Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
May be my bad as the claim was that the 9 Justices met in person and had an easily over-heard argument.
This article claims the 9 have not met in person since COVID.
EDIT: @Houseman thanks for the tip off... I accidentally posted the wrong link... should have been https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/patrick-matt/
I also keep hearing repeatedly that the charges against the Biden election have never been decided on the merits but on technicalities. Example: the Texas suit was thrown out due to the Plaintiffs not having proper standing. A lawyer friend of mine thinks that is bunk.
Regardless, we are a deeply divided nation. You could never convince me that the election was not stolen. So, I have to figure out not only how to deal with our government for the next 4 years... but the fact that I may never have my vote count in POTUS elections for the foreseeable future.
Do you think mail in voting will stop being a thing any time soon?
Last edited:
Many believe that democracy IS being suspended to award Biden an unearned term. Many believe that democracy IS ALREADY being sacrificed just so an incompetent and extremely corrupt individual can have four years in office.
Nah, they don't "mislead", its merely alternative history, like how the Earth is flat, the moon landing was fake, and Hitler lived in Argentina after the war and died sometime in the 70s(if the aliens from Roswell didn't get to him). Reality can be difficult, so sometimes people just make up their own. Its easier than coming to terms with the world.
Did you link the right article? Because this article doesn't say that.This article claims the 9 have not met in person since COVID.
Republican Official Claims Chief Justice Roberts Nixed Texas Election Lawsuit Over Fear Of Riots (VIDEO)
A Republican Elector from Texas named Matt Patrick told a very interesting story this week. According to Patrick, the reason the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit brought by Texas over the 2020 election is that Chief Justice Roberts was concerned about riots. The story Patrick is...americanlookout.com
If you mean Texas v. Pennsylvania, the reason for SCOTUS to dismiss it was that each state is able to determine their own electoral rules. So, Texas has no legal right to contest whether or not PA can implement rules or not.
That's not bunk. Each state's right to fully independently determine their own electoral processes is an established legal principle. Legal experts had been saying for ages beforehand that this was a foregone conclusion, because it was an obvious overstep.
State's rights! Unless states don't do something I like, then fuck 'em!
Pretty much all the election lawsuits in general are based on throwing out votes on technicalities vs merits; you can count on one hand the lawsuits that are actually alleging some kind of fraud. States have the rights to run their elections how they want, it's part of the constitution. Plus, the Texas lawsuit that was joined by other states that do the exact same thing they're "bitching" at Pennsylvania for doing. Even if the case wasn't bunk and has standing and the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Texas, do you not get how that would be a horrible precedent going forward? Every election from here on out would be decided by the courts then. All the blue states would sue the red states over voter suppression laws; red states would sue blue states that fraud occurred because they don't have require photo IDs, it would be a clusterfuck.
Why would mail-in voting stop being a thing? A quarter of the votes in 2016 were mail-in votes already. Other countries have been doing mail-in voting as well.
So a rerun of the last 4 years?
Lol.
My vote for POTUS hasn't counted for my entire adult life! Welcome to the Electoral College
Well the idea that the election was stolen is a matter of faith. Faith being the denial of reality and evidence for the sake of the belief.
Haha. I remember a friend getting mad that I didn't go out and vote for Obama in his 1st election. I didn't see the point as an Illinois resident voting for an Illinois senator.
See, this is exactly what I mean about how you obviously don't care enough about the facts to do your research and how you're rather transparently "looking for an excuse" to believe it (or in this case looking for any excuse to dismiss any contrary information). The operative claim here is that CISA deals with foreign interference, but in your typical overeagerness to argue through "gotchas" you hastily treated the scope of CISA as a general "they", very obviously trying to imply that all the listed parties focused on foreign interference to the exclusion of fraud. CISA is included in the list because foreign interference is topical to the claims of Trump and his supporters. In case you've forgotten, foreign interference in their allegations since long before the election as part of their "throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks" approach. Indeed, this featured prominently in the more recent claims of Sidney Powell (whom you've also been wont to cite), who claimed that China and Iran worked to rig the election in favor of Biden by manipulating voting machine software. Hence CISA's inclusion in the namedrop. But let us not forget that I did not just reference CISA, but also the DOJ, the FBI, and the courts that have been involved.
