Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[Stylo]

I think the fella in the vid alluded to "original jurisdiction" as being anything non-federal? Either way they're testing the constitution, and that requires a court of law to defend it.

Yeah the insurrection shit gives me the willies for a few reasons, and Trump ain't alone in that shout. I have mixed feelings about such being applied, but if the Supreme Court won't hear constitutional issues, no matter how churlish they may seem, then what other option is there?... especially were rolling over isn't an option. There's a lot at stake on all sides, but as they say, the first casualty of war is the truth... and were they're all as dodgy as feck to begin with, errr. Where's Wonder Woman and her lasoo when ya need it. And whatever happened to using a polygraph.

Pack your bags Donald.... If Fox reports it first, it can't be good for you..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0dVoT0BqC8&t=427s

[pritch]

if the Supreme Court won't hear constitutional issues, no matter how churlish they may seem, then what other option is there?...

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court deals with the law. The inane babblings of idiots, or of people with an interest in overthrowing the duly elected government, with no basis in law, are more the province of mental institutions. Which, by a remarkable coincidence, is where Trump (and a significant percentage of his supporters) may well end up.

[pritch]

This makes sense.

[pritch]

Biden and Harris won TIME person of the year. That probably pissed Trump off, he would have liked that to go with his (imaginary) "Noble" prizes.

He did win one though, he won Loser of the Year from Europes biggest magazine. I guess you can't lose sixty odd court cases, and counting, without somebody noticing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/der-s...b663c37596977a

[mashman]

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court deals with the law. The inane babblings of idiots, or of people with an interest in overthrowing the duly elected government, with no basis in law, are more the province of mental institutions. Which, by a remarkable coincidence, is where Trump (and a significant percentage of his supporters) may well end up.

Constitutional Law is a thing man.

[husaberg]

Biden and Harris won TIME person of the year. That probably pissed Trump off, he would have liked that to go with his (imaginary) "Noble" prizes.

He did win one though, he won Loser of the Year from Europes biggest magazine. I guess you can't lose sixty odd court cases, and counting, without somebody noticing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/der-s...b663c37596977a

“Could you imagine if I lose? My whole life, what am I going to do? I’m going to say, ‘I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politics.’ I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country?”

[SaferRides]

The real worry is how many Republicans supported the Texas lawsuit. It is difficult to believe that anyone could think the legal action had any chance of succeeding.

We could well be looking at the end of democracy in the US in the next 4 years if the Republican leadership continues to support Trump and do whatever it takes to get him "reelected".

[nerrrd]

How well did that go last time they tried anything like it ?

I’m not suggesting they should have another civil war. More along the lines of “if you love someone, let them go”. Who knows, after a decade or two under the Great Leader they might want to come back.

President Trump and his supporters though have painted themselves into a corner. I don’t understand it from way over here, but if they truly believe what they’re saying they won’t be able to back down, despite what the courts say. If they are, in fact, operating purely on the basis of self interest and expediency, then it’s all good, they will back down, it’s the best option now.

On a side note, witches everwhere will be relieved the “everybody knows...” argument is still a discredited legal strategy in most modern courts.

[pritch]

Constitutional Law is a thing man.

Absolutely, and if there had been a constitutional law issue the court would have at least heard it. There wasn't, there was nothing.

Trump is mistaken in that clip of husaberg's. He is not running against the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics. Hillary Clinton did that.

Another Trump comment in that clip was Trump accusing Biden of enriching himself while in office. That's the same Trump who has raised over 200 million "to assist with his legal fight".
Although if you read the small print a different picture emerges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQECJXji7Ys

Parler, the new right wing alternative to Twitter, is full of batshit crazy reaction to the courts finding. I'm thinking of joining just to have a laugh. I see that some Democrat politicians are visiting, probably a good idea. There are calls for "Marshall law" to the extent that it's trending. Most MAGAts can't spell the word 'you're' so 'martial' is definitely going to be too tough.

[mashman]

Absolutely, and if there had been a constitutional law issue the court would have at least heard it. There wasn't, there was nothing.

Trump is mistaken in that clip of husaberg's. He is not running against the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics. Hillary Clinton did that.

