the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Keef 764]

10 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Your skepticism is what judges are saying too.  You can’t really be asking me to throw out millions of votes because they were done by a method that was agreed was okay beforehand. 

Exactly.  You advised these citizens that it was okay to vote this way and now you're trying to throw out their vote because you don't like the result.  I can't imagine the remedy would be to disenfranchise all of these mail in voters who voted in a way you told them was okay (oh, and it is the middle of a pandemic). 

I truly have no idea what the remedy could be - do make the potentially effected people vote in person?  Do we even know who those people are?  Could you organize this "re-vote" before the inauguration?  Does any of these actually matter since Biden has enough electoral votes even without PA?  

[totallynotabuttpirate 5400]

31 minutes ago, Llogg said:

Are state senators not supposed to be serious people who understand their words and actions have consequences?

No my dude. They are usually much bigger idiots than Senators. 

[Sawbonz 27556]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This might sound hyperbolic but if a state legislature overturns the will of the people in a POTUS vote, its the true beginning of the end of the US.

Nah. Even Ben Franklin wasn’t sure we could keep it. It’s always been a struggle. If indeed they can do this, they will be LEGALLY overturning the will of the people in their state. Another one of those morally wrong but legal actions that partisans decry when it goes against them and harp on the legality of it when their side does it. 
 

If they do this it will likely be the beginning of the end of the republican majority in the PA state legislature. I doubt they have enough votes to do it when it doesn’t change the outcome in the electoral college. They couldn’t even have a real hearing. 

[Biff Tannen 45682]

13 minutes ago, Keef said:

Does any of these actually matter since Biden has enough electoral votes even without PA?  

Nope

[Pato del Muerto 52494]

Getting really fucking tired of people claiming things like “mounting evidence” of voter fraud, when zero evidence has been presented to the courts or to the public, other than the typical clerical errors and individual issues. 
It’s like playing poker with someone who won’t shut up about how good their hand is, and gets louder every time you call instead of fold. You know they can’t afford to lose what they’ve put in the pot, and you wonder what they are going to do when it’s time to show cards. 

[aggie08 21504]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Nope

While true, one state "falling" is a horrible, horrible look for democracy. Even if the ruling is essentially, "These electoral votes don't affect the outcome, so we're just not going to include them in the count rather than waste resources in court." That would be a huge win for Trump and something they could spin into "obvious" impropriety.

They need to be crushed and embarrassed at every step (so far, so good), to deter the next jackass from duplicating the blueprint.

[atomheartbevo 89659]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This might sound hyperbolic but if a state legislature overturns the will of the people in a POTUS vote, its the true beginning of the end of the US.

1 hour ago, Llogg said:

It is one thing for the bloviating gelatinous mass that's been fermenting in the Oval Office for the past 4 years rants and raves and throws out blatantly false accusations. We've all learned to basically ignore everything the President of the United States of America has to say. But this guy, this senator, is supposed to be a serious person who understands his words and actions have consequences. For even proposing this he should be brought up on charges of corruption and sedition.

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Well if PA wants to test the guardrails of Democracy, I would not want to live in a big PA city the next month 

50 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Yeah, this is a state senator, not a US senator. There are some legit people in state legislatures, but there are some absolute goobers susceptible to Q tendencies. I would be surprised if this even makes it to a vote.

It's not the beginning of the end of the US, it'll be the beginning of the end of the GOP in Pennsylvania.

Republicans in Pennsylvania are all like "we can use the scientific method to figure this out!"

 

 

[Horn Dog 9849]

15 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I don’t live in Milwaukee but that orange fucker could of had my vote for not a penny over 21k

[atomheartbevo 89659]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Mitch may not want a shutdown and Mitch wants his two Senators. So, who has the upper hand here? A government shutdown doesn't look bad for Trump--c'mon man, he just lies about it and blames someone else. Trump may not be rational and he may not be strategic (for planning purposes) but I have no idea who is whispering in his ear either. He would leverage anyone or anything to get himself out of a jam if it benefits him and his pocketbook. That's what he does, he lashes out while looking for a way to pivot. He pivoted himself out of how many GOT HIM situations now?

Mitch does not want a shutdown on the eve of two Senate elections in Georgia, elections that will determine whether Mitch is in power or not come January 20.

