2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inventor of the Telephone said:
HHH - testicles + kippah / (autism³) = Rich Evans' Proctologist
Click to expand...
Fix up the order of operations, champ.

Seriously, you're concerned that counties have similar relative rates of absentee ballots. Groundbreaking. Get Rudi on the line; we've found Atlantis.
Zero Day Defense said:
That's not the point. You're either dim or deceitful, but let's be extremely unambiguous:

The fact that nobody tried to contest their state's elections in 2016 is the conclusive evidence of consensus regarding the results. What is relevant is whether lawsuits were filed-- lawsuits that are dismissed or otherwise lost are still lawsuits that were filed and given time for hearings.

You have those in 2020.

You did not have those in 2016.

The fact that those lawsuits were dismissed or lost, and on whatever merits they were dismissed or lost, is irrelevant to my point. This is because the material evidence is that there were several challenges to the results of this election, precluding the idea of consensus, especially in comparison to 2016, where there weren't any such challenges. In fact, there wasn't even a discussion of potentially making such challenges, because the observable consensus was that Trump won the election in the sense that people legitimately voted for him such that he won enough states and their EC votes. Nobody took to court the idea that such was not the case.

That is your consensus.
Click to expand...
Right, your point is fucking retarded. Your point is literally that there are lawsuits this time, and there weren't lawsuits last time. Gee, captain obvious, thanks!

The instant that you try to derive any meaning or implication from the fact that those lawsuits exist, you run into the fucking fact that the lawsuits were all denied or otherwise fell flat on their face.

As I agreed to in that conversation that you diligently tried to gatcha me with, there is a disagreement among the population about the validity of the election; among the entire US population, yeah, there's not a consensus as to its validity. No doubt there. This similar popular dissatisfaction existed in 2016, whether or not Clinton lodged some lawsuits. BUT:

Among every political body that matters as regards this election, the fact that there are lawsuits this time and there weren't lawsuits last time doesn't. Fucking. Matter. There are thusfar no sustained contests or disruptions; the bodies that are going to certify this election are going to do so on the basis that no alleged fraud was actually substantiated (GA currently notwithstanding).

What is the difference between completely frivolous claims of fraud and no claims of fraud when it comes to selecting the electors? To verifying the vote? To the process of inaugurating the president?
Ah, yeah, fucking nothing at all. Congrats, Don spent some donations.
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Among every political body that matters as regards this election
Click to expand...
I was talking about consensus, referring to the general population (including the directly implicated political bodies and their members). That said, you would still be wrong in your poorly defined qualification (e.g. multiple U.S. House members joined the suit being pitched at SCOTUS in support of the plaintiff, they failed to pass a resolution declaring Biden the president elect (not that that's worth anything), multiple state AGs would necessarily have to be allowed by their governors (who sign off on the certification) to file in the case, multiple PA and AZ legislators sought to reclaim their elector appointing powers, the MI legislature is seeking a full audit).

Why, by both the metrics you recognized (general population or directly implicated political bodies), there's controversy that precludes consensus-- controversy which did not exist in comparable form in 2016. Not only that, but the existence of multiple election challenges in the courts, regardless of status, is pertinent when it comes to the certification of the EC results in Congress come January.
 
Last edited:
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Fix up the order of operations, champ.
Click to expand...
No matter how I rearrange it, there you are, effetely niggling.


JUST IN - #Michigan Supreme Court just denied the Trump campaign appeal to invalidate the state’s vote certification for Democrat Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Michigan Supreme Court

courts.michigan.gov courts.michigan.gov


Michigan Supreme Court rejects Trump appeal​

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal from President Donald Trump’s campaign, which unsuccessfully sued Michigan in an attempt to invalidate an election that Democrat Joe Biden won by 154,188 votes.

In a brief order, justices on Michigan’s highest court denied the appeal but offered no further explanation of their unanimous decision, which ends the Trump campaign's state-based legal challenge.

The suit initially sought to stop absentee ballot counting in Detroit, but Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens rejected that request on Nov. 5, in part because the count was done.

Stephens dismissed the campaign's primary evidence of alleged election fraud as "hearsay" and said there is "no basis" to believe the lawsuit could succeed on its merits.

The Trump campaign took weeks to appeal the ruling after initially submitting a "defective" request that almost derailed the case. A Michigan Court of Appeals denied the case last week and the Supreme Court did the same Friday.

The Trump campaign previously withdrew its federal lawsuit over the Michigan election, and allies have also lost multiple cases here.

