Not possible. I argued that no possible use of the term served your argument.
One that precludes you from making a statement about consensus until those cases conclude, at minimum. Which is what I meant by "won't be able to hash or not hash out...".
And what if it proves true? What then?
Then it's going to fail. If the USSC says that voter fraud didn't happen, no one's going to change their minds and start voting for people Trump supporters think stabbed their guy in the back.
Personally I think they're just doing lip service myself or a "look guys we boosted your morale, we're the good guys" and continue the current trend in politics, and I bet many will go right along with it. Not much you can do though. Though this will start a downward trend in many Trump supporters and those against the establishment.
I’m not liking this last minute shit. For all we know, the SC could just let the EC vote and do all the formalities before everything is said and done and just make a decision once it’s too late to change the results of the election.
Consensus among relevant political bodies is 50-0 Don lost fair and square right now. If GA keeps things as they are, it's still 50-0. If SCOTUS throws the thing out or decides against the litigant, it's 51-0. That's consensus, whizz. Given that I have been putting everything in the conditional "if" from the very beginning, your dumb ass is really reaching here to suggest I've been doing otherwise. Instant a state decerts or is compelled to decrert, or otherwise verifies fraud, you come on in and boast that there's a change.
Read this slowly.
Found this:
You want me to come back here after the electors vote or something? I can write a sticky note.
That noose really is screwing with your brain.
This person is probably an Austinite.
A lot of the more inflamatory rhetoric getting thrown around by party mouthpieces fits in here too. They think that they can harness the energy of the base by saying things that sound more serious or outside the regular paradigm.
Case and point right here. Shapiro's the measuring stick for what the establishment GOP is going with narrative wise. There's no way he believes this kind of talk, but he knows plenty of normie conservatives might jump over to the further right elements of the party if the doesn't at least give this stuff lip service.
Got it, I'll come right back to this post after they vote with the update about whether or not all relevant political bodies to the election of a US president agreed that Donald Trump lost fair and square to the fucking dementia-addled corpse.
I was more talking about how they don't seem to realize they're just a small yappy dog that's quietly tolerated at the moment.
As a Texas resident, more like as a Democrat.
This is pretty far to go to 'prove' that Trump's claims are false (which they aren't, the constitutional claims are correct on their face and the defendants don't even try to deny it). They've basically drawn the battle lines here. The opposition is throwing around terms like 'sedition' and 'treason' which almost certainly means some punishment will be visited on them if they should fail. Most GOP would not risk going to prison just to mount a limp-wristed 'at least we tried' defence like you're suggesting.
The fact we have people trying to make tranny children and corrupt DAs allow them to rampage for 6 months says otherwise. Even the crazier fundies and hippies weren't above the law or common sense, especially the former.