Contrary to the implications of your "they" claim, however, "security from foreign hackers" applies to CISA alone. It does not apply to the FBI (which solely deals with domestic issues), the DOJ (which Barr specifically asked to accelerate the process of investigating any and all claims about voting irregularity inquiries on Nov 9), or the numerous courts who ruled on Trump et al's litigation and specifically cite the flaws in the affidavits and claims of the plaintiffs as part of their rulings. Is it actually your contention that when the FBI and DOJ said there was no evidence of election fraud on the scale Trump et al alleging, that they're only talking about "foreign hackers"? That when the courts have said that Trump et al's cases have been "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence", that the affidavits presented before are little more than a mix of assumption, ignorance and hearsay that don't evidence what Trump et al allege, that they are only looking at it in the context of "foreign hackers"?
Only CISA released a statement that "there was no fraud", that they later had to walk back and say "from a foreign meddling standpoint". Nobody else did, except for Barr, who just made a claim without any record of having officially investigating anything.
The "numerous courts" have never investigated the issue based on the merits of the claims, despite whatever sound bites and quotes you can mine.
House, that you of all people are making allegations of quote mining, particularly in this topic, is as hilarious as it is pathetic.
4 years ago, a youtube personality laughed that, for reasons, he knew Hillary Clinton stole votes but that she simply did not steal enough. Funny! Until 2020. Now the machine could count the in person votes first so they knew ahead of time how many they needed to steal.
To have standing, you have to show you are an aggrieved party and the court you are going to has jurisdiction.
Given that this was a conflict between 2 states, the Federal court is the right place to go. Was Texas aggrieved? Texas voted for Trump. Without the legal violations, Texas would have gotten it's way (or so I think they have to argue... not so much fraud, but how many votes would not have even been cast for Biden without the convenience and time mail in voting provides... that the election was stolen is another issue).
Are you arguing that a State could suspend their Constitution and cast electors in any manner in which they see fit and no other state has standing to complain?
Did anyone from the states violating their Constitution file suit for lack of Constitutionality? If so, were such suit thrown out for lack of timeliness? Reviewing.
The fuck does that have to do with anything? 4 years ago I was convinced Warhammer 8th Edition wouldn't be that fun, but I ended up being wrong and loving it. Random thoughts from random people, even election oriented, don't count for shit.
4 Years ago Trump claimed 5+ million Mexicans voted illegally and that's the only reason he lost the popular vote, and his own Administration, using tax payer money, looked into it and found it was total bullshit. 4 Years ago Trump claimed he had the largest inauguration in history, and that it was bright and sunny. People didn't just suddenly develop the ability to lie since the 2020 election.
No, that's not all that's required. Constitutionally, a state's own electoral process is solely to be determined by that state's own bodies. Texas has no standing. Its not a question of whether the federal court is the "right place to go" for Texas; there is no proper place to go, because they constitutionally should have no input in PA electoral processes.
The idea that a state is "aggrieved" because it would've got its way if it weren't for another state opting for a different candidate is a complete non-starter. Maine is not "aggrieved" because Georgia voted for Bush.
Obviously not. The states decide their own rules in advance, and pre-election, the federal government agrees to abide by what they determine. If they disagree with what the states have in place, they can contest it... before the election.
Nobody can just ignore the processes they've agreed to abide by after the election. But that's what Trump, Powell, Ellis and Giuliani are trying to do. The federal administration knew what rules were in place, agreed to abide, until they got a result they didn't want.
No states have been legally found to be violating their constitution.
- Status