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]

Either lipservice for the golems or there's a remote possibility they've discovered the leftist cycle of "use, abuse, discard, repeat."
View attachment 1782053View attachment 1782055

"Fam: let them know you're waiting too."
Oh this shit's gonna be good.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Your ability to pretzel logic IS impressive. A shame I never agreed to that. You said CLAIMS of fraud, nothing about it being substantiated.

Let's circle back around here.

The point I was originally making is that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption, which I expanded to default legal assumption. You said that, no, the default legal assumption is nothing. Fair. You also assert that technically, every single US election is in this "nothing can be concluded zone."

Functionally, what happens when you can't substantiate "there was fraud" is that, by common consensus, "there is no fraud" is assumed to be true. And every single US election has, by common consensus, come to be seen as not having fraud when none was proven to be there. So for all intents and purposes, the assumption -is- by common consensus that there was no fraud.

I call it semantic because in a legal sense, sure, it's all, like, nothing. In practical life and use, it may as well be that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption.

 

[DtoDab]

Joggers, when will they learn?
View attachment 1782049

they already got the megacorporation money they needed, they will call the riots again in four years.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Holy shit.

They came for Scott Adams.

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1337452117934493696

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

they already got the megacorporation money they needed, they will call the riots again in four years.

Try next year. The Woke Left has grown into a far more powerful entity then the Corporate Left thought it would, and now it has an army and mind of it's own. They aren't getting useful idiot treated without some major backlash.

 

[Gehenna]

Let's circle back around here.

The point I was originally making is that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption, which I expanded to default legal assumption. You said that, no, the default legal assumption is nothing. Fair. You also assert that technically, every single US election is in this "nothing can be concluded zone."

Functionally, what happens when you can't substantiate "there was fraud" is that, by common consensus, "there is no fraud" is assumed to be true. And every single US election has, by common consensus, come to be seen as not having fraud when none was proven to be there. So for all intents and purposes, the assumption -is- by common consensus that there was no fraud.

I call it semantic because in a legal sense, sure, it's all, like, nothing. In practical life and use, it may as well be that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption.

You have an error here. Common Consensus is that which all members agree upon. As that is in dispute right now, there is no common consensus to fall back upon.

Common Consensus is created after the fact, not during. It literally means "Agreement", if something is disputed it is by definition not a consensus.


So, in essence, if something relies on Common Consensus to be made valid, it is additionally NOT valid if disputed. So no, its still not the default assumption.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

We told blm the dnc doesn't give two shits about you, just because you have a mixed President doesn't mean they care about you.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Try next year. The Woke Left has grown into a far more powerful entity then the Corporate Left thought it would, and now it has an army and mind of it's own. They aren't getting useful idiot treated without some major backlash.

They ignored the core rule of Diversity Hiring 101: never put them in leadership roles.

 

[Pompano Mike]

The Supreme Court really should take this case up. It raises legitimate questions about the Electors Clause and is now seen by the nation as THE lawsuit addressing this election. I'm honestly not sure why the Dems in this thread are shitting on it so much, because you'd think that they'd want all the litigation definitively put to bed so that there's absolutely no rhetorical cover for the Trump die-hards to insist that there's still a chance. Why would the Biden supporters not want that kind of victory if they're so smug about how weak the case is?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

You have an error here. Common Consensus is that which all members agree upon. As that is in dispute right now, there is no common consensus to fall back upon.

Common Consensus is created after the fact, not during. It literally means "Agreement", if something is disputed it is by definition not a consensus.


So, ion essence, if something relies on Common Consensus to be made valid, it is additionally NOT valid if disputed. So no, its still not the default assumption.

"All members" don't agree on 2016 as being valid, either. Was 2016 inconclusive?

But to clarify, let's look at common consensus split between the total US population and between those legal entities and bodies which can actually influence elections here, just to get the definitions down more clear. By the former, 2016 is in dispute. By the latter, 2016 is not in dispute.

 

[Meat Target]

The Supreme Court really should take this case up. It raises legitimate questions about the Electors Clause and is now seen by the nation as THE lawsuit addressing this election. I'm honestly not sure why the Dems in this thread are shitting on it so much, because you'd think that they'd want all the litigation definitively put to bed so that there's absolutely no rhetorical cover for the Trump die-hards to insist that there's still a chance. Why would the Biden supporters not want that kind of victory if they're so smug about how weak the case is?

They can't acknowledge the possibility that conservatives might be right about something. That's "bothsidesism" and "giving a platform to baseless conthpeeracee theeorees".

Because they live by lies, they cannot allow any unflattering truths about themselves to get in the door.

 

[MrJokerRager]

We told blm the dnc doesn't give two shits about you, just because you have a mixed President doesn't mean they care about you.

Spend about 15 minutes with your average urban nigger and you will find out why they live in shit.

They are the new slaves of the democratic party.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

We told blm the dnc doesn't give two shits about you, just because you have a mixed President doesn't mean they care about you.

To be fair, they technically care about them as much as any other useful idiot voter for the dnc. The problem is that BLM had way higher expectations of reality making them delusional idiots. I can't actually fault the dnc for their behavior on this one like what are they going to clamor for, equal rights go to Biden and he'll do his weasel grin and be like "You already are." Then send them away in an angry outburst?