There are over 72,000 federal civilian employees in Georgia.   Probably tens of thousands of voting age dependents/spouses of those employees, not to mention numerous businesses that rely on those federal emploiyees and/or contracts.  That's not getting into all of the other people in Georgia that will be directly or indirectly affected by a shutdown.  None of those people would have forgotten the previous shutdown under Mitch and Donnie.

Those numbers are enough to swing the elections to the Dems.

On some level, Trump knows that when he leaves office, various states are going to run a train on he, his family, and his finances, but he also wants to punish people/states that he sees as being disloyal, and the two thoughts are crashing together inside his head, and he's having a very hard time focusing.  In his mind, he should be able to run free and punish states as he sees fit.  On the other hand, he's a toddler that can't keep his shit together and somehow help Perdue and Loeffler win, even though he desperately needs them to win.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

3 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Kilgore Trout on Twitter has a post about the Sidney Powell suit and saying that its purpose is to provide chum for future conspiracy theory discussions in the various boards.  They love digesting legal documents, examining typos, decoding every last aside.  You have to continuously feed the beast to keep them in your thrall. It’s essentially one giant Q drop.  I thought that was a good argument.   

Probably an astute point.  I know little or nothing about the tenets of Q-ism, but jailhouse/ignoramus lawyering is a popular pastime among sovereign citizens and common-law-trusters, conspiracy theorists and lunatics that seem to be kissing cousins with Q-Anon.

Edited November 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31463]

1 hour ago, Keef said:

Do the Surly litigators think there is any real merit to the PA constitutional argument regarding the mail in ballots?  Of course it is utterly laughable that republicans are seeking to declare a law that they voted for unconstitutional, but if there is something to it, that could present quite the cluster.  What sort of remedy would the court be likely to grant?  I can't see them throwing out all of the ballots and calling it a day - I have no idea what sort of remedy would work here.

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

 

Let me summarize what you’ve actuated captured here. A narcissist who is experiencing defeat will go through only two emotional action stages: 1) denial/resistance to the loss. Then, when that has failed, 2) revenge on those who hurt him. In this case, “those who hurt him” is America, less the known Trump loyalists. He is going to metaphorically - and maybe literally - burn this country down over the next 60 days.

And as for the remedy being requested, that’s exactly what the courts are seeing and saying. It’s possible that the mail-in ballot law violates the Pa constitution. But if so, it did so from the start, and these plaintiffs could/should have known it then. Instead, they waited till ballots were cast and they didn’t like the result. Courts are not going to favor a remedy that disenfranchises a shitload of voters and tosses out an entire election, especially when the plaintiff purposefully delayed so long that lesser remedies are not available (a problem called laches). So, a court might declare the law unconstitutional and say that it’s not available for future elections, but it would almost certainly let this election stand.

 

 

Here's the deal on that.  It is arguable that Act 77 (the PA election code revision of 2019) violates the PA Constitution.  What is really problematic is that the PA lege (both R and D) evidently thought it did, so proposed an amendment to the PA Constitution to prevent that.  Apparently, under their constitutional amendment process, it has to be voted upon once, then voted again in the next session, and then put to a popular vote.

The second vote and the popular vote haven't happened.  So, that would seem to mean that the Amendment is ineffective until they do.  Which would seem to mean that Act 77 violates the PA constitution.

So, it doesn't really add to the argument in a helpful fashion to say the PA Republicans voted for it.  The process just didn't play out like it was supposed to.

What's astonishing is that Act 77 was actually followed in the  2020 general election, because its constitutional status was so clearly up in the air until the amendment passed.  I have no idea what Boockvar & Co. were thinking when they did that.

All that said, I think brisket is right:  Act 77 may be prospectively unconstitutional under the PA constitution until that Amendment is properly ratified, but it would be in violation of the US Constitution to retroactively invalidate it for the 2020 elections and disenfranchise an entire classification of voters.  Additionally, the current plaintiffs should have taken action against Act 77 being employed in the 2020 election, and their failure to do so means they are not going to get a retroactive remedy ("cancellation" of mail-in votes).

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 54221]

23 hours ago, Js1 said:

3 panel conservative court led by a Trump appointee = ACTIVIST!

 

Notice that she doesn't claim that they're covering up fraud.  They're covering up "allegations of massive fraud."  How does one cover up allegations?

[Sawbonz 27556]

44 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

While true, one state "falling" is a horrible, horrible look for democracy. Even if the ruling is essentially, "These electoral votes don't affect the outcome, so we're just not going to include them in the count rather than waste resources in court." That would be a huge win for Trump and something they could spin into "obvious" impropriety.

