Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[The Catboy]

The "You lost, get it over it" crowd really doesn't seem to be getting over their loss

 

[SonowRaevius]

The "You lost, get it over it" crowd really doesn't seem to be getting over their loss

Because they have wrapped a lot of their identity up in their politics and have attached that feeling to Trump and therefore treat anything negative about him as if it is a personal attack on them while being masters of projection as well.

Main reasons I stopped even trying to have a conversation with them in the first year of his presidency is laid bare here.

Calling everyone who disagrees with them or posts a source that doesn't agree with their bias liberal, leftist, commie,, 0-IQ, basement-dwelling, hair-dying, cucked SJW's and then trying to play innocent when they can't figure out why no one enjoys their presence and they get banned every 5 seconds and then thinking "it's because I'm conservative isn't it?"

The best example I can think of is the one user that isn't even from the US that is taking this so damn personally too, and keeps thinking that no one likes his sources because "they're not from CNN", when in reality it's actually from a far-right propaganda site that has been known to create hoaxes and spread misinformation in the past.

This is after, of course, people literally offered him a list of middle of the road sources to choose from.

Somehow wanting 100% proof and non-biased news is a bad thing thing to these guys....who would guess considering how much they hate "fake news" as well.

TLDR: They are actually hypocrites that are just acting out because their preferred candidate lost.

 

[Xzi]

That's not true. Emergency injunctive relief was denied but the case is still live.

I don't know if you're thinking of a different case or what, but every SCOTUS justice unanimously declined to hear the one I'm thinking of.

But SCOTUS already has and does determine legitimacy concerning votes on grounds of a state's legislation. That's precedent.

No, there is no such precedent. The most any court has been involved in an election was the year 2000, when SCOTUS decided to halt Florida's recount. They made no determination on the legitimacy of individual votes, even despite the "hanging chad" controversy.

How is it unconstitutional?

We've been over this. The constitution specifies, in no uncertain terms, that states run elections. Asking a federal court to determine the outcome of an election is both unconstitutional and undemocratic.

One state rats on another state about breaking the constitution and you expect SCOTUS to ignore it and even punish the state that told? Lol.

Damn right I do, sedition must be punished or we'll be dealing with Republicans attempting to undermine and destroy democracy before, during, and after every future election.

The Electoral College is a horrendously antiquated and vestigial institution. It makes no difference whatsoever who the electors are or who they're chosen by, their only purpose is to vote for the same candidate that won their state's popular vote. Now, if you want to argue that we should do away with it altogether, I'm certainly on board, but that would mean Biden wins all the same, and it would benefit Democrats more than Republicans in future elections.

 

[tabzer]

I don't know if you're thinking of a different case or what, but every SCOTUS justice unanimously declined to hear the one I'm thinking of.

Source? Motion for injunctive relief being denied is not the same as a case being rejected.

We've been over this. The constitution specifies, in no uncertain terms, that states run elections. Asking a federal court to determine the outcome of an election is both unconstitutional and undemocratic.

There is a certain term and SCOTUS has made a ruling, earlier this year, regarding it.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...es-change-wisconsins-voting-rules/3670662001/

 

[Xzi]

Source? Motion for injunctive relief being denied is not the same as a case being rejected.

I believe that motion was the entirety of what was left of that case. Rudy was filing to change the details of it for like the third or fourth time, and SCOTUS was having none of it. So yes, that case is effectively dead.

There is a certain term and SCOTUS has made a ruling, earlier this year, regarding it.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...es-change-wisconsins-voting-rules/3670662001/

Though I do think that's overstepping their role, that is not the same as determining the outcome of the election in that state, and it is not the same as determining legitimacy of individual votes. Wisconsin adhered to that ruling and Biden still won there.

 

[tabzer]

I believe that motion was the entirety of what was left of that case. Rudy was filing to change the details of it for like the third or fourth time, and SCOTUS was having none of it. So yes, that case is effectively dead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...39e16c-397d-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

The injunction was denied, but the case is still pending afaik.

Though I do believe that's overstepping their role, that is not the same as determining the outcome of the election in that state, and it is not the same as determining legitimacy of individual votes. Wisconsin adhered to that ruling and Biden still won there.

Wisconsin may have, but did all other states? If votes are found to be unconstitutional, for the reason provided, by POTUS, they could be rejected, altering the course of the election.

 

[Deleted User]

How are we still going about this discussion of "trump can still win"
all 50 states certified their election.
There is no room at this point, and even the Supreme Court decided to not listen to the PA case. (as if it would change much at this point)

 

[tabzer]

Supreme Court decided to not listen to the PA case.

Source? WAPO didn't make that claim. If I understand correctly, it's being included with the TX case. It's quite the show.

 

[Deleted User]

Source? WAPO didn't make that claim. If I understand correctly, it's being included with the TX case. It's quite the show.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/sup...sh-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...attempt-to-overturn-election/?sh=58b06aed6eff
Forbes according to
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/
Is center right, along with having generally mostly factual information.
We also have cnbc, which according to it
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnbc/
also has generally mostly factual information
while having a left center bias.
So there are my sources, and the reason I came to my conclusion that yes this is over.


