2020 US General Election

[Letters]

Mitt

[Niall_Quinn]

Did you see those two posts directly above yours? Just filing them for future reference, particularly the second one.

[Letters]

Did you see those two posts directly above yours? Just filing them for future reference, particularly the second one.

Oh yes? Do go on

[Niall_Quinn]

It's quite entertaining to watch the mainstream media perform its latest script with a straight face. And to hear democrats defending the Constitution so passionately - side splitting. And pointless. Those who can think for themselves are laughing, those who can't are doing what they would have done regardless, lapping it up. Attack on democracy... terrorism... as the people occupy their own building in defence of their own law which the establishment has thrown out in such blatant fashion.

When these levels of deception are the norm it confirms not just the arrival of Orwell's state but the reality it has been here for some time and has cemented itself with a large segment of western society. The media could literally say anything now and many people would believe it, without question.

[Letters]

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-pro...ident-12181243

"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th, have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it's only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!"

First bolded part: No they don't.
Second bolded part:

[Letters]

The media could literally say anything now and many people would believe it, without question.

And Trump and certain right wing YouTube channels and blogs could literally say anything now and many other people would believe it, without question.

[Ollie the Optimist]

Another media talking point that has zero relevancy in law as the case was presented and in light of previous cases that had already been dismissed on standing (essentially demonstration of harmed/ aggrieved status). You can't sue a party that hasn't caused you harm, even if their behaviour is reckless or harms others. Not only that, but the argument was not related to the procedures that had changed, but who changed them (the entirely valid constitutional argument which SCOTUS, to its eternal discredit, ducked). In a supreme twist of irony, in relation to the supposed legal argument from the left, SCOTUS then dismisses on... standing!? Absolutely bonkers.

The whole point of Texas’ lawsuit was that by allowing mail in ballots to be counted after the election (as long as sent on or before Election Day) it was unconstitutional. They sued four states on that basis which happened to vote Biden.

Now as you say, they cant sue someone who hasn’t caused you harm but the point of their lawsuit was that those states acted unconstitutionally by allowing mail in ballots to arrive after Election Day not because they voted Biden. Therefore Texas should have sued all states that allowed it such as North Carolina which allowed up to 9 days but they didnt because they voted Trump.

[Letters]

The point of the lawsuit was political theatre, nothing else.
There was no prospect of it succeeding and they knew it, but it allowed them to cosy up to Trump.

[GP]

Remember the Kraken?

[Letters]

Remember the USPS guy?



Four Seasons Total Landscaping