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.
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Right, you don't have to prove your innocence - innocence is baseline. If we assume that there is no baseline, you would have to prove your innocence.
The election being innocent would mean that it was not fraudulent; IE, that's the default assumption.
Of course, yes, "most secure ever" is superlative and would require comparison to other elections; that claim isn't a baseline. But just "there was no fraud" is the baseline.
Click to expand...
The election is under no such presumption though, nor is there any mechanism to create such an assumption.

This is literally "If we assume I am right, then I am right".
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, murdered meat bag and heyitsmike
Gustav Schuchardt said:
Here's a question no one has answered. Let's suppose the SCOTUS kicks it back to the PAGAMIWI state legislatures. Those are all Republican majority but there's the perennial problem of RINOs.

Does anyone know how likely those are to vote for Trump, or for Biden, or for not sending electors?

E.g. in PA Doug Mastriano wanted to have a special session to investigate the election but the state-level GOP leadership stopped it. However does anyone know how many Republicans support him? Look at the numbers here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_General_Assembly

View attachment 1781935

It looks likely to me that a relatively small number of Republicans need vote with the Democrats on a motion to not change the existing elector choice.

As a lot of people in this thread have pointed out this is not completely terrible. The SCOTUS kicking it back to them like this and them getting a vote sends a signal that conducting elections where the state legislature is ignored is unacceptable and sets a precedent that the remedy for this is that the state legislature has to decide what to do.

I think it means we're not heading into a grim uniparty dystopia but rather we're going to have two years of Biden, midterms and then two more years of Biden. It's unlikely the PAGAMIWI state legislatures will allow things to go as badly wrong in future elections.
Click to expand...

This is the outcome that avoids a melt down. The left still "wins", but they get their dicks slapped and the right can console itself with the fact the constitution was ultimately followed and that elections going foreword will actually follow the rules rather then the shenanigans we saw this year. Nobody will be happy but nobody will want to blow up the country either.

Avoiding a melt down is what the Supreme court wants, and they will act in that direction no matter what the law may or may not say. The worry for them in this scenario is the state legislatures reverse their popular vote results causing a meltdown on the left.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Disagree
  • DRINK!
Reactions: SnackFairy, ConfederateIrishman, Dr J and 6 others
Gehenna said:
The election is under no such presumption though, no is there any mechanism to create such an assumption.
Click to expand...
Which entities are afforded such presumption in US law and which entities are not?
Corporations and businesses are afforded this presumption. Government bodies are afforded this presumption.
Electoral committees are government bodies, and they are afforded this presumption.
"The election" is not being sued - the state governments and judiciaries and electorial committees and so-on are the defendants.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: good pussy and secret watcher
Screenshot_20201211-114045_Brave.jpg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: George Geef, A Useless Fish, HamFan and 27 others
I-chi said:
I keep refreshing and biting my nails. This is getting more interesting AND more terrifying by the minute.
Click to expand...
How about go outside and smell the cold air. Your life today will not change no matter what outcome you’re optimistic for because dopamine leads to the ‘tism.
One last thing, during the election knowing what my gay state was going to do with mail in ballots my optimism was in limbo, so knowing that these officials and politicians are fags... The SCOTUS decision will more than likely be an overhyped nothingburger.

-P.S.
Amy Milf Barret probably cares more about her family than ruling against the establishment, simp.
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Which entities are afforded such presumption in US law and which entities are not?
Corporations and businesses are afforded this presumption. Government bodies are afforded this presumption.
Electoral committees are government bodies, and they are afforded this presumption.
"The election" is not being sued - the state governments and judiciaries and electorial committees and so-on are the defendants.
Click to expand...
Those being dragged through a court of law on criminal charges.

I'd note that the fraud cases are in CIVIL court.

This is why OJ got off on criminal charges, but was successfully sued.
 
Meat Target said:
If they cucked once, they'll cuck again.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The last time it was a few people in the state executive. Now we're talking about the legislature. We know that average Republicans think the election was bogus. We know the state executive Republicans have mostly wanted to wave it through. The legislature is somewhere in between but no one knows where.

Unfortunately for the election result to be overturned you'd need the vast majority of state legislatures to do it, and the media will obviously pressure them not to.

I could see the SCOTUS kicking it back to the state legislatures and then this failing in enough states that Biden still has 270.

Now Congress could still challenge it but it's not a good sign if the challenge fails at the state legislature level.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, SnackFairy and 8 others
Gehenna said:
The election is under no such presumption though, nor is there any mechanism to create such an assumption.

