By goading EU countries into taking strong measures against the UK and then painting them as trying to control, or punish us and creating the image of Johnson as our saviour. This works with either a deal, or a no deal. Also it creates a smoke screen of chaos, classic divide and rule tactics. — Punshhh

That's what I see too.

It’s very close, but this morning the British made a final offer and the EU rejected it and Johnson is vociferous that there is no compromise on fish — Punshhh

Johnson folded and the EU said, "Non! Foldez plus!". French are playing hardball.

I saw that. The Newsmax one was quite amusing. The newscaster looked like he wanted the ground to open up...

The election is over and it has been found free and fair. The fact that the Trump tinfoil-hat train lost 60 cases, including in front of the Supreme Court, underlines that they more than had their chance to demonstrate otherwise and failed miserably, so take your conspiracy-theorising elsewhere. It's embarrassingly foolish.

It's coming.

Fucking hell.

Don't know much about the internal dynamics of the ERG, but I suspect at least some of them are sick of this shit too and looking for a face-saving exit (and Johnson has close personal allies there like JRM, so there's that too).

Article outlines pretty much exactly how I see things. :up:

Yes, although I would point out that the climb down will have to come from the UK side, — Punshhh

Yes, the EU has that clown by the balls. Being a buffoon may work domestically but internationally it makes you roadkill.

We could keep proliferating categories, I guess. Some of it is like the kid who plays along with the Santa myth because he really wants to believe it as much as he knows it's not true. More of it is a kind of trolling recalcitrance, "I know but I'll be damned if I'll admit to you I know". Some of it is cynical political gameplaying, and yes, there are a few full on QAnon-type nutjobs who are rallying for a cause they truly believe is righteous.

And so I'm left with the truth, which is that there is no evidence of election rigging and so anyone who says there is or who attempts to invalidate a fair election should be thwarted. Why people might be motivated to argue one side of the other probably varies from person to person, but it's largely irrelevant at the end of the analysis. The question is who do you want in office moving forward: Those who side with the truth or those who don't. — Hanover

:up:

Ha, yes, exactly.

Yes, but, of course, there was never anything to the cases. They were, on the one hand, clownish attempts at pacifying Trump's ego and, on the other, a fundraising scheme to con his gullible supporters out of hundreds of millions, most of which will go straight into his pocket. So, who knows? This may continue regardless of where we are in the process and the continued futility of the cause.

The goon show is coming to an end.

Voter: Hi there, I'd like some representative democracy please.
System: So sorry, we don't have that this century. We do have plenty of other choices though. For example, you can have a corporate plutocracy or how about a nice cryptofascist oligarchy?
Voter:... Or?
System: Or you can fuck off and die. Have a nice day!

Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney are the only big names so far I've seen stand up to Trump. I suspect after the Senate races are over, more will, but Trump has already more or less succeeded in taking the Republican party down with him. He and his fellow loons are fully in charge of the asylum and I don't see that changing even when he's left office.

Texas GOP now wants to secede because... democracy.

The fascists have really got their swastikas in a twist over this one.

Delusional Trumptards told to fuck off yet again. Hopefully this time it will stick. Sad, pathetic, loons.

Groundhog day...

I agree the principle of certified elections being final should hold in the Dems case too. She ought to suck it up. I don't see anything remotely like a comparable attack on Democracy though. So, my emotional disgust is mitigated in proportion.

Ffs, if Trump lost by 6 votes in one state, instead of tens or hundreds of thousands in multiple states no-one, including me, would be complaining about Republicans taking it to the wire. Your attitude is kind of like saying if a Dem sticks a pin in a Republican, the Republican is justified in chopping up the entire Dem's family with a machete. See how crazy that is Hanny?

Official Republican party of Arizona urging it's supporters to... what?... die? Not sure that's the best electoral strategy but they're clearly thick as shit so there's probably not a strategy in there.

We appear to agree the constitution worked, the judges did their jobs, and Trump failed to make any impact on the election results. I was wondering what the point of contention was. If there is none, great.

Lol.

E.g

"

Many of these judgements are worth reading. They emphasize how utterly pathetic these tinfoil hat challenges are.

"This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would
undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter.
The petition does not even justify the exercise of our original jurisdiction.

...
The petition’s legal support is no less wanting. For example, it does not explain why its challenge to various election processes comes after the election, and not before. Nor does it grapple with how voiding the presidential election results would impact every other race on the ballot, or consider the import of election statutes that may provide the “exclusive remedy.

These are just a few of the glaring flaws that render the petition woefully deficient. I therefore join the court’s order denying the original action. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share a further observation. Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case. At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

I do not mean to suggest this court should look the other way no matter what. But if there
is a sufficient basis to invalidate an election, it must be established with evidence and arguments commensurate with the scale of the claims and the relief sought. These petitioners have come nowhere close. While the rough and tumble world of electoral politics may be the prism through which many view this litigation, it cannot be so for us. In these hallowed halls, the law must rule." — Baden

Do you have an argument to make against something I actually said, Brett? If so, quote me. I'm aware the constitution worked and I fully expected it to. Which is why I've spent the last few weeks laughing at those who thought Trump had a chance of overturning the result when it was obvious he had none.

Yes, I'm really frustrated at all the humiliation being heaped on the poor dumb bastard and his idiotic army of supporters. It's awful. Please make it stop.

(To spell it out for you: The fact that I don't have faith in Trump's SC picks does not mean I think they are insane enough to overturn an election based on the crazy fantasies of foaming tin-foil hat morons like Giuliani and co. Stuff like Roe v Wade or gay marriage is another issue,)

What? Only delusional Trumptards thought the supreme court would give in to these ludicrous nutjob suits.

Latest abject failure from the Trump delusionists. :party:

No, it doesn't mean that. The fact that you fail at something doesn't mean you didn't intend to do it. I'd call that a lesson in basic logic but that would almost be an insult to basic logic. I realize you're not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, Brett, but at least plug yourself in.

The supreme court just told Trump and his army of deluded morons to fuck off. 9-0.

I see Johnson as a lazy clown who believes in nothing, and so will cave rather than deal with the destruction Brexit will wreak on the UK (which will also make him look like an idiot for his claims that a no-deal would be just fine). That's more or less the extent of my reasoning here. I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet.

The right wing rags would suffer financially from Brexit too but, like Boris, they also gain by pretending
they're Turkey's who want Christmas. Both are up to their eyeballs in the same BS.



No quarter given on sovereignty!

One more day to full capitulation.

"Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove has been reminded that he swore on his job that the government would not back down on the Internal Market Bill.

Hours after MPs voted to reinstate clauses which break international law into the Brexit bill after the Lords rejected them, Gove announced that it would drop parts of the legislation after reaching an "agreement in principle" on the Northern Ireland protocol.

The minister said he was "delighted" to have reached an agreement, meaning controversial parts of the Bill would be withdrawn.

The u-turn has prompted people to remind Gove of the comments he made on Sky News when the bill was first proposed in September.

Back then presenter Sam Coates told the Brexiteer: "This government is known, famed perhaps even, for its u-turns.

"Do you swear, on your job, that the government will not back down on this?"

Gove agreed with his remarks. He replied: "Yes, I made it perfectly clear to vice president Šefčovič that we will not be withdrawing this legislation, and he understood that, and of course he regretted that."

Yum yum...

tl;dr. But, yeah, grits. With that stupid hot sauce or whatever you call it. And don't try to gyp me with no fucking ketchup.

Boris's mid-week lunch.

See how the pantomime works? Leak some tough guy BS to your right-wing press poodles to grab the morning headlines and cloak the fact that you've begun capitulation as per the above which came later.