't mean the vote is 'disputed.' If the vote was truly disputed, then states would not have verified their results. No-one fucking cares that such scholars of history and law as the people who slept through those classes are saying that it's disputed. That's the whole fucking reason you need a committee or a court to compel the states to declare their elections contested. Otherwise, you could just say I DON'T BELIEVE IT ! and everythign falls down.

Do you remember earlier, when you said she wasn't lying, but that her evidence was anecdotal? Right, you walked that one back because anecdotal is a retarded thing to say. I said your only response to her rebuttal is "she's lying" because that is what you're doing now. Without the full footage, you cannot say whether the elected official is lying or is not lying. COULD she be? Of course. But. People with access to the full footage have made no further motions.

They have used tools to prove they were legitimate far above and beyond what they needed to. How many of the audits and recounts were mandated by a court? Or a recount law? And how many of them were just courtesy? And when, in 2016, in 2012, in 2008, in 2004, in 2000 did the states audit and recount without being compelled to do so?

certification is a minisirial formality as explained by the wayne county board of electors, the state ag and the mi election board. it's not possible to not certify the election.

 

[the fall of man]

It SICKENS me.

They’re just prepping their endgame

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the counter rebuttal is "where is the video that backs up the official's claim?" it's there somewhere but you have to find it. certainly the state won't produce it because it 100% destroys the lady's claims.

Oh, it does? You've seen it?

You can FOIA it. It's been provided to the courts and to the committees. And if it's been provided to them, it also means that lawyer lady has it.

Oh, wait. Someone had it from the start, because someone opened up an editor and spliced together the different times and angles. So why haven't any further lawsuits referenced the full video?

certification is a minisirial formality as explained by the wayne county board of electors, the state ag and the mi election board. it's not possible to not certify the election.

So why are lawsuits asking for the courts to force states to decertify their election results?