But the president is backing one last "Hail Mary" case in the U.S. Supreme Court, where Texas is asking justices to undo certified results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Georgia, all of which were won by Democrat Joe Biden. — Jonathan Oosting
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Zero Day Defense said:
I was talking about consensus, referring to the general population (including the directly implicated political bodies and their members). That said, you would still be wrong in your poorly defined qualification (e.g. multiple U.S. House members joined the suit being pitched at SCOTUS in support of the plaintiff, they failed to pass a resolution declaring Biden the president elect (not that that's worth anything), multiple PA and AZ legislators sought to reclaim their elector appointing powers, the MI legislature is seeking a full audit).

Why, by both the metrics you recognized (general population or directly implicated political bodies), there's controversy that precludes consensus.
Click to expand...
The population has no consensus now, nor did it in 2016.

The house does not select the president outside of that contingent election, and even then, it's one house rep per state. So the house is not relevant here - what do they have to do with it? The PA legislators threw in with the SCOTUS case, which alongside GA is the last relevant entities left to contest anything. If the SCOTUS case falls flat and the GA case similarly does, then for all the relevant government bodies, it looks identical to 2020 and the consensus among relevant political bodies is: no sustained fraud.
If GA flips it, Biden is still president but it is different, as one challenge was actually sustained.

I made this point earlier.

Inventor of the Telephone said:
No matter how I rearrange it, there you are, effetely niggling.
Click to expand...
I'm just looking for answers, holmes.
What's the relevance of various districts in a single MI county having similar rates of absentee voting? Is this how Trump wins it?
 
MsStevieMarie said:
What a difference a week makes eh? Seeing people on Twitter and Reddit freaking the fuck out over this has been very reassuring. Also noticing the Hunter story finally getting traction in the left wing media which is interesting. Is it because the election's "over" or are they giving the Democrats help throwing Biden under the bus?
Click to expand...
Esophagus said:
View attachment 1781709
Yep it's there. Are they trying to get rid of Joe early or do they feel the ship is sinking?
Click to expand...
Gustav Schuchardt said:
The fact that Hunter got charged shows the Joe ship is sinking. If the FBI knew he was going to POTUS and would have pardon power they'd never have charged his son. And the media would have said any allegations against him are a conspiracy theory.

Since he's been charged and the media are reporting it, itimplies that Joe might not be POTUS.
Click to expand...
Jack Edelweiss said:
Tucker says it's because they preparing the ground for Biden to resign so Kamala takes over.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and go with a much more mundane explanation: drama sells.

The media considers the election over, and for much of October/early November that was the "drama" that sold papers and clicks (not that they didn't want a particular outcome to that drama, given how they first suppressed the Hunter story). Now they probably see this as the new "drama" that will sell papers and clicks. Granted depending on the outcome of the SC case that might change.
 
Zero Day Defense said:
That's not the point. You're either dim or deceitful, but let's be extremely unambiguous:

The fact that nobody tried to contest their state's elections in 2016 is the conclusive evidence of consensus regarding the results. What is relevant is whether lawsuits were filed-- lawsuits that are dismissed or otherwise lost are still lawsuits that were filed and given time for hearings.

You have those in 2020.

You did not have those in 2016.

The fact that those lawsuits were dismissed or lost, and on whatever merits they were dismissed or lost, is irrelevant to my point. This is because the material evidence is that there were several challenges to the results of this election, precluding the idea of consensus, especially in comparison to 2016, where there weren't any such challenges. In fact, there wasn't even a discussion of potentially making such challenges, because the observable consensus was that Trump legitimately won the election (rather, the discussion was whether he legitimately won by illegitimate means, i.e. colluding with the Russians). Nobody took to court the idea that such was not the case.

That is your consensus. Stop trying to derail this conversation into a borderline unintelligible mess in your chasing of irrelevant details.
Click to expand...
No, instead you have other states butting their heads in other state's business, which they have no right to do, instead. Texas can whine and complain but acting as a state, it has no right to litigate a swing state over said state's legal actions just because their man lost. GOP does that, and they failed, multiple times. Especially the fucking stupid whining over muh mail ins.
 
Inventor of the Telephone said:
No matter how I rearrange it, there you are, effetely niggling.




Michigan Supreme Court

courts.michigan.gov courts.michigan.gov
From PDF:



Michigan Supreme Court rejects Trump appeal​

Click to expand...
"In a brief order, justices on Michigan’s highest court denied the appeal but offered no further explanation of their unanimous decision, which ends the Trump campaign's state-based legal challenge."
No further explanation, huh?
:story:
 
When can I write "Happy Trumpsday" on my social media feed, already? Sheez, I should have been dancing to the Pokemon Sword & Shield Gym theme on November 3rd.