I generally avoid using cnbc and or forbes, however in this case the more centered/less biased outlets (who are also more accurate) are taking longer to discuss about it.

 

[tabzer]

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied."

This isn't the case. It's an emergency injunction that was applied for prior the hearing of the case.

 

[Xzi]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...39e16c-397d-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

The injunction was denied, but the case is still pending afaik.

Well there's no suggestion that case is still ongoing in the article. All it says is that the request was unanimously denied and then it quickly moves on to the Texas case. Rudy's also got the rona, so there's no chance the case proceeds before the electoral college votes.

Wisconsin may have, but did all other states?

I don't believe SCOTUS made any rulings relevant to the other states prior to election day.

If votes are found to be unconstitutional, for the reason provided, by POTUS, they could be rejected, altering the course of the election.

POTUS does not get to determine which votes are and are not valid any more than SCOTUS does. That's...again...a determination made by the states.

 

[tabzer]

I don't believe SCOTUS made any rulings relevant to the other states prior to election day.

Their ruling is about the interpretation of the constitution and establishes a position on legislation defining the validity of a vote.

Well there's no suggestion that case is still ongoing in the article.

Yeah, it's a little misleading.

POTUS does not get to determine which votes are and are not valid any more than SCOTUS does. That's...again...a determination made by the states.

Lol, my typo. If a state violates the constitution in regards to a vote, SCOTUS can intervene.

 

[Xzi]

Their ruling is about the interpretation of the constitution and establishes a position on legislation defining the validity of a vote.

That ruling was about the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, it was applicable to Wisconsin only, and it had nothing to do with determining the validity of votes. You're talking to the wrong guy if you want to convince somebody that apples are actually oranges.

Lol, my typo. If a state violates the constitution in regards to a vote, SCOTUS can intervene.

We're just going in circles here. The lawsuit alleges a violation of the constitution due to how the electors were chosen, but a ruling by any justice in favor of the prosecution would also be a violation of the constitution in that it takes away the power to run elections from the states. It's a catch-22, and that's precisely why they won't dare to hear the case. Well, that, and also because it would signal the end of democracy in the US, cause mass riots to break out immediately, and cause SCOTUS to lose all authority and any veneer of legitimacy.

 

[tabzer]

That ruling was about the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, it was applicable to Wisconsin only, and it had nothing to do with determining the validity of votes.

The case was how SCOTUS ruled on Wisconsin, in regards to voting. SCOTUS didn't attack Wisconsin. It defended their interpretation of the constitution. Which it might do again.

The lawsuit alleges a violation of the constitution due to how the electors were chosen, but a ruling by any justice in favor of the prosecution would also be a violation of the constitution in that it takes away the power to run elections from the states.

According to you, I guess. But you aren't applying that logic when SCOTUS ruled on Wisconsin.

 

[Xzi]

According to you, I guess. But you aren't applying that logic when SCOTUS ruled on Wisconsin.

Because SCOTUS didn't determine the outcome of the election in Wisconsin or take away the state's power to run the election. How are you not getting that setting a deadline for mail-in ballots has nothing to do with either of those things? And IIRC the only reason they bothered to do that was because a Wisconsin court had previously set the deadline three days after the election. They shot their shot already, that was the best that Trump's appointees could do to try to rig the election in his favor, and it failed. They aren't able to hide behind that same air of ambiguity with the current case, now that the election is long past decided.

 

[tabzer]

You are suggesting that changing/enforcing deadlines over mail in ballots have nothing to do with how states run elections. You are unreliable.

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules,"

 

[omgcat]

You are suggesting that changing/enforcing deadlines over mail in ballots have nothing to do with how states run elections. You are unreliable.

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules,"

It is up to a state's own legislature to decide these things. as such one state can't tell another state that its legislature didn't do the right thing. so Texas suing Michigan or any other state is DOA, because it's not up to Texas what happens. imagine if CA or NY decides to sue TX because they closed down the drive through voting, or that they limited the drop off boxes too much. states rights, and PA/WI/MI/AZ are telling the other 17 states to fuck off.

 

[Xzi]

You are suggesting that changing/enforcing deadlines over mail in ballots have nothing to do with how states run elections. You are unreliable.

No, I'm suggesting that the supreme court changed the ruling of another court. That is within their power. Any attempt by a federal court to rule directly on the outcome of elections or the way states run elections is unconstitutional.

 

[tabzer]

It is up to a state's own legislature to decide these things

This is %100 the point. The argument is that State's legislation was bypassed to enforce more lenient voting methods.

 

[omgcat]

This is a %100 the point. The argument is that State's legislation was bypassed to enforce more lenient voting methods.

what voting methods were changed, and when did the changes happen? also, why wasn't this brought up in court before the election? or a week after? or 2 weeks after? why is this suddenly a problem now 4+ weeks after the election, and 6+ weeks after early voting?