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.

"Boris Johnson backs down by offering to drop law-breaking Brexit clauses
Boris Johnson has backed down and offered to drop the clauses in the Brexit Bill that would break international law, in a bid to break the deadlock in the talks."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-deal-boris-johnson-eu-b1767199.html#post-391971

My sister has just moved to North Carolina, so when I get a chance to see her next, I may just pay y'all a visit too.

Cook up those grits, Hanny!

I wouldn't say these particular people are stupid — jorndoe

Or liars. There's a fucking paper ballot given for every electronic one recorded, for a start, and they match. You might as well claim Biden is hiding in the machine changing the votes by hand.

Imagine the level of retard that believes this shit, multiply by 50 million, and you've got Trump's base.

You must admit it took some next-level ingenuity to lose the election in a landslide to Joe 30330 Biden.

Aspiring to be like Trump is like aspiring to eat your next meal out of a toilet bowl.

It's quite sad that being "big" in the way Trump is (defrauding supporters, bullying politicians, attracting media attention) is something you find admirable and desirable and makes you feel like a "little" person. Can't help you with that.

Trump has had an instinctive ability to tap into a certain anti-establishment mindset and manipulate it to his advantage. On the other hand, he's incredibly ignorant on stuff like science and geopolitics. You can be lacking in intelligence in many areas and still have "street smarts"—though clearly even those failed him this time around as he managed to lose the election by a bigger margin than any incumbent in modern history. He's not playing 4D chess, so much as 1D checkers.

Pantomime. It all has to look like Boris is fighting the British Bulldog's corner and has pulled a stonking last-minute compromise out of the intransigent EU eggheads.

Hair-dye-dripping-farting-confused-pervert-lying-fantasist-Trump-minion-lawyer Rudy Foolliani got COVID. Hopefully, it won't kill him because... the comedy. :party:

God said it's OK if I call you a motherfucker. :party: Nice.

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."

Reality bites, Trumplestiltskin.

Boris will eat shit to get a deal and tell everyone how good the lobster was.