2020 US General Election

[Mac76]

Check your logic on that one.

done - and the problem is...?

[Letters]

they actually aren't biased against him - you're falling into the Trump camp's propaganda trap by saying that

I may have been teasing someone who made that claim

[Niall_Quinn]

done - and the problem is...?

Sometimes it's hard to know if you are joking or not.

I was the person who stated the decisions in the cases in question are political. I had not stated the opposite, therefore cannot possibly "admit" to something that's not in dispute. At no point did I state or imply the behaviour of the court as unusual or an example of wrongdoing (I even stated it was technically legal). Quite the opposite. What I said was the intent was political, to dismiss without examination based on procedure - the basis of the argument itself, which you seem to have missed. You also state that politicisation is "simply stating the obvious" and "something that applies to EVERY judge" while simultaneously claiming I'm pushing a "conspiracy theory". Then you claim I "deflect" when somebody "calls you out", when in fact this is exactly what you are doing by ignoring the detailed response I have given to instead focus on a single sentence that's not even connected to the main argument, which was the procedural basis on which the dismissals are occurring.

So there's your problem.

[Mac76]

Sometimes it's hard to know if you are joking or not.

I was the person who stated the decisions in the cases in question are political. I had not stated the opposite, therefore cannot possibly "admit" to something that's not in dispute. At no point did I state or imply the behaviour of the court as unusual or an example of wrongdoing (I even stated it was technically legal). Quite the opposite. What I said was the intent was political, to dismiss without examination based on procedure - the basis of the argument itself, which you seem to have missed. You also state that politicisation is "simply stating the obvious" and "something that applies to EVERY judge" while simultaneously claiming I'm pushing a "conspiracy theory". Then you claim I "deflect" when somebody "calls you out", when in fact this is exactly what you are doing by ignoring the detailed response I have given to instead focus on a single sentence that's not even connected to the main argument, which was the procedural basis on which the dismissals are occurring.

So there's your problem.

"What I said was the intent was political, to dismiss without examination based on procedure -"

so exactly - the judge you admit is political, as is the norm, did something political - but you're saying this is evidence that things are stacked against Trump - which is the premise behind everything you post on this subject - because you wanted him to win and, like him, are in denial that the majority of legitimate votes went to Biden

[Niall_Quinn]

"What I said was the intent was political, to dismiss without examination based on procedure -"

so exactly - the judge you admit is political, as is the norm, did something political - but you're saying this is evidence that things are stacked against Trump - which is the premise behind everything you post on this subject - because you wanted him to win and, like him, are in denial that the majority of legitimate votes went to Biden

No, What I very clearly stated was Trump's legal team will have a better chance of having the evidence tested as they move to higher courts. You should read before you comment.

[Niall_Quinn]

Crazy shit going on in PA now. It's potentially a huge win and a huge loss for the Trump campaign at the same time. And it may spill out to the entire nation, not just the contested states.

[Niall_Quinn]

Chunk Yoghurt has started his meltdown routine. They're trying to steal our stolen election! WAH!!!!!

[Letters]

Meanwhile Trump is conducting himself with quiet dignity as usual.

[GP]

https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/sta...93569100460037

[Niall_Quinn]

PA supreme court dismisses a clear cut case of an unconstitutional law, based not on examination of the law (which has already been ruled unconstitutional by another court), but on a procedural timing matter. The PA constitution is definitive, the violation of the constitution is explicit and has not been challenged by the supreme court. This is not unexpected but it's still a vivid illustration of the establishment breaking its own laws in order to achieve a favoured outcomes. It will be more difficult for SCOTUS to ignore the claim, although they could send it back to the state court for a proper ruling, which would eat up time.