Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
4 hours ago, Murph said:

Skywalkre and Josh will call it a mere aberation, and a white nationalist right wing plot against the poor downtrodden democrats.

FIFY

Posted

Not Downtrodden brown people ?

Posted
1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Not Downtrodden brown people ?

Redundant.

Posted

Democrats in panic over Maduro since their whole dark money, illegal voters scam will come to light.  

 

Posted

A few months ago our (RW) president vetoed the shitlib coalition-proposed law that would allow everyone to vote via mail, including from abroad. 

Present situation allows that:

A person who:

- has Polish citizenship,

- will be in Poland on election day,

- has the right to vote (active electoral rights),

and

- is over 18 years old and has a certificate of moderate or severe disability or

- at the latest on election day, has turned 60 years old, or

- is in quarantine or isolation.

 

But then again we have nationwide IDs and you're not voting without either that or a passport/DL AND you have to be on the list in your local election commission, you have to notify way in advance if you want to vote in commission other than 'your own', same for mail-in voting for those eligible.

All in all there was only a few thousand 'wrongly counted' votes for over 20 million cast in presidential elections last year. 

Posted

Who would have imagined it?  I mean like Democrats never support fraud, cheating and are as pure as the wind driven snow.

 

Posted

Democrats suffer body blow that will have long term reprocussions.  Hardest hit Democrats and other traitors.  And of course the two DEI judges dissented.  Neither one is too smart, and the black one is a complete moron.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf

Faced with that prospect, many candidates are sure to wait until after votes are counted to sue. Article III does not require this result. Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent. Pp. 6–10. 114 F. 4th 634, reversed and remanded. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Murph said:

Democrats suffer body blow that will have long term reprocussions.  Hardest hit Democrats and other traitors.  And of course the two DEI judges dissented.  Neither one is too smart, and the black one is a complete moron.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf

Faced with that prospect, many candidates are sure to wait until after votes are counted to sue. Article III does not require this result. Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent. Pp. 6–10. 114 F. 4th 634, reversed and remanded. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Aye.

Some people in this Grate Sight proved to be true NPCs when  publicly accused other members of being crazy for doubting about the result of that election.

Truth will set us free.

 

Edited by sunday
Posted (edited)

You all continue to reinforce your reading comprehension skills are awful.  The SCOTUS ruling today had nothing to do with whether or not previous elections were stolen or even if mail in voting should be altered/reigned in (there's another case that SCOTUS will listen to down the road which could lead to some changes).

Today's ruling simply answered the question if a candidate had standing to file suit regarding election rules.  Previous Fed courts ruled this candidate did not.  SCOTUS said he did.  The immediate aftermath to this is that we'll be seeing more litigation around elections coming forward.

Seriously people, it takes just a few seconds of reading to not sound like an idiot...

Edited by Skywalkre
Posted
9 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

That whizzing sound...

This is a thread where folks still cling to the notion that the '20 election was stolen and fraud is widespread, despite a lack of evidence, convictions, anything that would support that notion.  I'm not the one that should be getting this reply.  🙄

Posted
21 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

The new narrative hasn't been uploaded yet.  S/F...Ken M

True, they probably have to wait to have their programming updated.  Yep, he showed up with his latest programmed talking points, which of course deflect, deny, and attempt damage control.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...