1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

As I mentioned elsewhere on this board, ten years ago I would have had tough time naming two committing to something like this. This is encouraging, actually.

2
Huck_Farris 2 points ago +2 / -0

You know what guys? This is fucking encouraging. Thinking back to 10 years ago, I could name maybe one senator, two at the most, who would have signed off on this.

Chins up and stiff upper lip.

2
Huck_Farris 2 points ago +2 / -0

"streamed live 5 hours ago"

1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't see "going back to States" option anywhere, though. Either they reschedule and certify however they do, or, if not done by the 20th, presidential succession kicks in, as far as I understand.

1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks. I can not seem to find Jan 6 being the hard deadline in the document, or that it goes back to the states. The closest I see is this:

A contingent election would be conducted by a newly elected Congress, immediately following the joint congressional session that counts and certifies electoral votes. This session is set by law for January 6 of the year following the presidential election,but is occasionally rescheduled.

4
Huck_Farris 4 points ago +4 / -0

Now do an executive order, Mr. President!

3
Huck_Farris 3 points ago +3 / -0

100x more virus cases than reported

That would drive case mortality down to on par with paper cuts.

20
Huck_Farris 20 points ago +20 / -0

he’s racist, he has sexually assaulted women, he’s corrupt as hell, a proven liar and has done nothing good for America, including getting foreign intervention to divide Americans

No need to bring biden into this conversation.

2
Huck_Farris 2 points ago +2 / -0

Too little, too late. Not that is matters, anyway: I don't expect him to be seated by the 6th.

3
Huck_Farris 3 points ago +3 / -0

It is highly likely to be worse or better. I mean, what are the chances of a new year being EXACTLY the same as the previous one?

23
Huck_Farris 23 points ago +23 / -0

I would gladly pay any (reasonable) amount of money to watch that live on pay-per-view.

by 5thmode
1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was. A few days ago. Sort of.

4
Huck_Farris 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes, sort of. In the same decision, the judge ruled that each of them will have to be challenged individually, which is exactly what Trump team is doing in WI (IIRC, I heard that from Rudy on Bannon, but I may be mistaken).

1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

Textually speaking, probably yes: we won't know whether certificates have been received by Dec. 23, until Dec. 23 ends at midnight.

No opinion on related legal matters. :)

2
Huck_Farris 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep, that's what I suspect.

1
Huck_Farris 1 point ago +1 / -0

Probably is.

6
Huck_Farris 6 points ago +6 / -0

As I said above, I am not a lawyer, but I seem to recall precedent from obama era.

Environmental groups: EPA, do this! EPA: Can't. No authority. Sue us. wink wink Environmental Groups: Understood, suing. EPA: You know what, we won't defend. You win. Sad. wink

4
Huck_Farris 4 points ago +4 / -0

It is not an error.

view more: Next ›