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

[murdered meat bag]

I feel at some point no matter how much voter fraud. The dems will lose many people and eventually not even voter fraud will save them.

Dems will never lose the socjus portions. and there's done of them, even in basic bitch suburbs.

 

[Oats12345]

Dems will never lose the socjus portions. and there's done of them, even in basic bitch suburbs.

I'm talking about normal people.

 

[murdered meat bag]

The courts will generally rule in favor of people's votes being counted as long as they were in good faith. If yours and 100,000 Trump votes had been thrown out because you followed, with good faith, what you thought the laws were, but it turns out that wasn't the case, how would you feel?

If everyone's ballots were thrown out, i'd be fine. if it was just my people, i'd be mad. good thing the wisc case isn't about specific voters and their parties but the methods they used to vote.

e:i'd even go so far as to say if the state threw out 100,001 votes including mine, but also had to throw out 200,000 biden votes, i'd say go for it.

 

[Mr Cuddles]

I'm talking about normal people.

I don't think are any normal people left who vote Democrat. You've got blue no matter who, SocJus types and corporate parasites.

 

[It's HK-47]

The courts will generally rule in favor of people's votes being counted as long as they were in good faith. If yours and 100,000 Trump votes had been thrown out because you followed, with good faith, what you thought the laws were, but it turns out that wasn't the case, how would you feel?

I'd be pissed off that my local officials fucked up and got my votes thrown out, and I'd move to vote them out at the next opportunity. If something passes through the judicial system and makes a good, legal argument for it I just shrug and keep moving ahead. Hence why I didn't flip any tables when the Supreme Court threw Texas' lawsuit into the dumpster on the grounds that it had no standing to dictate how another state runs its elections.

I don't like the ruling, I don't like the results, I don't like that we didn't get to see the arguments being presented in Texas' lawsuit making their way through the court, but it was a Constitutionally-sound ruling, so there's not much sense in bitching about it. The Supreme Court didn't fuck that up, Texas did, so I'm frustrated with Texas and not the Supreme Court. In this instance I'm frustrated with the court itself, because I think the ruling is ridiculous and it doesn't even attempt to make a legal argument, it just says that fraud or the potential for fraud is fine, so long as everyone believes it's not fraudulent.

That's a bit silly.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

It's just such a weird justification for throwing the whole thing out; it's not even a legal interpretation, it's like a slightly better-worded version of "we can't do this because it might make someone sad." Yes, it would absolutely fuck some people up and yes it's not the voters' fault that they were mislead by their election officials, but that doesn't exactly make a good legal argument for violating election laws.

I mean I'd get bummed out if I was thrown in jail for robbing a bank because my mayor told me it was okay, but that wouldn't make a great defense. I know, that's extreme and ridiculous hyperbole but this ruling is just fucking weird.

The wording suggests that the issue is mainly on the proposed relief, and not that the ballots are necessarily pristine and clean. IE, compelling a more in-depth audit or getting a specific ruling about the legal language for the next election might have more success than attempting to just invalidate all of the votes with no means of redress for the individuals involved.
I would imagine there's also a lack of precedent regarding instances like this which might be cited so as to force the court to rule in a particular manner.

 

[Psychic Espeon]

Current Official Electoral College Map (12:58 EST)

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

I don't know. With the guy's declining health, especially with the presidency being a stressful job. I just found it hard to belive he will last for two years

In the event Biden is successfully rigged in, there is no way he's making it the full four years.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

I don't know. With the guy's declining health, especially with the presidency being a stressful job. I just found it hard to belive he will last for two years

If they've got a supine media they could just say he's having treatment at Walter Reed, is convalescing, back to Walter Reed, etc for two years even if he's comatose.

From what I can tell there were various historical examples of US presidents who were chronically sick and it was covered up. E.g. Woodrow Wilson's stroke in 1919, James Garfield's infected bullet would or Grover Cleveland having his most of his upper jaw removed to get rid of a tumor.

I reckon the Democrats would 25th Amendment him and put Kamala in if he has another stroke though - they've set up all machinery to do it.

 

[Dr J]

I feel at some point no matter how much voter fraud. The dems will lose many people and eventually not even voter fraud will save them.

