Republicans: continued

[pErvinalia]

Who cares? The Republican majority court ruled differently. But any day now, Cunt.

[Cunt]

Who cares? The Republican majority court ruled differently. But any day now, Cunt.

Any day what?

I think I'm going to roll a Republican doobie, light it with a capitalist lighter, and think about what I've done.

Specifically, realigned DIY plans, which will force me to segway off to another topic.

[Joe]

Than leaving things unclear with regards to the election.

What's unclear?

Why not look up his dissenting opinion, rather than my opinion on it?

I would say he was understanding openly that a large chunk of the citizenry thinks there were questions worth examining publicly.

I'm not interested in your opinion, but rather your understanding of his dissent, since you quoted it and say you believe it.

What questions did he think should be examined publicly?

[Hermit]

I would say he was understanding openly that a large chunk of the citizenry thinks there were questions worth examining publicly.

That is not the issue of Thomas's dissent. The disagreement is about whether the Supreme Court of the United States has the remit of deciding on state electoral laws. Six of the judges said 'no'. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said 'yes'.

The Supreme Court had been weighing a challenge to Pennsylvania allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, which led to those ballots being segregated and treated differently during the presidential election—though there were not enough late-arriving ballots to have affected the outcome.

The court ultimately declined to review the case Monday, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Link

[Cunt]

Than leaving things unclear with regards to the election.

What's unclear?

Why not look up his dissenting opinion, rather than my opinion on it?

I would say he was understanding openly that a large chunk of the citizenry thinks there were questions worth examining publicly.

I'm not interested in your opinion, but rather your understanding of his dissent, since you quoted it and say you believe it.

What questions did he think should be examined publicly?

Whether states should be held to a standard of certain kinds, when it comes to changing election rules.

But my point was that he acknowledged the rational concerns of many, while it almost seems media is slanted against even normal discussion of the issue.

I don't have a problem acknowledging there was plenty of stuff that would have been better addressed in a more public way. Disagreement between states about their voting laws is undeniable. Pretending it doesn't matter makes me want to see if it aligns with the politics of the person pretending.

[JimC]

Disagreement between states about their voting laws is undeniable.

That was the point of an earlier post of mine. There should be no disagreement amongst the states when it comes to Federal voting, because there should be, in a rational, modern political system, one consistent voting system, since they are all voting for one overall Federal government. For State senators, governors and representatives, sure, have your weird little differences if you must...

[Joe]

Than leaving things unclear with regards to the election.

What's unclear?

Why not look up his dissenting opinion, rather than my opinion on it?

I would say he was understanding openly that a large chunk of the citizenry thinks there were questions worth examining publicly.

I'm not interested in your opinion, but rather your understanding of his dissent, since you quoted it and say you believe it.

What questions did he think should be examined publicly?

Whether states should be held to a standard of certain kinds, when it comes to changing election rules.

But my point was that he acknowledged the rational concerns of many, while it almost seems media is slanted against even normal discussion of the issue.

I don't have a problem acknowledging there was plenty of stuff that would have been better addressed in a more public way. Disagreement between states about their voting laws is undeniable. Pretending it doesn't matter makes me want to see if it aligns with the politics of the person pretending.

The specific legal point Thomas was talking about isn't a concern of many, and as Hermit pointed out, has nothing to do with election fraud.

That question still comes down to the courts, and the fact Trump couldn't make his case there, where it counted.

[Cunt]

I know you and Hermit don't think it was a concern of 'many'. That dissenting opinions seems to dissent with yours too.

Are Republicans the new 'anti-establishment'?
(spoilered to protect the establishment)

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[JimC]

The dissenting opinion lost. Get over it.

[Cunt]

The dissenting opinion lost. Get over it.

Done.

Anyone know why Crowder was suspended off twitter this time?

[JimC]

For being an arsehole?

[Cunt]

Yeah, he went to a bunch of addresses of registered voters. Of course he showed examples of in-person visits to fake addresses including underpasses and such.

Examples of fraudulent votes (if that is the correct technical term)

They already knew he was an arsehole. Like hosting him anyway.

[pErvinalia]

Who cares? The Republican majority court ruled differently. But any day now, Cunt.

Any day what?

Until the election is overturned..

[Sean Hayden]

I wonder how they decide what's a fake address rather than just a mistaken one e.g. some prior address, or invented from embarrassment rather than anything nefarious, and some people just do live under bridges.

Is it important for me to know about these cases?* Why? How many are we even talking about? A lot of people voted.

*I realize you might just be interested in this sort of thing. But what's its relevance to distinguishing this election from any other?

[pErvinalia]

Because only libruls use fake addresses.