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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's more some Republican governors are afraid of where this is heading too, and are trying to stop this ahead of time (Too late! Thank goodness), what they don't realize is being a lazy slob and STILL trying to kick the can down the road isn't going to work this time. Now I'm starting to understand why Republican (at least the elites) are considered lower intelligence when it comes to social education/skills. Some of them are such hardy fence sitters that even Tim Pool would be proud or awed.
They are fence sitting so hard that they have a picket fence up their ass at this point.
 
I reckon their just trying to get Kamala in and cripple threats picture is becoming eerily accurate. So the biden ship possibly is sinking but the democrat presidency is not sinking. Now the hilarity comes when Kamala announces Hillary as her VP (see what i did there?)
Joe's not gonna make it to Inauguration Day, is he?
 
They are fence sitting so hard that they have a picket fence up their ass at this point.
That's beginner level fence sitting, At this point they've probably halfway fused with the fence post or attempting to make it a a parasite that lives off their life force. "We are one with the fence"
 
Correct, but security frauds are generally federal crime. He is being investigated at the federal level.
Quick googling, the federal charges against him were dismissed. His charges are in fact state level.

Correction: Prior charges were dismissed, the current ones are just state level and he hasn't been charged federally on them.
 
There are still people that do not understand what the lawsuit means while going on about it like 40 year Constitutional lawyers:

From Barnes quick rundown:

Texas sued these 4 states, but not NV and AZ because they decided to change election laws through the court system and not through the legislature, which is outlined directly in the Constitution that it can only be done via legislature. They cannot sue NV because they passed the extended dates of VBM via legislature. I do not know the specifics of AZ.

Texas sued because by violating the Constitution, it instills a president that wasn't installed evenally through Constitutional methods.

The Constitution is essentially a contract between states on how they conduct business. Binding contracts when broken, in the case as something as small as Vic getting booted off the anime scene, to as large as this, require remedies if agreed if the contract has been violated. The outlined remedy in the Constitution and in the lawsuit is election by state delegation.

Fraud is secondary to this. It's a pure Constitutional question. That's why some are nervous about this: it requires NO proof of fraud to be ruled and there are 5 Constitutionalists on the SC.
 
Joe's not gonna make it to Inauguration Day, is he?

I think they have to get him there, but he's not longed for this world would be my guess. Who knows the second he gets sworn in maybe some fed shoots him in the back of the head on live tv. I mean 2020 has been crazy might as well wait for a crazier 2021.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PepsiVanilla
I've always wondered about the idea that it would somehow be more advantageous to the Democrats to have Kamala Harris sitting in the big chair rather than Joe Biden. Joe has been a company man for decades and has never exhibited a personality that indicates he would ever balk at or go against what the party leadership wants him to do. Of course, Harris is the same way, so really they seem interchangeable to me: quintessential team player insiders. Is it just that Harris is a strongbrave brown woman, and somehow that means that her executive decisions would be worth more than identical ones made by Biden? Surely that isn't the consideration. (It is, isn't it?)
 
"Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters"

"We are just asking you to throw out the will of the majority of the Defendant State's voters, but we aren't asking you to disenfranchise them!"
mi done fucke dup - Copy.png


I didn't read MI's brief yet but LOL if this is true.
 
I've always wondered about the idea that it would somehow be more advantageous to the Democrats to have Kamala Harris sitting in the big chair rather than Joe Biden. Joe has been a company man for decades and has never exhibited a personality that indicates he would ever balk at or go against what the party leadership wants him to do. Of course, Harris is the same way, so really they seem interchangeable to me: quintessential team player insiders. Is it just that Harris is a strongbrave brown woman, and somehow that means that her executive decisions would be worth more than identical ones made by Biden? Surely that isn't the consideration. (It is, isn't it?)
Having an old white man bomb countries full of brown people is faux pas these days. We need to start seeing women of color bomb countries full of brown people!
 
SEC is a federal crime. The FBI is investigating it.

The same flaw would also apply to Montana and other Republican states, though. So therefore, Texas should list those states too. Just because they went Texas's way, they won't, though

To make it past step 1 of suing someone, you have to show that your allegations, if true, harmed you in some way. So Texas really can't get anywhere suing Montana because they can't demonstrate how they were harmed by it. Texas is not the police, they are suing as an aggreived and harmed party.

This is really basic legal shit 101 dude.
 
To make it past step 1 of suing someone, you have to show that your allegations, if true, harmed you in some way. So Texas really can't get anywhere suing Montana because they can't demonstrate how they were harmed by it. Texas is not the police, they are suing as an aggreived and harmed party.

This is really basic legal shit 101 dude.
Except, they were still harmed. If Montana didn't follow the allegations, they were still harmed because their will was still not done by their same logic. Just because it didn't go there way they didn't include them. If they threw out the votes from the 4 states, Montana's and a bunch of others will get thrown out, too
 
Yeah, you tell a bunch of Texans stationed at Fort Hood to go shoot up the people resisting, the kind of people they call friends and family, and see how well that goes.

The biggest winner in such a situation would be recruiters for the Texas National Guard, who will make their quota for the entire decade by lunch time.

And they do have tanks.
Isn't Texas the only state with its own military not under direct orders of the federal government/subject to federal activation? The Texas State Guard if I recall correctly.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Agree with the sentiment, but it's ACKTCHUALLY refuted by this very image. Look at Vermont. There's only one blip of red.
Isn't Texas the only state with its own military not under direct orders of the federal government/subject to federal activation? The Texas State Guard if I recall correctly.
AFAIK all National Guard/state militias are under the command of their respective state governors, but can be commandeered by the federal govt. when demanded, because they are extensions of the US Army Reserves.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back