|
|
Post by azson on Nov 2, 2020 11:26:37 GMT -8
This is the type of action condoned by the people who praise Trump. Vanilla ISIS alive and well. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 12:30:19 GMT -8
Denied. Good day for democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Nov 2, 2020 14:50:40 GMT -8
Now we get the seal of approval from the president, condoning mob violence. 2 more days... "Condoning mob violence"...LOL. The violent ones, the ones who burn businesses, beat people unconscious, and execute people for supporting the wrong candidate are those backing Biden. This incident in Texas was no different. A group of Trump supporters paraded with the Biden bus because they thought it was funny and one of the Biden support staff in a white SUV rammed one of the pro-Trump trucks. The pro-Trump truck was driving in a straight line and the Biden campaign staffer crossed the lane line to bash into him. Luckily it was on video so we, and the police, know the Biden staffer was lying about being hit. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 16:36:31 GMT -8
Guess I spoke too soon - The GOP has appealed (again) to the 5th Circuit. Decision forthcoming as soon as tonight, perhaps. One has to wonder why the GOP is working this hard to disenfranchise voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Nov 2, 2020 17:46:32 GMT -8
Guess I spoke too soon - The GOP has appealed (again) to the 5th Circuit. Decision forthcoming as soon as tonight, perhaps. One has to wonder why the GOP is working this hard to disenfranchise voters. Personally I'm happy all of these court challenges are happening now. The fight over late votes in Pennsylvania is going to be incredibly ugly to the point it may provoke people to kill each other all because Supreme Court Justice Roberts was a coward and chose not to decide the issue before the election but still reserved the right of the Supreme Court to hear arguments after the election. Justice Roberts set up a scenario where the GOP can challenge the counting of votes cast after election day in the one state likely to decide who is the next President, and the issue will be decided with Amy Coney Barrett breaking the 4-4 tie to give the election to Trump. If that happens then Antifa/BLM will lose their minds. Refusing to rule on the substance until after the election was the worst possible thing Roberts could have done. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 2, 2020 18:26:34 GMT -8
Guess I spoke too soon - The GOP has appealed (again) to the 5th Circuit. Decision forthcoming as soon as tonight, perhaps. One has to wonder why the GOP is working this hard to disenfranchise voters. Personally I'm happy all of these court challenges are happening now. The fight over late votes in Pennsylvania is going to be incredibly ugly to the point it may provoke people to kill each other all because Supreme Court Justice Roberts was a coward and chose not to decide the issue before the election but still reserved the right of the Supreme Court to hear arguments after the election. Justice Roberts set up a scenario where the GOP can challenge the counting of votes cast after election day in the one state likely to decide who is the next President, and the issue will be decided with Amy Coney Barrett breaking the 4-4 tie to give the election to Trump. If that happens then Antifa/BLM will lose their minds. Refusing to rule on the substance until after the election was the worst possible thing Roberts could have done. no, seriously..you are like watching Hannity. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 2, 2020 18:29:32 GMT -8
Guess I spoke too soon - The GOP has appealed (again) to the 5th Circuit. Decision forthcoming as soon as tonight, perhaps. One has to wonder why the GOP is working this hard to disenfranchise voters. Personally I'm happy all of these court challenges are happening now. The fight over late votes in Pennsylvania is going to be incredibly ugly to the point it may provoke people to kill each other all because Supreme Court Justice Roberts was a coward and chose not to decide the issue before the election but still reserved the right of the Supreme Court to hear arguments after the election. Justice Roberts set up a scenario where the GOP can challenge the counting of votes cast after election day in the one state likely to decide who is the next President, and the issue will be decided with Amy Coney Barrett breaking the 4-4 tie to give the election to Trump. If that happens then Antifa/BLM will lose their minds. Refusing to rule on the substance until after the election was the worst possible thing Roberts could have done. Hunter Biden..epic fail. Now "doctors are in the take". Now it's too late. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 18:54:40 GMT -8