When is the media going to stop being ostriches and get their head out of their sand and rescind the call?

This isnt the first time the media was wrong in their call. In fact, it's the fourth time.
 
If this all backfires on them, I’m going to laugh. Twitter is being bold declaring Biden the undeniable winner when one of the most massive lawsuits about this election is going to the Supreme Court
D2CF192B-4C52-484F-AE3F-1B3FD619E7F5.jpeg
 
mandatorylurk said:
1607723698601.png

You know, there's one side trying to do things the legal way, and there's one side trying to be thugs in this whole situation. Just rubicon it now.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell, looking in from the outside, if this is just politicians grandstanding and the checks and balances will prevent them from doing anything really dangerous or if the system is going to blow up.

You can't even tell from looking back at US history because there've been situations where the checks and balances worked and others where it did indeed blow.

mindlessobserver said:
Ben Shapiro is spitting fire today and is agreeing with Limbaugh we are heading to secession.


https://youtu.be/_4bELg8l5kE[/media]


I will point out to all conservatives thinking they can just pack their baseball bat up and leave the field is delusional thinking. That is what the Confrderacy thought in 1860. That if they cant get along, they will just leave and that would be that. That is not how the world works. If you break the country, you play for all the marbles or you don't play at all.
Click to expand...
I listened to it and he's hardly spitting fire. He's against the Texas lawsuit and seems to regard threats of secession as just being a way to stop the left from being meanies. Good luck with that.

As someone else in this thread said 'I can't believe I used to listen to him'.
 
Last edited:
It’s looking like SCOTUS might either extend the deadline for when the electors can vote or play edging the penis until blue balls. I was expecting a ruling either slapping down this civil war lawsuit or going the /pol/ memes route.
2AEA7DFB-13BF-450C-826A-372EDD8723F8.jpeg
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
The population has no consensus now
Click to expand...
The only thing they didn't have a consensus on was who should have won, not who actually won.

Rich Evans Apologist said:
The house does not select the president outside of that contingent election, and even then, it's one house rep per state. So the house is not relevant here - what do they have to do with it? The PA legislators threw in with the SCOTUS case, which alongside GA is the last relevant entities left to contest anything. If the SCOTUS case falls flat and the GA case similarly does, then for all the relevant government bodies, it looks identical to 2020 and the consensus among relevant political bodies is: no sustained fraud.
Click to expand...
"Here's the relevant political bodies in our electoral process that have members who are disputing election results!"
[meandering acknowledgment phrased as dissent that doesn't address all mentioned parties, reiteration of poorly made point that hinges on at-present hypotheticals and is unconcerned about the import of internal discord]

JimmyNugget said:
No, instead you have other states butting their heads in other state's business, which they have no right to do, instead. Texas can whine and complain but acting as a state, it has no right to litigate a swing state over said state's legal actions just because their man lost. GOP does that, and they failed, multiple times. Especially the fucking stupid whining over muh mail ins.
Click to expand...
I can't even entertain the idea that you're arguing in good faith.
 
Epsteindidnothingwrong said:
It’s looking like SCOTUS might either extend the deadline for when the electors can vote or play edging the penis until blue balls. I was expecting a ruling either slapping down this civil war lawsuit or going the /pol/ memes route.
View attachment 1782507
Click to expand...
I think if they extend the deadline it means they're going to do something dramatic. If they let the electors vote on the 14th they're probably going to do jack shit.

Reisen Storm said:
Fucking hell, I wanted the SCOTUS to get this done quickly, not drag this longer.
Click to expand...
The US doesn't need to decide who the next president is until the 20th. If they stop the electoral college vote on the 14th they could redo the elections under the existing rules the legislatures have set and with Republican observers. At which point I think most people would accept the result.

Also the stupid GOPe fucks in PAGAMIWI who allowed this ridiculous shitshow to unfold will be shown up to be crooked and/or cowardly, which I'm sure will not do their careers much good.
 
Last edited:
Epsteindidnothingwrong said:
It’s looking like SCOTUS might either extend the deadline for when the electors can vote or play edging the penis until blue balls. I was expecting a ruling either slapping down this civil war lawsuit or going the /pol/ memes route.
View attachment 1782507
Click to expand...
Even if they have an answer already I would expect the court to sit on it until the end of the weekend so there's slightly less opportunity for people to go nutso in the streets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom