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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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.
Gustav Schuchardt said:
Isn't it amazing how mistakes that would get the average corporate sysadmin shitcanned all happen in Dominion voting machines?
Click to expand...
It's about as amazing as how actions that would get a software dev with a TS/SCI kidnapped and indefinitely detained at a black site are regarded as "negligence" when Hillary Clinton does them.

WhimsicalTrolli said:
Beijing Biden won, all of this post discovery is gay.
Click to expand...
I hope you know you're not getting a Fang Fang on account of the Chinese not liking black people.
 
New Mexico?
Sauce.jpg
 
Jenna Ellis is coming on Gorka's show, which is sort of cosy.

AZ has sent disputed electors. Gorka's sidekick is saying all the disputed states except MI did. It's fifty-something electoral votes which means Biden is below 270.

I've never been to Michigan and will continue to not go there in retaliation for this very shamefur dispray. Consider yourself sanctioned rather than merely neglected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzx3ch2As8
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Texas' claim was denied on standing. Its case for "damages" was flimsy and the avenue by which it tried to bypass this was deemed improper. However you might want to twist and bend it around, the proper avenue to address the PA voting change was to bring it up before the election within the state courts (or just pass legislature that changed the wording).
And you're right! When a case is ruled on, all things which are outstanding going forward get altered. A state cannot continue to refuse the recognition of gay marriage if doing so violates the constitution (in this case, a specific reading of the constitution). People in unions still had to apply for marriage; they didn't magically become married overnight, as those unions still exist today and have a use. Similarly, schools couldn't continue to do 'separate but equal' when such a notion was ruled unconstitutional.
However, a vote happens the once. It doesn't stretch onwards. Once a constitutional ruling is handed out regarding these votes, you can't go up against it going forward. As it currently stands, no court has ruled that the PASC's ruling was itself unconstitutional; people just argue it, but are only ever arguing it in the same breath as they try to throw out the votes. If it were ruled unconstitutional in the future, that would not invalidate the vote -- for the same reason that no state which denied marriage before Obergefell was prosecuted for it, and for the same reason that no 'separate but equal' state was prosecuted for having done it before the ruling.


The clerks did not believe they were in violation of anything in their actions, given that such actions had been going on for a decade.
No one disputes the number is greater than 0, but no one can say if it's more than 4. That's not a firm enough ground to do fucking anything, buddy.
The courts have demurred on what the proper process is. It is a gray area precisely because they gave no correct ruling on what should be followed in the future - the statute or the guidelines - in terms of making for a 'proper' ballot. If you made a case based purely on this problem, you could get a ruling on it.

Your case by all accounts should have been dismissed on laches. You've demonstrated you fundamentally don't understand what they are or how they work by comparing their use in this election to fucking Brown and Obergefell. And now you're displaying you don't fucking understand standing, either - legal genius right here.

Something that is unconstitutional is inherently damaging. You can always have standing for making a case on this argument. The cases dismissed for LACHES were not dismissed for STANDING. You allege that the gray area in the WEC guidelines breaks the law? You won't get turned down on standing. You allege that the PA ruling violates the electors clause? You won't get turned down on standing. But you WILL get slapped by Laches for sitting around and doing nothing.

Republicans could have, after 2016, observed these problems with the WEC and had full standing to try to correct them. Provided they did not try to change the results of the election, they would not have been hit with laches. They chose not to.
BEFORE the election, the argument in PA wasn't a constitutional one - it was one based around future, potential fraud. For which you could obviously not have damages, and thus not have standing.
I have explained this distinction at least 3 times to you.

It took me 2 seconds to show that those fucking ballots are provisional ballots and are discarded if someone can't provide evidence that they're a citizen. Open up the form.
The first two questions are "Are you a citizen? Will you be 18 on or before election day?" And if you check No to either of them, viola, tossed out.
Your suggestion is that someone lies on the federal form by selecting 'yes' and it just goes through, right? Well, you still need the ID number, so if your suggestion is that they're just "allowing them damn illegals to vote," you really did not look into this. Like you didn't with everything fucking else. So long as someone on youtube says it, though, I guess it must be true.
Click to expand...
Damn dude, you're really committed to walls of text about antfucking bullshit. You ok?
 
