Official Election 2020 Doomsday Thread

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Who wins on November 3rd? (Zeitgeist, not who you're voting for)

  • Expecting a Trump win.

    Votes: 978 45.7%

  • Expecting a Biden win.

    Votes: 277 12.9%

  • Expecting no clear winner on November 3rd.

    Votes: 885 41.4%
  • Total voters
    2,140
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Texas reply.

It's definitely a little odd to be trying to make a counterargument before your case is accepted, but not beyond the pale. Granted, from leafing through on the side, it's mostly "the defendants are wrong because they assume that Biden won the presidency is true, but we are correct because we assert that fraud has happened in our case and that's as good as proof."
 
  • Informative
  • Dumb
Reactions: revmoo and ConfederateIrishman
Rich Evans Apologist said:
The Texas reply.

It's definitely a little odd to be trying to make a counterargument before your case is accepted, but not beyond the pale. Granted, from leafing through on the side, it's mostly "the defendants are wrong because they assume that Biden won the presidency is true, but we are correct because we assert that fraud has happened in our case and that's as good as proof."
Click to expand...
"Hey guys we don't have evidence as fraud but we say there and that itself is all we need to sue."


Litteraly the most retarded thing ever.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: BSC and revmoo
Gezkill said:
"Hey guys we don't have evidence as fraud but we say there and that itself is all we need to sue."


Litteraly the most retarded thing ever.
Click to expand...
It's enough to sue if they were to try to prove fraud, and they were alleging that the fraud was so widespread that this was what was going to cause damage to Texas. But that's really not what they're trying to do - they threw all of the fraud shit in there and now they're trying to argue a specific interpretation of "up to the state legislatures" months and months after they could have raised stink about this provision having been violated through the exact same manner that they are currently going through.

It seems to me like their hope is to use the fraud accusations to get a hearing, which themselves have not shown merit; from there, they hope to substantiate these claims about election law violations, which themselves would not get a hearing due to coming so incredibly late from when states actually made these changes.
 
  • Dumb
  • Informative
Reactions: Nom Carver and revmoo
This is great.

1607704483476.png


"All this has been litigated and thrown out of dozens of other courts, both state and federal, but TEXAS wasn't there so it doesn't count."
And I suppose Florida, and Alabama, and Mississippi and so on and so on will make the same argument until they finally get the result they want.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: revmoo
Anyone know if there's any credence to this, or is this easily disputed? I know Twitter says it's disputed, but I clicked that and it didn't tell me anything on how it's been disputed.
Edit: Found a reply to this from the op
download.pngScreenshot_3.png
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: BSC
Just so I know which posters in this thread are mentally which posters are trolling and is anyone here a nazi and or jewish?
 
northstar747 said:
Just so I know which posters in this thread are mentally which posters are trolling and is anyone here a nazi and or jewish?
Click to expand...
I'm just excited about the election, it's been top rate sperging from officials.

Anyways, more on those tweets I found, I found that on the supreme court site there's apparently been a lawsuit or something something legal jargon, it looks like it's just allegations for now, too lazy to read through the entire document but on page 12 it says that supposedly there's 174k votes unaccounted for in Michigan

I apologize if this has already been covered or discussed!

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_1.png
    Screenshot_1.png
    171.3 KB · Views: 38
  • Dumb
Reactions: BSC
seckdeck said:
I'm just excited about the election, it's been top rate sperging from officials.

Anyways, more on those tweets I found, I found that on the supreme court site there's apparently been a lawsuit or something something legal jargon, it looks like it's just allegations for now, too lazy to read through the entire document but on page 12 it says that supposedly there's 174k votes unaccounted for in Michigan

I apologize if this has already been covered or discussed!

Click to expand...
It’s something that they’ve said but haven’t backed up in any court case yet. Including cases in Michigan. The number has also somehow increased. Like twice.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: seckdeck
Techpriest said:
It’s something that they’ve said but haven’t backed up in any court case yet. Including cases in Michigan. The number has also somehow increased. Like twice.
Click to expand...

And you know if the court ever hears oral arguments on this thing, one of the very first things they're going to ask when addressing standing is "why wasn't this raised in the state courts?"
Just because this is the only place Texas can bring the suit, doesn't mean it's the only venue the matter can be raised at all. I can't imagine the supreme court is going to look kindly on a suit that would involve weeks of discovery and fresh examination of evidence.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: revmoo and ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛
Norvic said:
And you know if the court ever hears oral arguments on this thing, one of the very first things they're going to ask when addressing standing is "why wasn't this raised in the state courts?"
Just because this is the only place Texas can bring the suit, doesn't mean it's the only venue the matter can be raised at all. I can't imagine the supreme court is going to look kindly on a suit that would involve weeks of discovery and fresh examination of evidence.
Click to expand...
The answer would be the standing/lache thing.
Which then prompts "Were these judgments made in error?"

Boy, I wouldn't want to have to argue that one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛
seckdeck said:
Anyone know if there's any credence to this, or is this easily disputed? I know Twitter says it's disputed, but I clicked that and it didn't tell me anything on how it's been disputed.
Edit: Found a reply to this from the op
View attachment 1782201View attachment 1782211
Click to expand...

So, it must be real because the crazy man who filed the lawsuit submitted it as evidence?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛
AAAAAAAAND DENIED.

Dec 11 2020The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
 
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, BSC, ConfederateIrishman and 3 others
Norvic said:
AAAAAAAAND DENIED.

Dec 11 2020The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Click to expand...
Wow. Nobody could have predicted that.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman and Andrew Neiman
Norvic said:
AAAAAAAAND DENIED.

Dec 11 2020The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Click to expand...
@revmoo you failed your boy, shameful
 
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
Reactions: big ups liquid richard, Route 79, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and 1 other person
I haven't been paying all that much attention recently, what states had recounts go through? Were there any even?
 
  • Late
Reactions: BSC
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back