3
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 3 points ago +3 / -0

lol why they so mad? This is what they wanted no? Acting like a buncha children.

1
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 1 point ago +1 / -0

Never had the Scotus, I think Justice Thomas should finish his tenure in the near future if nothing gets done tomorrow, there's nothing to stand for there anymore. It's done.

3
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 3 points ago +3 / -0

I've felt the same way, I think their particular kind of degeneracy meshes well with the people in power. It's not anonymous either, just so you know. VPN's don't mean anything either, they have access to many network nodes across the planet, they can just do some automated time calculations to decipher who connects to what at a specific time :)

39
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 39 points ago +39 / -0

Duplicate this message twenty thousand times for the people in the back.

2
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 2 points ago +3 / -1

Winners always win. Do not sustain a party that fails to represent you, it will never change its ways, it will always have its hands out for any donations you may have though. You could give them your vote, and pray and plead they'll count it. Or, go your own way, make your own community, and live by that communities standards instead.

2
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's true when the national election itself is understood to be fair, and it sounds like it wouldn't actually stop it, it would just cause a likelihood of being voted out later, it would still be legal no? It seems like "fair elections" are merely agreed upon with a gentleman's agreement, something that breaks down when one side feels like they have the moral duty to bypass it.

2
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 2 points ago +2 / -0

You know what's interesting about these lawsuits? If for some reason the courts end up ruling that each state can do what it wants in order to decide how to send electors, there's nothing stopping a state from literally doing away with the charade and just have the legislature send whoever they want to elect whoever they want, irrespective of any "election"

22
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 22 points ago +22 / -0

I don't know what it takes to be a judge these days, but it seems like the bar has been chucked out.

8
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 8 points ago +9 / -1

Disenfranchisement is a non-issue, because either ruling disenfranchises million of people, this is not a simple case that can be thrown out with rhetorical devices.

7
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 7 points ago +8 / -1

It's good optics, I'm seeing some news site report this and framing this as "It seems the Supreme Court is actually serious about taking these cases, irrespective of them being thrown out 'with prejudice'". Amazing!

4
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 4 points ago +5 / -1

Don't you like seeing genuine doomers being BTFO? Also they keep things, in general, level headed because they ask questions that need to be answered for the general public. Deport the actual haters tho.

1
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 1 point ago +2 / -1

Question: Is it possible that finding that one state violated their duties for a fair election invalidate the EXACT SAME PROCESSES found in these other key states?

1
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 1 point ago +1 / -0

But not a "leftist" in the sense of an ideologue, part of the in-group, he was an independent thinker.

These two examples are exceptions that prove the rule.

2
TheyEatTheirOwnLies 2 points ago +2 / -0

If he was so unsure he could have just asked the president how he could help. Weak links bring down buildings.

view more: Next ›