They don't need the people when they can get their operatives to print as many ballots as needed. It's incredible how naive you are. They didn't need the people here. Joe Biden never won a presidential primary in his life until South Carolina this year. He came fourth in Iowa (which was a mess just like the general), fifth in New Hampshire. His polling was awful and he couldn't fill up a Burger King even when corona wasn't a concern. His running mate's polling was so awful even her native California that she had to drop out before even the first primary. Nobody wanted them. They won anyway

They were sloppy this time, but if they get away with this then they'll be even better at fraud the next time. All those little constitutional issues that could, in theory, get the entire election overturned? They'll make sure they dot their 'i's and cross their 't's with the State Legislatures next time. Their fraud will be perfect. Republicans will never win anything ever again if they don't fight here and the saddest part is that they're all such pathetic cowards that they will just let themselves be driven off a cliff.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I'd be pissed off that my local officials fucked up and got my votes thrown out, and I'd move to vote them out at the next opportunity. If something passes through the judicial system and makes a good, legal argument for it I just shrug and keep moving ahead. Hence why I didn't flip any tables when the Supreme Court threw Texas' lawsuit into the dumpster on the grounds that it had no standing to dictate how another state runs its elections.

I don't like the ruling, I don't like the results, I don't like that we didn't get to see the arguments being presented in Texas' lawsuit making their way through the court, but it was a Constitutionally-sound ruling, so there's not much sense in bitching about it. The Supreme Court didn't fuck that up, Texas did, so I'm frustrated with Texas and not the Supreme Court. In this instance I'm frustrated with the court itself, because I think the ruling is ridiculous and it doesn't even attempt to make a legal argument, it just says that fraud or the potential for fraud is fine, so long as everyone believes it's not fraudulent.

That's a bit silly.

What I think everyone involved is doing is something that we've seen the Woke Left do countless times. They're picking a conclusion ("We will not do anything about the Election") and working backwards from there to find justifications, no matter how insane. It's religious thinking.

I don't know how to counter it, not really. Have you ever been able to talk one of the 59-gender-true-believers off the edge? But now instead of some insane dude that thinks he's a girl on Tuesdays and a Sheep on Fridays, it's Judges going "No uh, the election was fine because everyone agrees it was fine" or "laches says you are too late despite being told it was too early before."

I do want it known that if this turns out to be some sort of weird toxoplasmosis infection that turns people stupid or some massive massive indoctrination campaign that means Uncle Yuri was conservative, I fucking called it.

 

[murdered meat bag]

The wording suggests that the issue is mainly on the proposed relief, and not that the ballots are necessarily pristine and clean. IE, compelling a more in-depth audit or getting a specific ruling about the legal language for the next election might have more success than attempting to just invalidate all of the votes with no means of redress for the individuals involved.
I would imagine there's also a lack of precedent regarding instances like this which might be cited so as to force the court to rule in a particular manner.

Dallet and Karofsky concurring opinion is that it's wrong to throw out votes, two paragraphs.

As acknowledged by the President's counsel at oral argument, the President would have the people of this country believe that fraud took place in Wisconsin during the November 3, 2020 election. Nothing could be further from the truth. The President failed to point to even one vote cast in this election by an ineligible voter; yet he asks this court to disenfranchise over 220,000 voters. The circuit court, whose decision we affirm, found no evidence of any fraud.

¶34 The evidence does show that, despite a global pandemic, more than 3.2 million Wisconsinites performed their civic duty. More importantly as it relates to this lawsuit, these voters followed the rules that were in place at the time. To borrow Justice Hagedorn's metaphor, Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook. No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election

. ¶35 For the foregoing reasons, we concur.

Hagedorn's opinion offers wonder insight such as "the statute doesn't define what it means by address"

¶49 Although Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6d) requires an address, § 6.87(2) and (6d) are silent on precisely what makes an address sufficient. This is in stark contrast to other provisions of the election statutes that are more specific.

For example, Wis. Stat. § 6.34(3)(b)2. requires an identifying document to contain "[a] current and complete residential address, including a numbered street address, if any, and the name of the municipality" for the document to be considered proof of residence.

Similarly, Wis. Stat. § 6.18 requires former residents to swear or affirm their Wisconsin address as follows: "formerly residing at . . . in No. 2020AP2038.bh 7 the . . . ward . . . aldermanic district (city, town, village) of . . . County of . . . ."8

While the world has surely faced more pressing questions, the contours of what makes an address an address has real impact. Would a street address be enough, but no municipality? Is the state necessary? Zip code too? Does it matter if the witness uses their mailing address and not the residential address (which can be different)?

it's a crock of shit.