BLM played themselves thinking they were important more than they actually are, or thinking they had some righteous cause that doesn't exist. One of the few things I'll give the dnc credit and an applause for. (Even if they created them basically but regardless)

 

[Gehenna]

"All members" don't agree on 2016 as being valid, either. Was 2016 inconclusive?

But to clarify, let's look at common consensus split between the total US population and between those legal entities and bodies which can actually influence elections here, just to get the definitions down more clear. By the former, 2016 is in dispute. By the latter, 2016 is not in dispute.

This is a good element to go off of. While I could argue either side, I'll throw a bone and say that both of these are technically true, though I'd side more with the latter than the former. The reasoning being that there are no sustained claims of fraud or illegitimacy.

I never saw many people claim that Trump won illegally or fraudulently, they had a full investigation into the only lingering question that found nothing. They claim he was awful, but not that he hadn't won fair and square. Or at least have not sustained any claims of such.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If Democrats want DC and Puerto Rico, then any collection of red counties should be states.

Real balkanizing hours.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

"New California State and New Nevada State are directly impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures occur with unfortunate regularity in the current States of California and Nevada.Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome (California)and Sisolak (Nevada)."

What the heck??

I guess they're seceding from California and Nevada to form New California and New Nevada. It seems ... Wait. What the fuck?

The interesting thing about this is it shows the dangers that secession can become fractal. So if CA leaves the US, NCA might decide to leave CA and rejoin the US and then bits of NCA might decide to leave it to join CA.

Joggers, when will they learn?

If Biden gets in BLM is getting Homan Squared. If Trump gets in they'll get Insurrection Act'd.

We told blm the dnc doesn't give two shits about you, just because you have a mixed President doesn't mean they care about you.

Homan Square happened when Obama's buddy Rahm Emmanuel was running Chicago. A literal black site on US soil and the US media refused to talk about it. Only the Guardian in the UK did, and that was probably because some middle class, white, far left types go detained.

Real balkanizing hours.

There are some people who claim Texas has the right to split into smaller states

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

Proponents of the right of Texas to divide itself in order to create new states without Congressional approval argue that the resolution of 1845, a bill which passed both houses of Congress, stands as Congressional "pre-approval" under the terms of the Constitution for formation of such new states. This interpretation of the statute is disputed by opponents.[3]

Strategically it would be better for Democrats to concede rather than have Biden flop around like a fish in the White House.

Probably, but they won't. They'll keep flogging this dead horse until inauguration day and probably for at least four years after that if by some miracle Trump gets back in. Like they did with Bush after 2000.

Then again if I were a Republican I'd never acknowledge Biden was legitimately elected, even if he does get in.

 

[All becomes gunt]

Since it's such a nothingburger why do the feds try to intervene with legal blackmail. Since it's such a nothingburger why do state legislatures release statements that are ambiguous as to whether they cheated or not instead of outright denying. If it's such a nothingburger why did they get caught with their dick in the cookie jar changing election laws to coincidentally enable all "this". What now shills ?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

This is a good element to go off of. While I could argue either side, I'll throw a bone and say that both of these are technically true, though I'd side more with the latter than the former. The reasoning being that there are no sustained claims of fraud or illegitimacy.

I never saw many people claim that Trump won illegally or fraudulently, they had a full investigation into the only lingering question that found nothing. They claim he was awful, but not that he hadn't won fair and square. Or at least have not sustained any claims of such.

This may be a difference of one's perspective - I'm in a more liberal area, so I saw many many people who were certain and convinced that Trump was not legitimately the president. The Mueller report falling through and impeachment being a plainly political exercise did not dissuade them, and they are not a small amount of people. To this day they'll say that Hillary was the rightful president, and that something unconstitutional (though they can't explain precisely what) happened to get in cheetos don.

By contrast, all legal bodies concerned acknowledge that Trump was the legitimate president, as no fraud (or other disqualifying) claims were sustained. In the end, this is more the angle that I am arguing from than the angle of popular opinion.

 

[Dr J]

The fact that Hunter got charged shows the Joe ship is sinking. If the FBI knew he was going to POTUS and would have pardon power they'd never have charged his son. And the media would have said any allegations against him are a conspiracy theory.

Since he's been charged and the media are reporting it, itimplies that Joe might not be POTUS.

This could be like Comey bringing up those Clinton emails one week before the election. Comey said he did it because he was convinced that HillDawg was going to win and wanted to absolve her before she took office, and is such an idiot that he didn't realise bringing up yet more evidence of Clinton's misdeeds was going to hurt her chances at getting elected.

They announce they're looking into Hunter for various misdeeds and then, before his dad's inauguration, announce that they could find no evidence of wrongdoing, thereby lifting any cloud over Biden's Presidency. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of him obviously cheating his way into office. But don't worry, they'll do the same thing there too.

Strategically it would be better for Democrats to concede rather than have Biden flop around like a fish in the White House.

Concession would be the honourable thing to do, least of all because he fucking cheated, but if Biden were honourable he wouldn't have cheated in the first place.

I'm honestly not sure why the Dems in this thread are shitting on it so much

Because they know they're in the wrong