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

Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Screenshot_2020-12-13 Ron ( CodeMonkeyZ) Twitter(2).png


Link to article

Safest election ever.
 
Ver archivo adjunto 1786282
Its over, but I guess people like to pretend its not, so this is the "score".

1. Republicans haven't lost a seat in the house, they gained in the house.
2. Trump is the only president in awhile to gain more votes in his incumbency while Obama lost millions in his incumbency.
3. Why are so sure of Trump will be going to jail when Biden himself has said he doesn't see the point in the dems pressing bullshit charges.
4. Why would Trump go to jail? You think hookers peeing on a bed is a big crime? If Obama can get away Scott Free for bombing kids trump can get away with peace in the middle east.
 
  • One is that Mo Brooks has stated he'll object to the electors on Jan. 6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we just need one House member and one Senator to object on the sixth to force a contingent election.
I think Republicans should keep fighting it with lawfare and agitprop, rather like the Democrats, who never accepted Trump's 2016 win did. I just think they need to be prepared for a long legal and political battle. Now we know at least some parts of the Republican establishment are going to take the graceful loser route and those parts need to be primaried.

Another thing the Democrats did when they didn't like Trump's immigration law was to have sanctuary cities. Red states need to do that for any gun control laws Democrats pass if they gain the White House and Senate. They can do it over lockdowns. Actually, a lot of that is already happening. E.g.

https://sanctuarycounties.com/2020/...ctuary-counties-updated-map-for-june-25-2020/

1607890227696.png

And then there's that CA sheriff who said he wouldn't enforce Governor Newsom's lockdown law.

See also how in the BLM/Antifa riots and CHAZ the state-level Democrat authorities told local law enforcement not to cooperate with the Feds sent in by Trump and also publically denounced his sending them in.

Hell, there's nothing to stop them from setting up autonomous zones on the CHAZ model but with a right-wing, pro-second amendment flavor rather than CHAZ's woke left one. Trump didn't dare use the Insurrection Act? Would Biden? Who knows. It would significantly escalate the crisis if he did though and there's not much sign that law enforcement, the army and the national guard are going to fire on US citizens for a Democrat regime that they mostly regard as illegitimate.

Also, there's the Convention of the States option.

https://conventionofstates.com/

1607890769914.png

That had gained ground before the TX lawsuit got tossed by SCOTUS. I'm sure it will gain even more ground now Red states know the Democrats have a permanent lock on the White House due to fraud and Biden's threatened amnesty giving millions of illegals the right to vote.

It's not over. Pace Francis Fukuyama it will never be over.
 
Última edición:
There is nothing wrong with using y'all and ain't. They are common words in a wide number of English dialects, including actual English as spoken by Englishmen, and Scottish.

What's hella gay is when you use it because you're trying to act Black, which is what white suburban teenagers do.
It's so disrespectful when white suburbia appropriates blacks appropriating rural southern dialect
 
T_D is still up? After glowing so bright last Friday that Santa recruited them to guide his sleigh?
Yes, surprisingly. I guess they calmed down after realizing they realized they'd get vanned if they kept power levelling about their civil war fanfictions.
 
Yes, surprisingly. I guess they calmed down after realizing they realized they'd get vanned if they kept power levelling about their civil war fanfictions.

I dunno about that. Look at this post the mods stickied,

https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SZ0MqG/they-took-the-soap-boxthey-rig/c/
https://archive.vn/EVbvF
1607892187536.png

Look at this

https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SZ0MqG/x/c/4DqdxCR7kwu

1607892768284.png

That last bit made me spit my coffee. I could image Null saying that.

Needless to say, I disavow. For legal reasons.
 
Última edición:
I dunno about that. Look at this post the mods stickied,

https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SZ0MqG/they-took-the-soap-boxthey-rig/c/
https://archive.vn/EVbvF
Ver archivo adjunto 1786349
Needless to say, I disavow. For legal reasons.
This kind of talk is annoying me far more then anything from the left. Either go through with your civil war talk or shut up and unironically accept Biden "won". They're going to come after them for this kind of talk at some point if they don't stop.
 
sidney powell has been a bigger retard than lin wood throughout all of this, she fell for the retarded Q agitprop and anyone who still takes her seriously deserves every ounce of despair that they get.
Heh, people such as I and others were saying this weeks ago. We got shit on by the very same people who are now pretending they agreed the entire time.
 