They need to be crushed and embarrassed at every step (so far, so good), to deter the next jackass from duplicating the blueprint.

Actually that is democracy working. Unfortunately individuals in PA who want an authoritarian making their decisions for them have a vote that counts the same as those who don't.  If the republicans in the state leg. choose to go down that road and don't get voted out for that choice, PA will have to accept those consequences. 

 

Unless you  think only those who hold the correct opinions should have a vote

[TwiceHorn 31463]

2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Resolutions are just public legislative masturbation.

While Article II does confer on state legislatures almost unfettered freedom to determine how to appoint electors, Bush v. Gore and a number of other cases make it pretty clear that the Equal Protection Clause, and Article II, make it unconstitutional to change state law after an election with the effect of disenfranchising voters in that election.

Edited November 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Getting really fucking tired of people claiming things like “mounting evidence” of voter fraud, when zero evidence has been presented to the courts or to the public, other than the typical clerical errors and individual issues. 
It’s like playing poker with someone who won’t shut up about how good their hand is, and gets louder every time you call instead of fold. You know they can’t afford to lose what they’ve put in the pot, and you wonder what they are going to do when it’s time to show cards. 

To complete your analogy, they keep showing you the 2-7 offsuit they’re holding.

[Js1 85325]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Resolutions are just public legislative masturbation.

While Article II does confer on state legislatures almost unfettered freedom to determine how to appoint electors, Bush v. Gore and a number of other cases make it pretty clear that the Equal Protection Clause, and Article II, make it unconstitutional to change state law after an election with the effect of disenfranchising voters in that election.

Doesn’t the Electoral Count Act say that in the event of 2 sets of electors being sent to Congress and the 2 chambers can’t agree which to accept, the Governor breaks the tie or no slate is accepted. Which means the EV total is 518 and Biden needs (and has) 260 to win. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

1 hour ago, Llogg said:

Are state senators not supposed to be serious people who understand their words and actions have consequences?

Couldn't resist.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Francisco 2.0

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

I don’t live in Milwaukee but that orange fucker could of had my vote for not a penny over 21k

I would've given him my vote for $19,500 all-in, but would have insisted on the undercoating package.  Those orange models will rust up on you like you wouldn't believe! 

[Gatorubet 30237]

So, a court might declare the law unconstitutional and say that it’s not available for future elections, but it would almost certainly let this election stand.

Unless God whispers in 5 believers’ ears and His Will be done.

But yeah, that is a shit ton of registered voter detrimental reliance to ignore.

[AnTiM 1666]

Since Trump is apparently willing to believe anything, there has to be some place to find a person who could convince him that offing himself would be a great idea.  Is that too much to hope for?

[Brisketexan 105127]

Unless God whispers in 5 believers’ ears and His Will be done.

But yeah, that is a shit ton of registered voter detrimental reliance to ignore.

If SCOTUS did that, in the process tossing out every concept of Equal Protection, it would be the undeniable end of the legitimacy of the Court. They’d be just another irrelevant captive court in another banana republic. And they don’t want that - they want to continue to be important.

[Red Five 40857]

14 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

Since Trump is apparently willing to believe anything, there has to be some place to find a person who could convince him that offing himself would be a great idea.  Is that too much to hope for?

Can a narcissist commit suicide?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

59 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On some level, Trump knows that when he leaves office, various states are going to run a train on he, his family, and his finances, but he also wants to punish people/states that he sees as being disloyal, and the two thoughts are crashing together inside his head, and he's having a very hard time focusing.  In his mind, he should be able to run free and punish states as he sees fit.  On the other hand, he's a toddler that can't keep his shit together and somehow help Perdue and Loeffler win, even though he desperately needs them to win.

That gets to my whole point, though. Regardless of whether Trump and Mitch kinda sorta want the same (or similar) things, Mitch isn't the same type of head case that Trump is and in that respect, Trump may have the upper hand. They each have cards in their hands at this time but we don't know if they've allowed each other a peek. Guess it depends on if they are working in sync or just happen to be side by side.

So while what you say makes sense, I'm looking at a desperate, crazy man who would like to set things up so that Biden is in complete disarray, and punish those who have WRONGED him. While Mitch knows that winning is doable, if Trump is feeling his victimhood, Mitch is going to be wrasslin' a toddler who not only believes HE should wreak vengeance but one that absolutely LOVES to make messes and then swoop in and say, "Look! Look what I did!. I saved you all."

