I gleaned a lot of wisdom from slasher movies. The villain is just never dead.
As evidence, I cite … Rudy Giuliani [shudder].
I haven’t been out on the ledge about any of this, but watching with rapt attention. I’ll feel better in about 8wks.
The central theme for the last four years was that decent people constantly overestimated narcissists and sociopaths. I’d like to adopt that position and take a little break, but …
Someone on Twitter wrote the following:
2016: Trump can never win.
2020: Trump can’t steal the election back after losing.
2021: I’m not getting on that train.
CNN has a breaking headline that the GSA is preparing to authorize Biden to begin the formal transition process.
RESOLVED: That Emily Murphy, head of GSA, now and forever more must be seated next to Kim Davis:
The “bribery” vs “leveraging” vs “quid pro quo” sidebar nitpickery is kind of annoying. Campaign financing is all border line immoral and the fact that we waste billions on elections is gross.
I’m moving on.
Can anyone who knows the legal ins and outs help clarify the appeals/SCOTUS process–in particular, can you just SIT on evidence (or continuously gather it) while having your cases thrown out, only to sit on said evidence until you appeal your way to the Supreme Court?
Red Hatters are still of the mindset that it doesn’t matter if you have all your cases thrown out with prejudice, they are gathering all this juicy proof still and will spring it on the SCOTUS when the time is ripe.
Is that how it works…? Can you present NEW evidence in an appeal after having the original case rejected?
It’s over, folks.
No, of course not. The repeated mantra of the wingnuts of “just wait until SCOTUS rules” is complete nonsense. SCOTUS does not rule on fact-finding. SCOTUS does not just “intervene”. You don’t have a case thrown out in PA court, then appeal to the 3rd circuit with language indicating you only want to amend your original complaint, and then poof Trump is President.
I’ve become more and more convinced that it is all just a(nother) con. The lawsuits are just a game to raise money. Some of the marks are starting to catch on.
It’s amazing what can happen when 170 CEO’s from some of the largest businesses and investment firms in the country send a letter telling the Republicans to get with the program or never get another donation again.
To quote myself:
“Money talks and bullshit walks.”
I actually gasped when I read your post!
Nice that Trump has agreed that his team should follow the law. Quite a refreshing change of pace.
I wonder if Trump made a back room deal; “I’ll concede if you guys promise to keep me out of jail”.
I think soon Trump will say something, except in reverse, of what Gore said about how he strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision but that he accepted it. Trump wil say there millions of fradulent votes but that the corrupt courts would not hear the evidence, and that he will spend the rest of his life searching for the real killers of his Presidency
I’m running against the single worst candidate in the history of American presidential politics and you know what that does? That puts more pressure on me. Can you imagine if you lose to a guy like this?
That’s just gotta’ hurt.
“We don’t need you to concede. Good luck with that.”
In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers. Does that not really matter? Stopping Poll Watchers, voting for unsuspecting people, fake ballots and so much more. Such egregious conduct. We will win!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2020
Can anyone explain what “voting for unsuspecting people” means?
Well, giving some extreme benefit of the doubt, I would say filling out a mail-in ballot on someone’s behalf without them suspecting.
I’m going to guess it was supposed to be “voting by suspect people.” I.e., not white.