not my OC. But I really think this poster has a great point...
Do people not realize that the SC decision on Texas is designed to set precident? (QRV)
submitted 2.4 hours ago by 4156377?
In the case where swing states flip, CA flips, electors vote contradictory to "certified results", or other "extraordinary events" take place and Trump is given the win, Blue states would immediately sue the "offending" Red states. But now the SC has demonstrated that it's not interested in states suing other states on the basis of their elections.
Any would-be lawsuits brought by Blue states on that basis are now moot before they begin. The news media, having widely reported and applauded the Texas decision, would be forced to reverse their own script if the SC denied a Blue state complaint. Optics.
Wtf is wrong with you retards?
Holy shit, you truly are retards. "But the media and dems are ALWAYS contradicting themselves!!1! It makes no difference!!"
The purpose of counter-propaganda is NOT to prevent the media from contradicting themselves. It's to force them to choose between a contradictory narrative and the truth. The brainwashed viewer is benefited by either one. If the enemy habitually lies, you bait them into behavior that will contradict their next lie. In this way, they are made reactionary and appear schizophrenic.
This creates a GRADUAL and unstoppable erosion of credibility (no longer taken seriously).
This creates a GRADUAL and unstoppable mass deprogramming (no longer passively accepting).
Do we need a Baby's First Counter-Propaganda Lesson in the sidebar? FFS.
You don't stop your enemy from pursuing an objective. You make the object of their pursuit self-destructive.
You don't destroy the slave-master. You destroy the means by which they enslave.
I think there's a little bit of merit to the idea that this court ruling sets a precedent that one state cannot claim that it has been disenfranchised by the election of another state.
What they are not saying is that within a state, voters of one side can be disenfranchised by voters of another side when there are unconstitutional election laws in place.
So within a state, there is standing, but Texas is too removed from Georgia to claim its voters (or electoral votes) have reasonably been injured by the voters or votes of Georgia.
thus, if one state cast its electoral votes differently than its constitutionally compromised popular vote would suggest, that state cannot be challenged by other states.
I feel SCOTUS is like a parent telling its kids to keep their hands to themselves.
not my OC. But I really think this poster has a great point...
Do people not realize that the SC decision on Texas is designed to set precident? (QRV)
submitted 2.4 hours ago by 4156377?
In the case where swing states flip, CA flips, electors vote contradictory to "certified results", or other "extraordinary events" take place and Trump is given the win, Blue states would immediately sue the "offending" Red states. But now the SC has demonstrated that it's not interested in states suing other states on the basis of their elections.
Any would-be lawsuits brought by Blue states on that basis are now moot before they begin. The news media, having widely reported and applauded the Texas decision, would be forced to reverse their own script if the SC denied a Blue state complaint. Optics.
Wtf is wrong with you retards?
Holy shit, you truly are retards. "But the media and dems are ALWAYS contradicting themselves!!1! It makes no difference!!"
The purpose of counter-propaganda is NOT to prevent the media from contradicting themselves. It's to force them to choose between a contradictory narrative and the truth. The brainwashed viewer is benefited by either one. If the enemy habitually lies, you bait them into behavior that will contradict their next lie. In this way, they are made reactionary and appear schizophrenic.
This creates a GRADUAL and unstoppable erosion of credibility (no longer taken seriously).
This creates a GRADUAL and unstoppable mass deprogramming (no longer passively accepting).
Do we need a Baby's First Counter-Propaganda Lesson in the sidebar? FFS.
You don't stop your enemy from pursuing an objective. You make the object of their pursuit self-destructive.
You don't destroy the slave-master. You destroy the means by which they enslave.
So you're saying that now a red precinct in California needs to find 800,000 Trump votes they just forgot to count before?
I have to give you that one
I think there's a little bit of merit to the idea that this court ruling sets a precedent that one state cannot claim that it has been disenfranchised by the election of another state.
What they are not saying is that within a state, voters of one side can be disenfranchised by voters of another side when there are unconstitutional election laws in place.
So within a state, there is standing, but Texas is too removed from Georgia to claim its voters (or electoral votes) have reasonably been injured by the voters or votes of Georgia.
thus, if one state cast its electoral votes differently than its constitutionally compromised popular vote would suggest, that state cannot be challenged by other states.
I feel SCOTUS is like a parent telling its kids to keep their hands to themselves.