Another Trump comment in that clip was Trump accusing Biden of enriching himself while in office. That's the same Trump who has raised over 200 million "to assist with his legal fight".
Although if you read the small print a different picture emerges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQECJXji7Ys

Parler, the new right wing alternative to Twitter, is full of batshit crazy reaction to the courts finding. I'm thinking of joining just to have a laugh. I see that some Democrat politicians are visiting, probably a good idea. There are calls for "Marshall law" to the extent that it's trending. Most MAGAts can't spell the word 'you're' so 'martial' is definitely going to be too tough.

And indeed that is what the court decided.

I haven't read anything that berkboy has posted for years.

They've all done it and will do it until it stops... or to be more accurate, until it is stopped.

I've yet to have a wee trawl with regards to what those who think the constitution has been ignored are spitting feathers over. It's a lovely part of the day when I do though, because they aren't falling over themselves to bag the supporters of their preferred villain, just the villains. Then I come here (t'other way around today) and lmao at some of the shit you dipshits post that's ground in the derision of supporters and the glorification of Trump not getting in. The court thinks that the President of the United States is taking the piss. He may well be doing that very thing, but as the Supreme Court didn't throw a charge of Treason at Trump (he's fucking with the entire country, and the Dems merely wanted impeachment coz unproven Russians and fuck we got 4 year story out of that) at the same time as they dismissed what was being put before them (trite legal bollocks don't count), so I see the Court as highly likely being a part of the Swamp that needs draining. Anyhoo... off to find the great and average minds.

[SaferRides]

I've been on a US motorbike forum for over 10 years and they do seem like a great bunch of guys. The mods keep a tight lid on political discussions, but every now and something slips through and it's obvious that most of them do believe what they hear on Fox News.

I'd say what Trump has done is validate what many people already believed, e.g. that the communists are taking over the cities. But the claims about stealing the election have taken it to a whole new and dangerous level.

I doubt Trump has the attention span to wait for the next election and may have some major personal issues to deal with anyway. But who knows where all of this could end - he has a lot of support.

[husaberg]

Constitutional Law is a thing man.

funny because Law requires evidence of wrongdoing.........

[TheDemonLord]

are we not giving way to much credit to the ability of any group to control the outcome of an election involving 150+ million voters?

Not really, with the way the US electoral college is structured, you only need a small number of votes (relative to the overall total) in certain key states to change the outcome.

The Republicans are trying very hard to overturn things, (I actually have no issue with the concept of legally challenging election results) but those efforts very much remind me of the phrase that talks about piss ups and breweries. They just cannot get their shit sorted.
Conspiracy on the scale they are ranting about is simply not possible, if for no other reason than it involves human beings.

Slight tangent but I am fascinated by the USA's system, the founding fathers were so concerned with putting checks and balances in place they have designed a system whereby precisely nothing happens, unless you have money and lots of it of course.

There's a balance there (and I'll hear anyone that wants to raise the argument that the balance is heavily skewed atm), that if you wish to mount a challenge, you have to have a vested interest in both winning and loosing. Imagine a system where anyone could lodge a protest or a case without any requirement for an input on their part, people would do just that. So certainly having some barrier to entry of 'If you are so sure of your legal position, pony up the cash and be prepared to loose it' seems on one sense reasonable.

on the other hand (as I intimated above) - The US system has skewed too hard IMO towards those who do have the cash - to the point where Lawsuits can be dragged out until the opposite party runs out of funds to continue.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting that it was denied because Texas lacked 'standing'. Almost everybody (except TDL) understood that. Texas were basically appealing to the court because they didn't like the election result in four other states. None of their business. And that was what the court decided.

So what do you do about the evidence that Texas raised, regardless of standing, that the other states didn't follow their own Constitutions.

The best thing to do would be to hear that evidence and if it isn't true, provide a sound rebuttal.

By refusing to hear what was raised, on what many would consider a technicality (or worse a differing opinion), that may have consequences.

[TheDemonLord]

Biden and Harris won TIME person of the year.

For what accomplishment?










but I digress, Time's person of the year has been a farce and irrelevancy for many years now.