Shutting down the government, blaming the libtard Democrats and whom all else and then turning it all back on--he did that before, holding out for the border wall funding and even if it didn't turn out exactly the way he envisioned, are you saying that a man who went through six bankruptcies has learned his lesson? I am skeptical. He signed the legislation that kept the government up and running through the election and LOOK WHAT IT GOT HIM? Bunch of ungrateful, lousy cheaters that voted for Sleepy Joe! Besides, he would be shutting down the CDC in Atlanta and that would be a two-fer blow. If anything, that would be the one thing that Mitch would hold up his sleeve because that one action would be so blatantly egregious during a pandemic that the collateral damage to other pols might force a reckoning. And even Trump knows he needs help to stay where he is.

You and I may have to disagree on this one; for me, a lot depends on if he does as @Brisketexan suggests (and I think Trump will) he stays in the aggrieved angry phase for the next fifty days. Because that is how he behaves when he is that way. He wants to hurt people, he wants to see them suffer.

That being said, these lawsuits distract from that and the havoc he's having two timing Pompeo set up in the ME. Pompeo is serving Trump (not the country) and himself and they are leaving a hot mess for Biden to handle.

Hang on to your butts, while the clown show is happening out front, the behind the scenes is the real horror movie.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52494]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Can a narcissist commit suicide?

Can someone convince trump that trump’s killer would be lauded as the greatest American hero and live forever in American history, and be more famous than Trump?

Edited November 28, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[Gatorubet 30237]

Exactly.  You advised these citizens that it was okay to vote this way and now you're trying to throw out their vote because you don't like the result.  I can't imagine the remedy would be to disenfranchise all of these mail in voters who voted in a way you told them was okay (oh, and it is the middle of a pandemic). 
I truly have no idea what the remedy could be - do make the potentially effected people vote in person?  Do we even know who those people are?  Could you organize this "re-vote" before the inauguration?  Does any of these actually matter since Biden has enough electoral votes even without PA?  

That is the paper/scissors/rock of the Penn Constitution Articles. The earlier fight about counting mail in votes after Tuesday involved dueling constitutional provisions of voting on election day versus covid and mail service disruptions depriving folks of a right to have their vote counted under the fair and equal clause.

While statutory construction normally gives more weight to the specific over the general, if denying all mail in votes results in an unequal election - given the absence of the complaining party’s attempts to correct the defect at a time they could have - I think “ “fair and equal” mandate may give them the wiggle room to validate the lack of a valid constitutional amendment referendum on the mail in issue b/c of covid, mail issues and the GOP sitting on the thing until their side won.

Also, if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania interpreting the Pennsylvania Constitution validates the election, it is harder to see a Federal Court overturning an issue of state law that effects virtually every down-ballot race.

[Gatorubet 30237]

If SCOTUS did that, in the process tossing out every concept of Equal Protection, it would be the undeniable end of the legitimacy of the Court. They’d be just another irrelevant captive court in another banana republic. And they don’t want that - they want to continue to be important.

Yep. Weirdly, what Marshall brilliantly constructed in Marbury v Madison, applies more than ever. SCOTUS’s power depends almost solely upon the other two branches agreeing that they have that power. Trump will recognize their orders....until he won’t. Allowing him to remain in office is a HUGE potential threat to their legitimacy. Trump would have no problem telling his army of toadies that SCOTUS is made up of traitorous activists if they rule against him - and if he ever thinks he has the military or legislative juice to outright ignore them, he will.

They know that.

[SaucyJack 3488]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

I don’t live in Milwaukee but that orange fucker could of had my vote for not a penny over 21k

Misread username as Whore Dog, my bad.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Doesn’t the Electoral Count Act say that in the event of 2 sets of electors being sent to Congress and the 2 chambers can’t agree which to accept, the Governor breaks the tie or no slate is accepted. Which means the EV total is 518 and Biden needs (and has) 260 to win. 

As I read it, first, state law via legislative or judicial action has first crack at deciding contested electors (and, obviously, uncontested elections/elector results with a single, "unamimous" slate of electors).  If they do so by safe harbor day, that is conclusive. 

In any event, the Governor has the duty to ascertain among any competing sets of electors and transmit one to Congress for counting.