Michael Jacks0n said:
I hate to be that guy, BUT....

AFAIK these votes are just symbolic and don't actually count as real electoral votes. I could be wrong, this may be deboonked, but from what I gather this is just a sign of loyalty with no real legal merit.

But remember: it ain't over till Jan 20, my friend. 🇺🇲
Click to expand...
Personally, I'll wait until December 17/18. With the whole EO floating about.
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Texas' claim was denied on standing. Its case for "damages" was flimsy and the avenue by which it tried to bypass this was deemed improper. However you might want to twist and bend it around, the proper avenue to address the PA voting change was to bring it up before the election within the state courts (or just pass legislature that changed the wording).
And you're right! When a case is ruled on, all things which are outstanding going forward get altered. A state cannot continue to refuse the recognition of gay marriage if doing so violates the constitution (in this case, a specific reading of the constitution). People in unions still had to apply for marriage; they didn't magically become married overnight, as those unions still exist today and have a use. Similarly, schools couldn't continue to do 'separate but equal' when such a notion was ruled unconstitutional.
However, a vote happens the once. It doesn't stretch onwards. Once a constitutional ruling is handed out regarding these votes, you can't go up against it going forward. As it currently stands, no court has ruled that the PASC's ruling was itself unconstitutional; people just argue it, but are only ever arguing it in the same breath as they try to throw out the votes. If it were ruled unconstitutional in the future, that would not invalidate the vote -- for the same reason that no state which denied marriage before Obergefell was prosecuted for it, and for the same reason that no 'separate but equal' state was prosecuted for having done it before the ruling.


The clerks did not believe they were in violation of anything in their actions, given that such actions had been going on for a decade.
No one disputes the number is greater than 0, but no one can say if it's more than 4. That's not a firm enough ground to do fucking anything, buddy.
The courts have demurred on what the proper process is. It is a gray area precisely because they gave no correct ruling on what should be followed in the future - the statute or the guidelines - in terms of making for a 'proper' ballot. If you made a case based purely on this problem, you could get a ruling on it.

Your case by all accounts should have been dismissed on laches. You've demonstrated you fundamentally don't understand what they are or how they work by comparing their use in this election to fucking Brown and Obergefell. And now you're displaying you don't fucking understand standing, either - legal genius right here.

Something that is unconstitutional is inherently damaging. You can always have standing for making a case on this argument. The cases dismissed for LACHES were not dismissed for STANDING. You allege that the gray area in the WEC guidelines breaks the law? You won't get turned down on standing. You allege that the PA ruling violates the electors clause? You won't get turned down on standing. But you WILL get slapped by Laches for sitting around and doing nothing.

Republicans could have, after 2016, observed these problems with the WEC and had full standing to try to correct them. Provided they did not try to change the results of the election, they would not have been hit with laches. They chose not to.
BEFORE the election, the argument in PA wasn't a constitutional one - it was one based around future, potential fraud. For which you could obviously not have damages, and thus not have standing.
I have explained this distinction at least 3 times to you.
Click to expand...
all you've done is explained that when it comes to this election with this presidential candidate, the rules dont matter. funny how the green party was held to stricter standards than mail in voters.


Rich Evans Apologist said:
It took me 2 seconds to show that those fucking ballots are provisional ballots and are discarded if someone can't provide evidence that they're a citizen. Open up the form.
The first two questions are "Are you a citizen? Will you be 18 on or before election day?" And if you check No to either of them, viola, tossed out.
Your suggestion is that someone lies on the federal form by selecting 'yes' and it just goes through, right? Well, you still need the ID number, so if your suggestion is that they're just "allowing them damn illegals to vote," you really did not look into this. Like you didn't with everything fucking else. So long as someone on youtube says it, though, I guess it must be true.
Click to expand...

legal aliens are allowed to obtain state licenses.
 
Michael Jacks0n said:
I hate to be that guy, BUT....

AFAIK these votes are just symbolic and don't actually count as real electoral votes. I could be wrong, this may be deboonked, but from what I gather this is just a sign of loyalty with no real legal merit.