Guess I spoke too soon - The GOP has appealed (again) to the 5th Circuit. Decision forthcoming as soon as tonight, perhaps. One has to wonder why the GOP is working this hard to disenfranchise voters. Personally I'm happy all of these court challenges are happening now. The fight over late votes in Pennsylvania is going to be incredibly ugly to the point it may provoke people to kill each other all because Supreme Court Justice Roberts was a coward and chose not to decide the issue before the election but still reserved the right of the Supreme Court to hear arguments after the election. Justice Roberts set up a scenario where the GOP can challenge the counting of votes cast after election day in the one state likely to decide who is the next President, and the issue will be decided with Amy Coney Barrett breaking the 4-4 tie to give the election to Trump. If that happens then Antifa/BLM will lose their minds. Refusing to rule on the substance until after the election was the worst possible thing Roberts could have done. Yes, that's exactly what I said in an earlier post. They wanted to ram Barrett through as a safety net in case the president lost, so they could challenge the ruling in a conservative-led Supreme Court. There is no legal precedent to not count votes that are postmarked by Election Day. The election is not certified until December for a reason. And that's plainly unacceptable. The intentions have been clear for months. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Nov 2, 2020 21:17:39 GMT -8
There is no legal precedent to not count votes that are postmarked by Election Day. The election is not certified until December for a reason. You are not understanding the Pennsylvania issue correctly. The votes in question don't have to be postmarked at all. The question is over how to handle a vote that has no postmark and is received 3 days after the election. Typically prepaid envelopes are not postmarked. Such an envelope received 3 days after the election and mailed from the local area was almost certainly mailed after election day. A lower court said such ballots had to be counted. The Supreme Court said they didn't have time to listen to arguments on the issue so for the time being the ruling of the lower court is in effect but the Supreme Court reserved the right to hear arguments on the issue after the election to possibly overturn the lower court's decision. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Nov 2, 2020 21:34:06 GMT -8
Now we get the seal of approval from the president, condoning mob violence. 2 more days... Wow, they have In N Out Burger in Texas. Good for them. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:37:45 GMT -8
Now we get the seal of approval from the president, condoning mob violence. 2 more days... Wow, they have In N Out Burger in Texas. Good for them. There are several. But some of the non-chains there are really good. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:40:34 GMT -8
There is no legal precedent to not count votes that are postmarked by Election Day. The election is not certified until December for a reason. You are not understanding the Pennsylvania issue correctly. The votes in question don't have to be postmarked at all. The question is over how to handle a vote that has no postmark and is received 3 days after the election. Typically prepaid envelopes are not postmarked. Such an envelope received 3 days after the election and mailed from the local area was almost certainly mailed after election day. A lower court said such ballots had to be counted. The Supreme Court said they didn't have time to listen to arguments on the issue so for the time being the ruling of the lower court is in effect but the Supreme Court reserved the right to hear arguments on the issue after the election to possibly overturn the lower court's decision. Splitting hairs here. "The justices divided 4-4 on Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that required county election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrive up until Nov. 6, even if they don't have a clear postmark, as long as there is not proof it was mailed after the polls closed." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 2, 2020 21:48:55 GMT -8
Denied for like the 38th time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Nov 2, 2020 22:13:23 GMT -8
You are not understanding the Pennsylvania issue correctly. The votes in question don't have to be postmarked at all. The question is over how to handle a vote that has no postmark and is received 3 days after the election. Typically prepaid envelopes are not postmarked. Such an envelope received 3 days after the election and mailed from the local area was almost certainly mailed after election day. A lower court said such ballots had to be counted. The Supreme Court said they didn't have time to listen to arguments on the issue so for the time being the ruling of the lower court is in effect but the Supreme Court reserved the right to hear arguments on the issue after the election to possibly overturn the lower court's decision. Splitting hairs here. "The justices divided 4-4 on Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that required county election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrive up until Nov. 6, even if they don't have a clear postmark, as long as there is not proof it was mailed after the polls closed." That is pretty much exactly what I said. The issue isn't over ballots cast on election day because of course they count. It is election day. The issue in contention is over ballots that are not postmarked. Also, your quote doesn't make it clear what the Supreme Court divided 4-4 on. It wasn't over to accept or reject the ballots. The Supreme Court divided 4-4 on the motion to expedite consideration of the petition. In other words, they split on if they should hear arguments before the vote takes place. It was decided to leave it as an unresolved clusterfu#k until after the vote. |
|
