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

[Syaoran Li]

View attachment 1781709
Yep it's there. Are they trying to get rid of Joe early or do they feel the ship is sinking?

Tucker says it's because they preparing the ground for Biden to resign so Kamala takes over.

The other possibility is they are playing the optics game and pretending to be un-biased hoping that it will get people to trust them again, and if they succeed people are dumb enough that it might just work. Something something attention span of gold fish these days.

Why not all three?

If Trump gets to win via SCOTUS, they've got the cover story for the MSM to throw Biden under the bus and absolve Kamala and the DNC of any wrongdoing.

If Biden's still in even after SCOTUS, they've got the cover needed to get Kamala in ASAP

In the meantime, it can be a convenient cover for the MSM to downplay the severity of the SCOTUS case and provide a scandal distraction that isn't just more fatigue-inducing Covid coverage (especially since the new vaccine has taken the wind out of that one)

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?)

I'd say it has more to do with Biden being senile, elderly, and in very poor health while Kamala is textbook DNC establishment and highly mercenary so she can pander to the Progressives to get what the Dems want and then purge them via gerrymandering, primarying, or some other type of de facto disenfranchisement when they're no longer useful.

 

[All becomes gunt]

They don't provide any evidence, still to this day. Sorry, but president-elect Biden is your next president. Biden 2020, fuck your feelings, snowflake

I dont know what makes you this rabid in your support of this geriatric that you just bury your head in the sand at everything that's being presented so far. Hey pinkie promise, i am not gonna tell your supervisor at whatever crackshack shill house you happen to work in, you can speak freely here.

 

[murdered meat bag]

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

do you think the issue is mail-in ballots?

 

[I-chi]

They don't provide any evidence, still to this day. Sorry, but president-elect Biden is your next president. Biden 2020, fuck your feelings, snowflake

Now THAT right there is the prime definition of Mad At The Internet.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

the converse is also true, the 6 states haven't provided evidence they conducted a legit election.

That's now it works. The onus is on the person trying to prove the fraud occurred. You can't prove something didn't happen... Like, you can't prove that you didn't fuck a horse last night.

 

[Blake Chortles]

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

The point is its not Texa's job to police other state's election runnings. They can only sue if those actually materially affected them in some way. Its why I can't sue someone in Maine for shoplifting, it didn't harm me and I ain't the police.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Now THAT right there is the prime definition of Mad At The Internet.

Nah, that's just more low effort bait

The point is its not Texa's job to police other state's election runnings. They can only sue if those actually materially affected them in some way. Its why I can't sue someone in Maine for shoplifting, it didn't harm me and I ain't the police.

How didn't it harm them, though? They would still be overriding the will of the people, which is what Texas claims their suit is about. Texas even claims it's not because Trump lost (lol).

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

What makes you think that?

I updated the post having read Texas filing. Basically I think their case will be convincing to the Republican majority on the SCOTUS.

I still like the idea that states with a Republican legislature pass legislation awarding the winner of the electoral college votes to the candidate who won the most counties, not the most votes. You'd describe it as an 'intrastate Electoral College' and claim it reduces the temptation to ballot stuff in large cities. Also like the interstate Electoral College, it prevents a tyranny of the urban over the rural.

If the Democrats complain about it, and they most certainly will, just point out that if they control the legislature they can go back to determining electoral college votes by the popular vote. Interestingly Maine and Nebraska already allocate their electoral votes in non 'winner of the popular vote takes all' way based on congressional districts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-nebraska-electoral-vote-splits-2020-election/

Maine and Nebraska are the only states in the nation that split their Electoral College votes. Maine awards two of its four electoral votes to the statewide winner, but also allocates an electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of its two congressional districts. Nebraska gives two of its five electoral votes to the statewide winner, with the remaining three going to the popular vote winner in each of its three congressional districts.

 

[Esophagus]

Glad to see you are back, Corbin. Try to not get banned this time

Take your pills schizo.

 

[Blake Chortles]

How didn't it harm them, though? They would still be overriding the will of the people, which is what Texas claims their suit is about. Texas even claims it's not because Trump lost (lol).

It didn't materially harm them because they voted for Trump, which is what Texas' citizens voted for. Texas has no standing in whether or not Montana fucked over its citizens, they aren't the election police.

This entire suit is about protecting Texas citizen's voice in choosing the President.

This really isn't that hard to understand. Its really really basic.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

View attachment 1781764

I didn't read MI's brief yet but LOL if this is true.

"So there was fraud?"
"Most likely"
"So we can be sure Biden did not win fairly or legally?"
"We can neither can confirm nor deny it"
Someone needs to make a Manta Ray and Patrick version of this.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Take your pills schizo.

Try not to faildox someone this time. It was hilarious, but you don't want to get banned again

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

 

[Esophagus]

Try not to faildox someone this time. It was hilarious, but you don't want to get banned again

No matter the amount of austistic flailing you do, I won't transform into this Corbin you keep blabbering about. Get help.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

No matter the amount of austistic flailing you do, I won't transform into this Corbin you keep blabbering about. Get help.

Hi, Corbin! You should've at least registered the account before you got banned this time, so it wasn't so obvious

 

[murdered meat bag]

That's now it works. The onus is on the person trying to prove the fraud occurred. You can't prove something didn't happen... Like, you can't prove that you didn't fuck a horse last night.

the positive version of "there is no fraud" is "this is a legitimate election". if you're saying this election was legit the burden of proof is on you to show it; You're proving that the election happened legitimately.

the negative version of "there was voter fraud" is "this is not a legitimate election". can't prove a negative so trumpers are right.

 

[I-chi]

Nah, that's just more low effort bait

And yet you're chomping at that hook every chance you get, baby.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

the positive version of "there is no fraud" is "this is a legitimate election". if you're saying this election was legit the burden of proof is on you to show it; You're proving that the election happened legitimately.

the negative version of "there was voter fraud" is "this is not a legitimate election". can't prove a negative so trumpers are right.

That's 100% not how it works. In a court, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something happened. Thus, the onus is on Trump's team to prove fraud did happen.

The police don't go to your house and say "prove you didn't murder someone". They instead have to prove you did murder someone.

If I claim that you fuck a horse, the onus is on me to claim you did fuck a horse. Not on you to prove that you didn't fuck a horse

And yet you're chomping at that hook every chance you get, baby.

You seem less mad today, little guy. Did your mommy remember to get honey mustard for your tendies?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the positive version of "there is no fraud" is "this is a legitimate election". if you're saying this election was legit the burden of proof is on you to show it; You're proving that the election happened legitimately.

One election where this occurred. Name it. Point to the case or the procedure by which it was proven legitimate and would not have been legitimate otherwise.

(I'm mostly just keeping an eye out for when the SCOTUS makes a statement to the clown car, but this is a particularly retarded assertion.)

 

[Boobie Bomb]

So suicide baiting retard RowdyCMoore just admitted that his bullshit caused him to lose friends on Facebook. WHAT A SHOCK!