There are still some things going on. People put too much stock and hope in that Texas thing (myself included, admittedly), which is why we're seeing all this "defeated" mentality now:
  • One is that Mo Brooks has stated he'll object to the electors on Jan. 6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we just need one House member and one Senator to object on the sixth to force a contingent election.
  • There are other pending cases going on.
  • Giuliani said on an interview on Newsmax that Trump's team is going to refile parts of the Texas case at district/circuit levels, perhaps with Trump as plaintiff so they have standing.

Few details, I don't fully understand the procedure but from what I read.

  • Barnes keeps talking about the VP having the authority (Constitutional and legal precedent) to not accept electors from contested state. I don't know the specifics, but I suspect it's kind of a formality and not official dismissal. I suspect the Senate if it wants can still accept the electors as the states submitted them.
  • One senator and one representative can challenge a states electors. Once challenged the Senate and house vote separately and if both decide they remove them from the count. I think the house votes by state so that puts things in Trump's favor but makes it easy for the Senate to have a few senators take the bad publicity and spike the win for the Democrats. I also don't think the VP gets to tie break and a tie keeps the electors.
Again not 100% certain about any of this. I'm currently guessing that they will be challenged, and not tossed either by the House vote actually being a popular vote, or Mittens and two scapeGOPes proudly taking the L.
 
Few details, I don't fully understand the procedure but from what I read.

  • Barnes keeps talking about the VP having the authority (Constitutional and legal precedent) to not accept electors from contested state. I don't know the specifics, but I suspect it's kind of a formality and not official dismissal. I suspect the Senate if it wants can still accept the electors as the states submitted them.
  • One senator and one representative can challenge a states electors. Once challenged the Senate and house vote separately and if both decide they remove them from the count. I think the house votes by state so that puts things in Trump's favor but makes it easy for the Senate to have a few senators take the bad publicity and spike the win for the Democrats. I also don't think the VP gets to tie break and a tie keeps the electors.
Again not 100% certain about any of this. I'm currently guessing that they will be challenged, and not tossed either by the House vote actually being a popular vote, or Mittens and two scapeGOPes proudly taking the L.
The fact that Hillary didn't have Barack do this tells me this is gonna be a full court shot.

Blindfolded.

With one arm tied.
 
  • One senator and one representative can challenge a states electors. Once challenged the Senate and house vote separately and if both decide they remove them from the count. I think the house votes by state so that puts things in Trump's favor but makes it easy for the Senate to have a few senators take the bad publicity and spike the win for the Democrats. I also don't think the VP gets to tie break and a tie keeps the electors.
Doesn't the VP have special powers in that case?

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/pence-decide-race-law-profs-say-vp-allowed-count-electoral-votes/
https://archive.vn/wip/0CIsy
An analysis by two prominent law professors published before the election concluded that if Electoral College votes remain in dispute after they are counted in Congress, the vice president, as presiding officer of the joint session, could choose not to allow certain disputed votes.

The scenario isn't entirely remote, with lawsuits challenging the results in six states and the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court could weigh in.

John Yoo of California-Berkeley and Robert J. Delahunty of St. Thomas University wrote in an analysis published Oct. 19 by the Claremont Institute that Vice President Mike Pence can refuse to count some of the votes if they remain disputed.
Before you get your hopes up this requires that Pence be willing to use these powers and that doing so would survive a legal challenge. Still, it's an interesting bit of slack in the system.

The fact that Hillary didn't have Barack do this tells me this is gonna be a full court shot.

Blindfolded.

With one arm tied.
Interestingly in 2016, Maxine Walters tried to trigger hearings but no Democrat Senator joined her. VP Biden said 'It's over'.

I bet he'll be kicking himself if Pence decides that it is not over in 2020.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo