Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Oh man of the past, for whom Hearsay is still a word without a definition, fear not! We of the future have developed words that actually have definitions and meaning behind it.
What you have posted there is a classic, and oddly repeated from Republicans, of hearsay. This guy heard someone else say he heard someone else say. It's the same non-evidence that got Trump's lawsuits thrown out of court when someone claimed to have heard someone else claim to have heard pizza vans were too small.

I would say pics or didn't happen, but I'll go with audio recording or it didn't happen. (Hint: it didn't happen, in part because A. no clerks are allowed to be in attendance of SCOTUS conferences, and B. They meet in a sound proof room)

 

[Silvanus]

Apparently SCOTUS struck down the Texas case because they were afraid of riots, so says one of the staffers to the Justices:

So, the same standard of evidence we've come to expect, then. Someone says they heard something through a wall.

 

[Trunkage]

CORN the Turkey?! When I met him he called himself Maze! He's in on the Deep State! Turkeys stole the election by gobbling up millions of Trump votes in Georgia!

He was using the old corn definition ie meaning what we call grains today. He was trying to be inclusive

 

[Agema]

So, the same standard of evidence we've come to expect, then. Someone says they heard something through a wall.

"Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices..." Here we are in the brave new world, where Chief Justice Roberts is considered a liberal.

Honestly, if I had to sum up all the going on evident from the last five weeks, and to an extent the last four years, I'd just say that the USA is looking ever more like it's boned. Everyone prepare your welcome mats for the new Chinese-dominated global order, because the USA is heading towards collapsing in on itself.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't know what to tell you. If your problem is with the rules that are in place, they've been in place for many years and many elections. If Trump had a problem with them, he could have legislated.

Again, Pennsylvania person here. That's sort of what the suing Pennsylvania was about, because the rules haven't been in place here specifically for many years. They were sort of haphazardly thrown together by activist judges a few months before the election. Now, did PA do anything that's different than what other states have done for years? Almost entirely no, with the exception of accepting ballots a week later on the basis of illegible postmarks, and that's not something that will overturn the election. I maintain that there are officials in my state that deserve to be removed from power and barred from ever touching a public office at any level ever again for the arbitrary and often spiteful decisions they made around this election.

 

[tstorm823]

"Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices..." Here we are in the brave new world, where Chief Justice Roberts is considered a liberal.

That's stupid, but Roberts isn't a conservative either. He just sort of does whatever he thinks is pragmatic and rationalizes it after.

 

[Houseman]

They meet in a sound proof room

How do you know that the room is sound-proof?
Or are you just basing this off hearsay, the kind of thing you reject as evidence?

 

[Adam Jensen]

How do you know that the room is sound-proof?
Or are you just basing this off hearsay, the kind of thing you reject as evidence?

Why can't you apply the same level of skepticism when it comes to the rest of reality?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Apparently SCOTUS struck down the Texas case because they were afraid of riots, so says one of the staffers to the Justices:

 

[Gordon_4]

How do you know that the room is sound-proof?
Or are you just basing this off hearsay, the kind of thing you reject as evidence?

I would call it an educated and not unreasonable supposition that the chambers the Justices of the US Supreme Court debate their rulings would be a secured one. I mean I don’t know for sure, but it would make sense to me if it was.

 

[Houseman]

I would call it an educated and not unreasonable supposition that the chambers the Justices of the US Supreme Court debate their rulings would be a secured one. I mean I don’t know for sure, but it would make sense to me if it was.

I think it makes sense too.

But someone like SilentPony evidently holds these claims to a high standard of evidence, so if he were to reject this claim, that words were heard from the other room, on the basis that he guesses that the chamber is sound-proof, or based on hearsay that it is, then he'd be a hypocrite.

 

[Houseman]

Summary of all the fraud so far:

https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf

 

[Agema]

How do you know that the room is sound-proof?
Or are you just basing this off hearsay, the kind of thing you reject as evidence?

I think the bit where they claim say they heard screaming is the sort of theatrical flourish that should set off anyone's bullshitometer.

That's stupid, but Roberts isn't a conservative either. He just sort of does whatever he thinks is pragmatic and rationalizes it after.

No, he is a conservative. He just declines to do the Republican party's onanistic fantasies for them when they're supposed to do it politically. Because whilst the Republicans say they just want by-the-book judges to stop liberal activist judges, what they actually want are their own activist judges to legislate from the bench.