But remember: it ain't over till Jan 20, my friend. 🇺🇲
Click to expand...
New Mexico actually isn't deboonked. Its real. They just released it.
EpOxZAUXcAMyKIb.jpeg
On what it means, I have no fucking idea. I'm more confused than optimistic.
 
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Texas' claim was denied on standing. Its case for "damages" was flimsy and the avenue by which it tried to bypass this was deemed improper. However you might want to twist and bend it around, the proper avenue to address the PA voting change was to bring it up before the election within the state courts (or just pass legislature that changed the wording).
And you're right! When a case is ruled on, all things which are outstanding going forward get altered. A state cannot continue to refuse the recognition of gay marriage if doing so violates the constitution (in this case, a specific reading of the constitution). People in unions still had to apply for marriage; they didn't magically become married overnight, as those unions still exist today and have a use. Similarly, schools couldn't continue to do 'separate but equal' when such a notion was ruled unconstitutional.
However, a vote happens the once. It doesn't stretch onwards. Once a constitutional ruling is handed out regarding these votes, you can't go up against it going forward. As it currently stands, no court has ruled that the PASC's ruling was itself unconstitutional; people just argue it, but are only ever arguing it in the same breath as they try to throw out the votes. If it were ruled unconstitutional in the future, that would not invalidate the vote -- for the same reason that no state which denied marriage before Obergefell was prosecuted for it, and for the same reason that no 'separate but equal' state was prosecuted for having done it before the ruling.


The clerks did not believe they were in violation of anything in their actions, given that such actions had been going on for a decade.
No one disputes the number is greater than 0, but no one can say if it's more than 4. That's not a firm enough ground to do fucking anything, buddy.
The courts have demurred on what the proper process is. It is a gray area precisely because they gave no correct ruling on what should be followed in the future - the statute or the guidelines - in terms of making for a 'proper' ballot. If you made a case based purely on this problem, you could get a ruling on it.

Your case by all accounts should have been dismissed on laches. You've demonstrated you fundamentally don't understand what they are or how they work by comparing their use in this election to fucking Brown and Obergefell. And now you're displaying you don't fucking understand standing, either - legal genius right here.

Something that is unconstitutional is inherently damaging. You can always have standing for making a case on this argument. The cases dismissed for LACHES were not dismissed for STANDING. You allege that the gray area in the WEC guidelines breaks the law? You won't get turned down on standing. You allege that the PA ruling violates the electors clause? You won't get turned down on standing. But you WILL get slapped by Laches for sitting around and doing nothing.

Republicans could have, after 2016, observed these problems with the WEC and had full standing to try to correct them. Provided they did not try to change the results of the election, they would not have been hit with laches. They chose not to.
BEFORE the election, the argument in PA wasn't a constitutional one - it was one based around future, potential fraud. For which you could obviously not have damages, and thus not have standing.
I have explained this distinction at least 3 times to you.

It took me 2 seconds to show that those fucking ballots are provisional ballots and are discarded if someone can't provide evidence that they're a citizen. Open up the form.
The first two questions are "Are you a citizen? Will you be 18 on or before election day?" And if you check No to either of them, viola, tossed out.
Your suggestion is that someone lies on the federal form by selecting 'yes' and it just goes through, right? Well, you still need the ID number, so if your suggestion is that they're just "allowing them damn illegals to vote," you really did not look into this. Like you didn't with everything fucking else. So long as someone on youtube says it, though, I guess it must be true.
Click to expand...
Cool fanfic, and i couldnt care less because you type like a redditor
 
Gustav Schuchardt said:
In 1876 there were duellin' ballots. It was all decided by Congress in the end.
Click to expand...
Which is why we now have a completely different and legally defined way of handling that situation with the safe harbor laws. The electors sent by the GOP now are not able to actually cast their votes to the college.
 
Yeah, they could be symbolic, but it looks like they're adding them so whenever the other shoe drops about the election fraud in the DNI report and (hopefully) whatever Trump will do, they can't say "oh well the votes aren't there for Trump."

Right now it seems like a way to avoid going to a delegation election, probably smart with MI and GA GOP being psychotically TDS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom