but that would probably mean nancy being temporary president

Frankly I think the GA legislature should call an emergency session and meet despite the governor not granting it - if COVID is enough of a crisis to change election rules against the law, then this is enough of a crisis for the GA legislature to meet without the governor's approval.

Let’s make up rules as we go along.

We're here because people did that with election rules.

The rule making always favors the rule maker.

Yes it does

It's more fun to create the game than it is to play.

That’s for sure

question, assuming there is no fraud why would the GA governor not want to call a special session?

@Phil the inner dimensional aliens are controlling his mind.

We've clearly established this.

Because he wants to hold the power he's seized illegally from the legislature.

Wouldn't a lot of these claims fall away quicker of they were confronted with evidence rather than hiding behind legal doctrine

Any honest person would want these things to be heard so they could be disproven, at least. And any honest governor would let his legislature meet.

They won the case where the ballots were altered but a sample showed not enough it should be easy to of the same with signatures, out of state addresses, dead people etc?

I will raise you one forever and say there is good contextual evidence that other countries (China, Iran, Russia) have successfully sewn the divisiveness we have now

But...but...but

That would just leave pure law ie qere states acting legally and conspiracy theories that would never have a vote count

@jimmy two, you just advanced to level 1!

did anyone hear any news today about the NV machine audits?

The worst things for those countries would’ve been a US united under trump, ending policies that exploited the us.

If you like your conspiracy theory, you can keep your conspiracy theory.

No news.means no evidence

I think that SCOTUS will weigh whether the election results likely reflect the will of the people in each of the states in question. If the Texas case included a list of election fraud cases (or even a single case) in each of those states where people who exploited actions of each state and resulted in substantial fraud that would have altered the result of the election - a list of people arrested for fraud and being brought up on charges. This would show how the changes made in each state actually impacted the other states negatively and could be cause for action. Instead, Texas is asking SCOTUS to disenfranchise voters in other states over what amounts to a technicality. SCOTUS chose not to intervene in any election in the past where clear proof of voter suppression was presented, how and why would they ever intervene in this one with absolutely zero proven cases of fraud - let alone enough to show that the outcome was in question?

@jimmy two well i wasnt expecting it to be on CNN

lol, yeah.

But suggest any if the gang would be screaming it and none our, strange time to keep quiet

Possibly... I think we are doing a pretty good job on our own, though.

Who knows if it'll even appear on Youtube since that policy change

@TaLoN132 i dont get the disenfranchise argument

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