It's just a measure of where the Republican Party has gone that they refuse to recognise him as one. What's actually happened is that Republican party has passed well beyond conservatism to some weird, radical, conspiracy-thery laded far-rightism, and they decided to erroneously hold on to the term "conservative" because they'd got used to it. So all these actual conservatives are now RINOs, liberals, or whatever pejorative-du-jour to mask the fact that the party is collapsing into an abyss of crazy. As indicated by this grotesque post-election spasm (just in case the last four years weren't clear enough) where they've been actively trying to overrule a democratic election and argue that's somehow fine.

The problem people like you face is that you want to be reasonable, but on the other hand you don't want to accept that your much beloved party is now officially endorsing conspiracy theory and attempts to ignore democratic process. Caught in the cognitive dissonance, you're trying to steer a middle course, but a middle course between sanity and insanity is merely being half-insane.

 

[Houseman]

Apparently all you need to contest an electoral college vote is for something to be signed by both a member of the house and the member of the senate: (timestamped video)

 

[Trunkage]

"Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices..." Here we are in the brave new world, where Chief Justice Roberts is considered a liberal.

Honestly, if I had to sum up all the going on evident from the last five weeks, and to an extent the last four years, I'd just say that the USA is looking ever more like it's boned. Everyone prepare your welcome mats for the new Chinese-dominated global order, because the USA is heading towards collapsing in on itself.

The same John Roberts who litigated for Bush during Blooms Brothers, handing Bush the victory... so liberal

 

[Hades]

Apparently all you need to contest an electoral college vote is for something to be signed by both a member of the house and the member of the senate: (timestamped video)

Good so should the election be stolen we'd have the name of someone who should be pecked and feathered before being permanently ousted from politics.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, Pennsylvania person here. That's sort of what the suing Pennsylvania was about, because the rules haven't been in place here specifically for many years. They were sort of haphazardly thrown together by activist judges a few months before the election.

Well, maybe so, though I'd say the term "activist judges" here just means "judges that made a call I don't personally like". But Houseman is calling this a travesty on the basis that deliveries to Georgia polling stations weren't under 24/7 CCTV. It's not a last-minute change in PA he's disputing; it's the system in place nationally, which has been happily used by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents for decades.

 

[Houseman]

The Washington Times: Georgia announces signature matching review in all counties

I'm using outline because the website had TWO annoying overlay pop-ups that don't instantly go away.

Outline.com

outline.com

 

[Trunkage]

I think the bit where they claim say they heard screaming is the sort of theatrical flourish that should set off anyone's bullshitometer.



No, he is a conservative. He just declines to do the Republican party's onanistic fantasies for them when they're supposed to do it politically. Because whilst the Republicans say they just want by-the-book judges to stop liberal activist judges, what they actually want are their own activist judges to legislate from the bench.

It's just a measure of where the Republican Party has gone that they refuse to recognise him as one. What's actually happened is that Republican party has passed well beyond conservatism to some weird, radical, conspiracy-thery laded far-rightism, and they decided to erroneously hold on to the term "conservative" because they'd got used to it. So all these actual conservatives are now RINOs, liberals, or whatever pejorative-du-jour to mask the fact that the party is collapsing into an abyss of crazy. As indicated by this grotesque post-election spasm (just in case the last four years weren't clear enough) where they've been actively trying to overrule a democratic election and argue that's somehow fine.

The problem people like you face is that you want to be reasonable, but on the other hand you don't want to accept that your much beloved party is now officially endorsing conspiracy theory and attempts to ignore democratic process. Caught in the cognitive dissonance, you're trying to steer a middle course, but a middle course between sanity and insanity is merely being half-insane.

Roberts does not want to over turn precedent at all via the Supreme Court. Change the law, not the interpretation. Which..... sounds about as conservative as you get.

This makes him more conservative than those trying to trying to ban abortion or want ‘religious freedom’

 

[Trunkage]

Again, Pennsylvania person here. That's sort of what the suing Pennsylvania was about, because the rules haven't been in place here specifically for many years. They were sort of haphazardly thrown together by activist judges a few months before the election. Now, did PA do anything that's different than what other states have done for years? Almost entirely no, with the exception of accepting ballots a week later on the basis of illegible postmarks, and that's not something that will overturn the election. I maintain that there are officials in my state that deserve to be removed from power and barred from ever touching a public office at any level ever again for the arbitrary and often spiteful decisions they made around this election.

How many activist judges can there be left after Trump’s purge of judicial ranks?