US united period. It doesn't matter too much who it is under. They are just the recognized captain. The real power lies in the ship and its crew.

@TaLoN132 if you for example cancelled out 200,000 votes, would those people know that their specific vote didnt count or just that some votes were removed but they cannot know if theirs was or not

My God.

There is nothing we can really call our own anymore though. The Soviets have subverted our universities since ww2 and the effects of that live on and magnify as time goes on. Being the #1 superpower decades ago also resulted in being the #1 target for subversion for the whole world.

@Phil they d know why votes were struck out and if theirs matched that?

What about self disenfranchisement? We haven't discuss this.

@jimmy two yes it would be annoying to know your vote didnt count, but ultimately will each citizen know *theirs* was removed. if you dont know you cant be disenfranchised.

Can I file suit against myself?

Take Pennsylvania, for instance... The citizens of PA that voted by mail did so in good faith - believing that their legislature passed a good bipartisan law and having done so in the primary without any objection being raise. Had a successful suit been brought challenging the constitutionality of Act 77 and it was overturned before the election, those voters are more likely than not to have voted in person or requested an absentee ballot, instead. To overturn the results on a technicality would mean disenfranchising all PA voters who voted in good faith. In the absence of proof that these changes actually resulted in fraud, I think it is a bridge too far for the US SC - especially given their lack of relief in the past where actual proof of voter suppression did not cause them to intervene in the current election.

They aren’t arguing fraud. They are arguing that the constitution wasn’t followed because of how the four states did their election. It’s a constitutional argument, NOT fraud

@TaLoN132 they have cast votes out before but i dont believe in a presidential race. if the votes are from dead people or from those out of state, if that pool was big enough they could probably remove those without an issue

You need to take your well thought out arguments elsewhere.

The PA Supreme Court violates the constitution when they made their own election rule

These good people have no time for them.

The facts don't support this supposition. Most of the radicalized hippies of the 60's are conservatives now. The Soviet Union doesn't radicalize college students, youth does. Time has a way of taking care of that.

Did the legislature pass new mail in voting laws? It is my understanding this was the executive

Supposition equals wild assertions?

Even Yuri Bezmenov said "most of the indoctrination is done by Americans to other Americans", so, his proposition is not mutually exclusive to "youth does".

Before soviet subversion, Ivy League universities were horribly racist and right wing. Phrenology and race theory were taught at Harvard.

Supposition smacks of civility. @TaLoN132

The ideas don’t have to live on with the people, they have to live on within the institutions

And they do

Before WWII Jefferson was about to break off of Oregon and California to form their own state. They were about to send those papers to the capitals. The next day, Pearl Harbor happened.

@DrSammyD, you just advanced to level 21!

Act 77 might have been “passed” around a year before the election but it had been changed right before the election and was still in litigation up to only a few days before the election. The Laches argument is dumb. Can’t bring a case before the election because the courts rule, no standing. Can’t bring one after the election because you waited to long. The PA Supreme Court literally did what they are telling other people they can’t do

The idea that we weren't divided before the Soviets is nonsense.

@TaLoN132 I want to see participants being body slammed out of the ring then beaten with chairs on their backs.

WWII is the closest we've ever been to being united. And that was due to Roosevelt blockading Japan, and sinking their subs, and then ignoring specific intelligence that Pearl Harbor was about to be hit.

I’m not sure that does anything to combat the claim that other countries subvert us in order to divide us for their own benefit

@TaLoN132 I trust that you will address the allegations I've made against you. What say you to my accusation that you were trying to maintain a civil discourse?

They amplify divisions that already exist. Their an expedient, not a cause

The times when America has been the most United has been when we have been the most wealthy (most consumer purchasing power). That is the only way to unite people IMO.

more like the government create a fake enemy so you dont notice what they are doing

Yes of course. Racial divisions exist, and it’s very easy and effective to amplify them via social media.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 10!

It's only partially racial. It's mostly regional.

I would argue right now the division is city vs rural

That's kind of my point... Let's say the constitutional argument has merit (which I currently don't think is the case), the remedy being requested would only be justified if they could prove that level of harm. At this point, there is no proof that anyone other than legal voters actually voted - meaning that had they not been allowed to vote this way, they would have voted legally another way. In the absence of fraud, I can't imagine that the SC could justify the remedy being sought. They could just as easily let the results stand and tell the states to get their respective houses in order before the next election.

They'd might as well not rule at all if that's their ruling. A court that does nothing with a ruling has no power.

So... Soviet subversion made universities less racist?