So it would appear that if legislative/judicial decisions are made by safe harbor day, they bind the Governor to forward that slate of electors.  If they are unable to decide by safe harbor day, it's up to the governor.

And, the legislative or judicial action must be in accordance with law enacted before election day.

Note that this is legislation and doesn't govern what is constitutional or unconstitutional under Arts. I, II, and the EPC of the 14th Amendment.  It is at least theoretically possible for the legislature, judiciary, and governor all to be in compliance with Title 3, U.S. Code and still be in violation of the Constitution.

Edited November 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27556]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

If SCOTUS did that, in the process tossing out every concept of Equal Protection, it would be the undeniable end of the legitimacy of the Court. They’d be just another irrelevant captive court in another banana republic. And they don’t want that - they want to continue to be important.

Yep. Then the joint chiefs would in effect pick between Biden and Trump, because in the absence of a clear, lawful path of transition, whoever has the military is the boss. That really would be the end of the republic because even if they choose Biden, at that point the real power lies with the military, and it’s only a matter of time until one of them decides to wield it. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Sawbonz

[TXSG8R 3362]

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Yep. Weirdly, what Marshall brilliantly constructed in Marbury v Madison, applies more than ever. SCOTUS’s power depends almost solely upon the other two branches agreeing that they have that power. Trump will recognize their orders....until he won’t. Allowing him to remain in office is a HUGE potential threat to their legitimacy. Trump would have no problem telling his army of toadies that SCOTUS is made up of traitorous activists if they rule against him - and if he ever thinks he has the military or legislative juice to outright ignore them, he will.

They know that.

He doesn’t have military juice, even with his toadie SECDEF. 

[SaucyJack 3488]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

On some level, Trump knows that when he leaves office, various states are going to run a train on he, his family, and his finances, but he also wants to punish people/states that he sees as being disloyal, and the two thoughts are crashing together inside his head, and he's having a very hard time focusing.  In his mind, he should be able to run free and punish states as he sees fit.  On the other hand, he's a toddler that can't keep his shit together and somehow help Perdue and Loeffler win, even though he desperately needs them to win.

Good sir, where does the Ivanka train que?  Asking for friend.

[Gatorubet 30237]

He doesn’t have military juice, even with his toadie SECDEF. 

Trump attacking Mattis was not beloved by the military? Who could have guessed?

[Gatorubet 30237]

Good sir, where does the Ivanka train que?  Asking for friend.

Friend?

[Dahobbs 17534]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I read it, first, state law via legislative or judicial action has first crack at deciding contested electors (and, obviously, uncontested elections/elector results with a single, "unamimous" slate of electors).  If they do so by safe harbor day, that is conclusive. 

In any event, the Governor has the duty to ascertain among any competing sets of electors and transmit one to Congress for counting.

So it would appear that if legislative/judicial decisions are made by safe harbor day, they bind the Governor to forward that slate of electors.  If they are unable to decide by safe harbor day, it's up to the governor.

And, the legislative or judicial action must be in accordance with law enacted before election day.

Note that this is legislation and doesn't govern what is constitutional or unconstitutional under Arts. I, II, and the EPC of the 14th Amendment.  It is at least theoretically possible for the legislature, judiciary, and governor all to be in compliance with Title 3, U.S. Code and still be in violation of the Constitution.

Notably, the legislature would have to act through legislation. That means whatever it passed would have to go through a potential gubernatorial veto.  

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Trump attacking Mattis was not beloved by the military? Who could have guessed?

Wasn’t just that. Milley has been completely out on trump since the Bible stunt he got sucked into. The troop withdrawal just to hit a number instead of being thought out to protect the guys left on the ground isn’t popular among green-suiters. Purging Esper for doing the eight thing also doesn’t settle well with career military people. 

[Gatorubet 30237]

Wasn’t just that. Milley has been completely out on trump since the Bible stunt he got sucked into. The troop withdrawal just to hit a number instead of being thought out to protect the guys left on the ground isn’t popular among green-suiters. Purging Esper for doing the eight thing also doesn’t settle well with career military people. 

But four years of being CIC means Trump can now shop at the Exchange - right???

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Wasn’t just that. Milley has been completely out on trump since the Bible stunt he got sucked into. The troop withdrawal just to hit a number instead of being thought out to protect the guys left on the ground isn’t popular among green-suiters. Purging Esper for doing the eight thing also doesn’t settle well with career military people. 

