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

Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
I was optimistic at first until the Supreme Court denied the Texas lawsuit. That's all. I'm just preparing my self. Don't want to be happy oversomeing that may not come. Trust me I wasn't always a doomer
You said they were cowards and it's been explained why that is a retarded thing to assume but I guess you can't read.
 
I know you also listed reforming the system, but it should be a crime to be stupid enough to earnestly suggest this is somehow better than our present system for what's effectively a federation of 50 countries bound together by a contract.
 
Screenshot_2020-12-14 Aaron Maté on Twitter.png




GA is getting more and more retarded.
 
I know you also listed reforming the system, but it should be a crime to be stupid enough to earnestly suggest this is somehow better than our present system for what's effectively a federation of 50 countries bound together by a contract.
We’re a federation but the president represents the people as a whole. The popular vote is as good a way to select the president in the modern era as any. The current system is absolutely busted when you can win the presidency with only 20% of the vote.
 
Oh come on now, you don't get to be mad after we told you that faithless electors were something to take into consideration this election cycle.
There’s faithless electors and being so mad/deluded that you send a completely different set of electors, which haven’t been certified and won’t be accepted.
 
That’s the thing, if this was unconstitutional and so blatantly so, why didn’t they bring this up years ago. Laches exists to throw out suits like this meant to gum up the legal system and delay things. They’ve also only come up with this argument now, after what, 12 lawsuits in WI and a recount? This is an attempt to throw out election results simply because they do not like them, and disenfranchise people. This matters to a court.


SCOTUS doesn’t have to say why. The decline to hear it says a lot. They find it baseless.

if thats a real legal standard how did we get brown v board? or obergefell


az has a federal election only ballot where you dont have to prove citizenship.
 
Oh come on now, you don't get to be mad after we told you that faithless electors were something to take into consideration this election cycle.
Those weren't even faithless electors, that was just Nevada GOP doing a symbolic thing where they did their own vote (which doesn't hold any actual merit). GA, PA and MI GOP did the same thing I think
 
Well, shit, can't blame Trump for that. They forced his hand.
SC kinda did. We could have definitively settled this one way or another by now.


If it was only NV and AZ, it’d be a meaningless stunt; but PA GA and AZ win Trump the presidency by themselves. Now the ball is in the Senate’s court, and while it is most likely RINOs cuck, that’s political suicide and the Senate Whip is in every legal right to make sweetheart deals to ensure compliance. We’re in legislative coup mode. Forget “I am the Senate”, the Senate could end up saying “I am the Presidency.”
 
Popular vote, a rebalanced elector system that’s automatic, really there’s a lot of ways to make the electoral college less retarded.
RCV already exists in certain states which have their electors better represent the overall vote and not the first-past-the-post issue. That's realistically been the primary problem of the EC - fptp.
oh look another circle down the drain where i say ," the clerks violated the law" and you go " you cant throw out ballots regardless" and rebut an issue im not arguing

issue is that clerks modified ballots when they have no authority to do so. motive comes to play here , if incomplete addresses are suffecuent as the majority insists there is no reason to modify ballots

btw this would be moot if observers were allowed to observe.
If you say the clerks violated the law, what relief are you seeking? Oh, throwing out close to 200k votes by that suit. That is a relief that you have just been denied.

Clerks followed the guidelines. One specific reading of the legislation argues that these guidelines contravene the legislation. If your relief was for future elections to not have this discrepancy, of even just for the approval to seek a comprehensive audit of ballots that were specifically violated in this manner in order to identify and potentially disqualify those specific votes, it is possible that you could see that happen. Similarly, you could try to make this exact same argument again - except that you want the WEC guidelines to better reflect the legislation, as its own item after the election to prevent such a thing from happening again.

But the instant it isn't getting glorious god-emperor in charge, it's going to be discarded and forgotten about, as free to occur in elections to come as it has in elections gone by, because it isn't following that exact reading of the law that you care about. As you're specifically arguing that people who voted in full compliance with the law should have their vote discarded if a clerk added two letters to it, yeah, you're searching for straws. All the suit alleged was functionally that state and zips (implicit information) was added, not that someone filled in a street address wholesale.

If "observers were allowed to observe," you would have relied on them to take issue with a clerk adding in two letters or a zip code for those ballots to have been mailed back for curing. You aren't even alleging that these are fraudulent ballots - but rather that a specific reading of a law was not undertaken by some clerks which rendered them moot. Unfortunately, you're not seated on the proper court to have thrown your reading in the mix, so now you're pouting.

if thats a real legal standard how did we get brown v board? or obergefell
Both of them alleged damages through which they argued their case, not on-face that the precedent itself was unconstitutional. They susbtantiated those claims of damages, too, even.
Let me make this one more clear with an edit, too - neither of them were attempting to overthrow the legal votes of millions of people because they were searching for literally any avenue to get past the fact that they fairly lost an election.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
So am I understanding this right? Nevada had it's certified electors, but the GOP there said "lol we don't like how they are gonna vote, we'll send our own electors... with blackjack... and hookers!"?

If that's the case then I simply must say again this is optics bullshit for sheeple to whine about when the media has to cover why this was dumb and doesn't count.

You should all keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle because we're being taken for a goddamned ride right now.
 
So am I understanding this right? Nevada had it's certified electors, but the GOP there said "lol we don't like how they are gonna vote, we'll send out own electors... with blackjack... and hookers!"?

If that's the case then I simply must say again this is optics bullshit for sheeple to whine about when the media has to cover why this was dumb and doesn't count.

You should all keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle because we're being taken for a goddamned ride right now.
It's pure optics. They aren't the states official electors. It holds no more water than Kiwi Farms holding their own electoral college vote (which would go 538-0 for Jeb, of course)
 
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole