1. #31921
    Quote Originally Posted by ranzino View Post
    the fancy press conference is still live. go watch it....
    Rudy Colludy’s Four Seasons presser in an alley?

  2. #31922
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.


    Straight up point blank. Kavanaugh clearly says federal courts can and WILL override state courts and state law and permit state legislators to send the GOP set of electors regardless of the count.

  3. #31923
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifuyne View Post
    Can we not dunk on Trumpists?
    Don't act the same way as these people did in 2016.
    Just stating facts is “dunking” on trump Supporters.

    Also we can say it’s ok to cry and whiny about your loss.

    Unlike your group we will accept your differences as long as your not violent and rude.

  4. #31924
    How difficult would it be to:

    1. Make gerrymandering illegal.
    2. Implement automatic voter registration for all citizens.
    3. Increase the number of polling stations/alternative voting methods so people don't have to queue for literally hours.
    4. Get rid of the electoral college system altogether.

  5. #31925
    Warchief D Luniz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The Coastal Plaguelands
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Saninicus View Post
    Well since biden said he wouldn't stop any legal action against trump.. You don't have to worry. Just like all this legal action on the vote will have to come out of trump's pocket. Money he allegedly doesn't have.
    that's the justice dept, (which they do stop if the person is dead, and it doesn't look like anyone else was involved enough to continue the case)

    a Truth and Reconciliation committee is a congressional thing, while it can find things that would then be handed to the DOJ to prosecute, it in itself is just a government backed accounting and fact finding done for public record
    "Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
    Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
    Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.

  6. #31926
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    I'm not going to "dunk" on them but I'm not going to sit here and listen to lies.
    Ah, I didn't mean people should be quiet about all the lies and theories.
    Morely the taunting and dehumanizing, which they did to the left in 2016.
    Don't be like them! We're better than that.

  7. #31927
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.
    The supreme court already ruled that faithless electors are no longer a thing.

  8. #31928
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court
    Stop with this nonsense. The SCOTUS is not going to set that kind of precedent, and while I know a lot of people whine about how they are conservative heavy, they are not all Trump supporters. They have voted against Trump's interests multiple times. This is over.

  9. #31929
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.
    that just means it end up in the house of representatives. (if it gets that far)

  10. #31930
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.
    Don't fool yourself man. Joe Biden is your new president and that's the reality you'll need to live in, and with from now on. Give em a fair chance and who knows maybe you'll grow to like him.

  11. #31931
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.
    I’m pretty sure if this happen, there will be attempts on the SC judges lives.

  12. #31932
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.


    Straight up point blank. Kavanaugh clearly says federal courts can and WILL override state courts and state law and permit state legislators to send the GOP set of electors regardless of the count.
    The election is NOT disputed. So there's that

  13. #31933
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Ramblings
    He lost, get over it
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  14. #31934
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    20,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.


    Straight up point blank. Kavanaugh clearly says federal courts can and WILL override state courts and state law and permit state legislators to send the GOP set of electors regardless of the count.
    You're pathetic.

    Just stop, Trump lost, get over yourself.

  15. #31935
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.


    Straight up point blank. Kavanaugh clearly says federal courts can and WILL override state courts and state law and permit state legislators to send the GOP set of electors regardless of the count.
    That's a lot of copium you've got there. He lost, get the fuck over it.

  16. #31936
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    Trump is VERY likely to win this thanks to the Supreme Court

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce/ar-BB1asZSx


    Kavanaugh embraced a legal theory that could let Republican-controlled state legislatures override results certified by Democratic officials. That argument, developed by three conservative justices in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, says the Supreme Court should intervene in a presidential election dispute even when a state court is interpreting its own laws.

    Citing that opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to a constitutional provision that says state legislatures get to determine how electors are appointed to the Electoral College, the body that formally selects the U.S. president.

    “The text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh wrote. He was one of three current justices, including Roberts and Barrett, who worked as lawyers for Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight.

    Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, creating the possibility those states could send dueling slates of electors to the Electoral College in the event of a disputed election.


    Straight up point blank. Kavanaugh clearly says federal courts can and WILL override state courts and state law and permit state legislators to send the GOP set of electors regardless of the count.
    There is snowballs chance in hell Supreme Court does anything at these margins.

    If this would be 1k margin across the battleground states, then there would be a fair shot. 20k+? Not going to happen.

  17. #31937
    The Supreme Court is going to overrule any state objections and allow the states to send the GOP electors. This is exactly what the Kavanaugh said.

  18. #31938
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifuyne View Post
    Ah, I didn't mean people should be quiet about all the lies and theories.
    Morely the taunting and dehumanizing, which they did to the left in 2016.
    Don't be like them!
    Yes the problem with trump supporters is they were mean to democrats when they lost the election so if you're mean to them you're just as bad!

  19. #31939
    gratz people. finally,

  20. #31940
    Quote Originally Posted by Die View Post
    The Supreme Court is going to overrule any state objections and allow the states to send the GOP electors.
    That would be an act of war.

    The Supreme court has not acted that lawlessly up to this point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •