2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

All of the contested states except Michigan sent two slates of electors. Congress will only count one set of electors for each state. The MSM narrative that denies any evidence of wrongdoing will claim that Congress is obligated to reject the republican votes. Everyone else knows that's bullshit so there remains two possibilities, either the supreme court provides direction as to what votes are invalid or it's up to Congress to decide what slate is invalid. So the actual status is that votes are cast, but there's been no determination as to what votes are recognized and any news source that pretends it's final and doesn't qualify it with "likely" is fake news.

7
Itype33 7 points ago +7 / -0

They're not wrong, they just failed to mention that Trump also surpassed 270 electoral college votes. It has yet to be determined who's electors will be recognized.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's because politics have become a religion and these people are convinced they're fighting their antichrist. You don't have to pay off and make deals with religious zealots, you just have to convince them they're fighting pure evil and they'll take care of it for you.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +5 / -2

I don't know that that is true, this isn't the first dispute between states that's been denied, it's just the first of this kind. The SC will remain the only choice they have. In 1876 Democrats beat the shit out of black voters to make sure Tilden won. The states didn't sue one another to enforce their laws, instead it was a brokered deal in Congress to decide what electors to reject. There are lots of similarities with this election.

14
Itype33 14 points ago +14 / -0

Well, the answer is that original jurisdiction would only apply to Texas. Trump has standing but if it's no longer a dispute between states it has to be introduced in a lower court and appealed to the SC.

13
Itype33 13 points ago +13 / -0

So, does TDW have a lawyer that can file on our behalf? We're one of the largest collection of patriots and every damn one of us will suffer harm if those states refuse to enforce their laws.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +3 / -0

None of these are states joining, these are amicus briefs, they're opinions from interested parties that the court can consider. It would have to be from the AG if they're joining, but anyone, including you, can file an amicus brief if you decide it's worth it.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +3 / -0

They might be preparing their own brief instead of just signing on to this one. It carries more weight if you have multiple states outlining the specific harm.

2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not just gun control, the Democrat answer to everything is more government control. When something fails it's never the result of bad policy, it's obviously the result of not enough policy. They won't be satisfied until we're drones in some socialist hell.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +3 / -0

Possibly. There's a reason they only give certain vaccines when you travel, if your risk of infection is low enough the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus. You're absolutely going to have deaths associated with the vaccine. Probably not enough to warrant avoiding the vaccine, but they will exist and the media will give misleading reporting on it.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh, if true it still depends on a number of things falling in place. According to the constitution there's nothing preventing pence from recognizing the letter, but if he follows the law it has to go to vote and the odds aren't good if that happens. Some argue that the law governing election procedures is unconstitutional, and I agree, but it's been followed in every election in modern history so I'm not sure the supreme court would strike it down.

2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not, it's the same way they go after payment processors to target gun businesses when they can't get law enforcement to step in. I'm curious if there's any actual evidence here vs more activists bullshit. Those large porn operations work with international organizations to automatically remove content that's been flagged before and have a process for users to report content for review. I'd be very surprised if they're not doing at least the bare minimum due diligence.

2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

You can't impeach without a 2/3 majority. I'm more concerned about judicial appointments. Also if this is contested election it's the new Congress that selects the winners and the Senate selects the VP. You could literally end up with a Trump and Harris administration.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +3 / -0

At the very least force them to steal it so there's more evidence out there.

45
Itype33 45 points ago +46 / -1

Because Trump doesn't play the games that career politicians play. Politics attracts the wrong type of people for the wrong reasons and Trump disrupts their agenda. They don't give a shit about you, they just want your vote so they can stay in the club. They'd rather suffer through 4 years of a senile Democrat if it returns politics to the way it used to be.

8
Itype33 8 points ago +9 / -1

Of course, we learned today that they're a normal part of a typical election!

6
Itype33 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's a good point. I've seen much worse than a fanny pack. I used to work in a building with a call center. Couple of women would bring roll in coolers of food each day in lieu of a bag lunch that where about the size of what they rolled out from under that table.

9
Itype33 9 points ago +9 / -0

They don't have to actually rule on it themselves, they can reverse the dismissal and force the state SC to rule on the conditionality of the law. That's the way they wriggle out, the state supreme court overturns the law but stops short of reversing the outcome. That'll make it easier for the SCOTUS to stop short of throwing out all those votes.

I hope that's not the reality, an unconditional election should be tossed, but i don't have confidence that they have 5 votes to toss the election, I've been disappointed too many times by the court stopping short of how they should rule.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Law enforcement would have to take an interest in investigating first.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

If only a case could make it to discovery so such records can be subpoenaed

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unfortunately if you're a liberal if you blow the whistle you lose your friends and family, job and struggle to find work in liberal cities. It's much easier to keep your mouth shut since you're happy with the result. They spent years turning politics into a religion and calling Trump fascist specifically for this moment.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Every bit helps. For example, the Republicans can strike a deal with just a few Democrats to elect someone other than Nancy to the speaker position. They may not be republican, but it might get someone a little less vile. Also there's typically a few Democrats that break with the party on their more far left bills, a narrow margin makes those things more difficult to pass.

view more: Next ›