Does Esper really matter? He is going to head back to the defense industry and gear up to make more bank from the upcoming fracas that the complex is pointing us towards. He refused to recuse himself "from all matters Raytheon" during his confirmation hearing, when Senator Warren was grilling him during his confirmation hearing. What he does is all legal, but he and his Academy classmate Pompeo seem to skirt that line well enough. That class year ('86) aren't dubbed the West Point Mafia for nothing, right? How do the career military people view the shakeups at the Pentagon? Do they see that as all Trump? Is it all Trump?

[SaucyJack 3488]

5 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Uh, Penn lege session ends Monday. Last House action took place Nov. 20.

Nothing at all is scheduled for Monday.

In Anchorman voice; "Kraken released?!"

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Does Esper really matter? He is going to head back to the defense industry and gear up to make more bank from the upcoming fracas that the complex is pointing us towards. He refused to recuse himself "from all matters Raytheon" during his confirmation hearing, when Senator Warren was grilling him during his confirmation hearing. What he does is all legal, but he and his Academy classmate Pompeo seem to skirt that line well enough. That class year ('86) aren't dubbed the West Point Mafia for nothing, right? How do the career military people view the shakeups at the Pentagon? Do they see that as all Trump? Is it all Trump?

The Esper thing is purely Trump shitting on him because of his stance on the insurrection act. No one thinks highly of it in the pentagon, and replacing him with a boot licker doesn’t help either. 
 

The Bible incident was a line in the sand for many. Guys like Pompeo, Barr, etc had no problem crossing it. Milley recoiled from it, and Esper had his eyes opened by the reaction down the chain. 
 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52494]

5 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

Uh, Penn lege session ends Monday. Last House action took place Nov. 20.

Nothing at all is scheduled for Monday.

In Anchorman voice; "Kraken released?!"

Again, doesn’t this “mounting evidence” need to be introduced to the public somehow if the state legislature is to consider it in order to take action?

this guy seems to believe he has it, but isn’t sharing. 

[SilasCoade 2622]

who the fuck is Milley?

[conVINCEd 21469]

2 minutes ago, Llogg said:

who the fuck is Milley?

The daughter of he guy who had the really annoying country song in the 90’s.

[C-Man 27222]

2 hours ago, AnTiM said:

Since Trump is apparently willing to believe anything, there has to be some place to find a person who could convince him that offing himself would be a great idea.  Is that too much to hope for?

Anybody got her number?

[Sawbonz 27556]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Again, doesn’t this “mounting evidence” need to be introduced to the public somehow if the state legislature is to consider it in order to take action?

this guy seems to believe he has it, but isn’t sharing. 

Man you don’t introduce that kind of evidence until you get to the Supreme Court. 

[SaucyJack 3488]

25 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Anybody got her number?

?, x

[Neonmoon 38129]

This would be funny 

 

[wildcat09 29354]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Actually that is democracy working. Unfortunately individuals in PA who want an authoritarian making their decisions for them have a vote that counts the same as those who don't.  If the republicans in the state leg. choose to go down that road and don't get voted out for that choice, PA will have to accept those consequences. 

 

Unless you  think only those who hold the correct opinions should have a vote

No, it wouldn’t be democracy working. It would be the republicans in the PA legislature changing the rules after the fact because they didn’t like the result. If they were to try to actually do it, the citizens of their state would be morally justified in publicly executing every single one of them.

[Sawbonz 27556]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No, it wouldn’t be democracy working. It would be the republicans in the PA legislature changing the rules after the fact because they didn’t like the result. If they were to try to actually do it, the citizens of their state would be morally justified in publicly executing every single one of them.

If they succeed in doing that it will be because it is legal. If they fail it will be because it is not. Democracy working is how they got in position to do it. And democracy working would (most likely) result in their being tossed out of the legislature in 2022. But even if they retained their seats, in the absence of demonstrable fraud or other election crimes, you still have democracy working. 
 

Whether you like the process or outcome is immaterial 
 

 

[Horn Dogg 3897]

2 hours ago, SaucyJack said:

Good sir, where does the Ivanka train que?  Asking for friend.

Just look for the one Donald is standing in...

Edited November 28, 2020 by Horn Dogg

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 hour ago, Llogg said:

who the fuck is Milley?

Our top general, also the first guy in line between the military and Trump’s appointed boot-licker. 

https://www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Biographies/Biography/Article/614392/general-mark-a-milley/