This is literally "If we assume I am right, then I am right".
Click to expand...
Precisely. The "most secure election ever" line is backed only by "the Experts™️ say so". It relies on appeals to authority and circular arguments.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, heyitsmike and 1 other person
mindlessobserver said:
This is the outcome that avoids a melt down. The left still "wins", but they get their dicks slapped and the right can console itself with the fact the constitution was ultimately followed and that elections going foreword will actually follow the rules rather then the shenanigans we saw this year. Nobody will be happy but nobody will want to blow up the country either.

Avoiding a melt down is what the Supreme court wants, and they will act in that direction no matter what the law may or may not say. The worry for them in this scenario is the state legislatures reverse their popular vote results causing a meltdown on the left.
Click to expand...
The meltdown will keep on happening. A government in control of Biden and his cabal will do a shitload of damage combined with lower turnout for the GOP if the primaries to get rid of RINOs fail. Also Georgia goes to the democrats. The GOP base wants Trump otherwise what is the point of not conceding this while time to stop election fraud being rewarded.

Nixon cucked in 1960 and we all saw what happened to the GOP after.

Edit: Biden in office is enuff for them and the rigging will continue. The new AG will go after conservative groups more and drop all voter fraud investigations.
 
  • Like
  • Late
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, ConfederateIrishman and 7 others
Gehenna said:
Those being dragged through a court of law on criminal charges.

I'd note that the fraud cases are in CIVIL court.

This is why OJ got off on criminal charges, but was successfully sued.
Click to expand...

You'd definitely bring criminal charges against anyone staffing committees which were found guilty of fraud.

Is this just a technicality, then? That government bodies cannot be charged criminally? Or that fraud as defined as a crime enacted by individuals, not bodies?

This circles back around to the original argument, then. Assuming that all fraud complaints would be wedged in civil court, where no such presumption exists, how were any elections prior to 2020 certified as secure? The baseline being apparently nothing, a lack of fraud would not as such certify them as secure but rather as just existing. Are they all functionally unable to be called secure?
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: good pussy, ThatOneLurker, GenericReviewerDraco and 1 other person
Rich Evans Apologist said:
You'd definitely bring criminal charges against anyone staffing committees which were found guilty of fraud.

Is this just a technicality, then? That government bodies cannot be charged criminally? Or that fraud is defined as a crime enacted by individuals, not bodies?

This circles back around to the original argument, then. Assuming that all fraud complaints would be wedged in civil court, where no such presumption exists, how were any elections prior to 2020 certified as secure? The baseline being apparently nothing, a lack of fraud would not as such certify them as secure but rather as just existing. Are they all functionally unable to be called secure?
Click to expand...
Yes to both, but also not just a technicality. Committing Fraud is Separate from Being Convicted of Fraud. And claiming "There is no fraud" isn't dealing with an individual, its dealing with an asserted fact. You don't get presumption of innocence here.

The only reason we HAVE presumption of innocence was because we, as a people, decided that forcing someone to prove their own innocence was wrong.

You don't GET to have that when making claims.
 
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, ThatOneLurker and 1 other person
Gehenna said:
Thankfully, not possible. The Chief Justice position goes to whoever is the most senior judge in the SC. Obama would die well before others currently on the bench do.
Click to expand...
Bush nominated Roberts straight to Chief Justice after Rehnquist died. Roberts wasn't even on the court prior to that, Bush wanted him for the seat he ultimately gave to Alito instead

In fact I find that Chief Justices aren't typically prior Associate Justices
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, ThatOneLurker and 2 others
To be fair (why? Well, in the spirit of honesty) they WERE investigating the Texas AG since October. However, the timing of it is all too coincidental for me.
Ruin said:
This year the FBI has really dropped the mask and isn't even pretending to not be the DNC's Stasi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its extremely partisan and pretty obviously so.
XYZpdq said:
I get the impression this is sorta CIA vs FBI under the surface.
Like that chatter about how Joe Biden might have been the one who outed the couple dozen glows in China who got killed, FBI doing nothing about Hunter's laptop.
I dunno.
Click to expand...
CIA vs. FBI pissing matches are nothing new. What would be a shocker is them actually working thogether.
Marchesa_ofthe_Vast said:
The same FBI that hid the Hunter Biden laptop and ran with the Russia Hoax for 2 years. Talk about a trash partisan organization. We should have ended it 80 years ago once it dealt with the mob.
Click to expand...
Hoover really fucked it up badly. He basically made his own private investigative service. Hoover is the reason the FBI has strict director controls in place.
 
  • DRINK!
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vyse Inglebard, Jaimas and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back