I don't know how to counter it, not really. Have you ever been able to talk one of the 59-gender-true-believers off the edge? But now instead of some insane dude that thinks he's a girl on Tuesdays and a Sheep on Fridays, it's Judges going "No uh, the election was fine because everyone agrees it was fine" or "laches says you are too late despite being told it was too early before."

you'll never be able to talk fanatics off the edge but you can always add doubt. "if bullying leads to lgbt suicides why are the suicides rates in pro-lgbt, lgbt-friendly states and countries the same as in anti-lgbt ones?" "why does 13% of the population responsibile for 60% of murder?" for most things anyway.

the problem with this election is that it's more complicated than statistics, people need to understand their state civics, national civics and then the court. Look at all the people going "trump was laughed out of the court his cases are a joek" when the ruling was issued on standing? they don't know what that means.

 

[Oats12345]

With Biden president. I'm hoping I won't have to here about politics in everyplace I go

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Dallet and Karofsky concurring opinion is that it's wrong to throw out votes, two paragraphs.

Hagedorn's opinion offers wonder insight such as "the statute doesn't define what it means by address"

it's a crock of shit.

Welcome to law!
You can't call "address" frivolous and then cite the mailing and residential address line, which would be the first and most obvious rebuttal. You either word everything airtight and specific, or you can leave it open to courts to interpret. "Obviously it means residential" would be refuted by "so why doesn't it say residential, and why has no action been take it to specify residential address?" His examples point out statues which specifically invoke residential by contrast to the one being cited as in violation.

The case, lacking the ability to cite specific instances of definitive fraud - or even alleging such - instead hinged as such on the specific interpretation of that statute. You wanted to throw out 200k voters over the specific wording of a statute and how that "might maybe kindof possibly" cause fraud. The court ruled the statute to have been followed, if poorly written. Don't know what you want.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Ver archivo adjunto 1787903
Once again, the Hulkster is proven right. Wisconsin lawsuit was thrown out

No fucking shit it got thrown out every case got thrown out. Stop stating the obvious.

 

[Dr J]

but it was a Constitutionally-sound ruling

Was it? Really?

From what I can tell there were various historical examples of US presidents who were chronically sick and it was covered up.

Happens routinely. FDR had a heart attack in 1940. After 1940 his health absolutely went to shit but it was covered up. Kennedy had Addison's disease and chronic back pain so bad he had to see three doctors, one of whom was unknown to the other two and who prescribed him these pain killers that would completely incapacitate him. He took one such pain killer during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Ron Reagan's doctor said that he was just forgetful and that he showed no signs of Alzheimer's while in office but chances are that he's full of shit.

or some massive massive indoctrination campaign that means Uncle Yuri was conservative, I fucking called it.

He wasn't conservative, he was right on the money. Most of these people's heads have been filled with so much nonsense that they have no ability to evaluate truth or facts. That's all it is, it's that simple.

 

[Psychic Espeon]

Here's live-coverage of the voting:

 

[Ridge Racer]

the problem with this election is that it's more complicated than statistics, people need to understand their state civics, national civics and then the court. Look at all the people going "trump was laughed out of the court his cases are a joek" when the ruling was issued on standing? they don't know what that means.

What does a ruling being issued on standing mean?

 

[LeChampion1992]

They don't need the people when they can get their operatives to print as many ballots as needed. It's incredible how naive you are. They didn't need the people here. Joe Biden never won a presidential primary in his life until South Carolina this year. He came fourth in Iowa (which was a mess just like the general), fifth in New Hampshire. His polling was awful and he couldn't fill up a Burger King even when corona wasn't a concern. His running mate's polling was so awful even her native California that she had to drop out before even the first primary. Nobody wanted them. They won anyway

They were sloppy this time, but if they get away with this then they'll be even better at fraud the next time. All those little constitutional issues that could, in theory, get the entire election overturned? They'll make sure they dot their 'i's and cross their 't's with the State Legislatures next time. Their fraud will be perfect. Republicans will never win anything ever again if they don't fight here and the saddest part is that they're all such pathetic cowards that they will just let themselves be driven off a cliff.

Republicans would rather praise the magical state of israel and make online content proclaiming muh democrats are the real racists.
Most of them are spinless cucks who would rather suck the cock of their corporate doners then work for Americans.
We don't spend enough on israel to win the war on terror.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

He wasn't conservative, he was right on the money. Most of these people's heads have been filled with so much nonsense that they have no ability to evaluate truth or facts. That's all it is, it's that simple.

As in, his estimate was conservative and even he would be surprised at this shit.