StillSleepy
Muse
Apparently democracy isn't a traditional American value.
.Edited by zooterkin:<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.
Trump acknowledges a poll that shows him trailing Biden, says a foreign leader called him saying "I see you're down a little bit in a poll. I said, 'can you believe this could happen to me?'"
"know what? we can't get the votes of the actual citizenry, let's flood a bunch of foreigners in here, make paper citizens of them,"
the traditional American nation
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1323360824753270785BREAKING: Judge Hanen holds the plaintiffs don't have standing in Texas drive-thru voting case.
GOP challengers lose.
The Federal court hearing on Harris County drive-through voting operations is underway. Judge Hanen doesn't appear too sympathetic to the GOP argument, but you never know.
For those interested, here's a couple of reporters tweeting updates:
Zach Despart of the Houston Chronicle was allowed inside the courtroom: https://twitter.com/zachdespart
Adam Klasfeld of Law & Crime was not, so he's following the case via a dodgy conference call and covering the scene outside the court:
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports
Until there wasn't.And there was much rejoicing.
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- A federal judge has ruled against a bid to invalidate 127,000 Harris County ballots cast by drive-thru early voting.
Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit
·
7m
(b) "I am going to order you to maintain records of who votes drive-through tomorrow."
(c) "I am denying the motions to intervene because I am dismissing the case."
Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit
·
7m
So, non-lawyer followers, why did Hanen say what he would have done had be found standing?
His point is: if the Fifth Circuit says I'm wrong about standing, I want them to know what I thought on the merits.
Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit
·
6m
The reason is, so the Fifth Circuit can *affirm* his ruling even if they disagree on standing.
And the decision is in:
127,000 drive-thru votes in Harris County will count, federal judge rules
Gets one notch less likely the SCOTUS will overturn this.
Exactly the opposite. For a lot of people on the right, how they got there in the first place was by getting pushed away from the left by lefties fighting the lefty "culture war" the way the left has already been doing it for decades.People like this think we've been fighting a "Culture War" for decades now. It's probably about time our side decided to start fighting one too.
Bringing up "Native Americans" in response to somebody who's against massive immigration... you could hardly come up with a response any wronger.
You're essentially proving how important it is to keep invaders out, by pointing out "they failed to do so, and look how that worked out for them".
Exactly the opposite. For a lot of people on the right, how they got there in the first place was by getting pushed away from the left by lefties fighting the lefty "culture war" the way the left has already been doing it for decades.
You might have a point that the left should start fighting the culture war some other way than the way that's already ubiquitous (simply going around accusing everybody of having various bigotries that they don't have; seriously, how in the world did any of yall ever think that would ever get us anywhere?) But to say the left hasn't already been fighting a culture war all along at all is just utterly detached from reality.
In response to people criticizing an openly racist person who has expressed truly abhorrent opinions probably isn’t the best timing for Conservative Persecution Complex grandstanding.
As a matter of fact, 2020 in general probably isn’t the best time. With almost a quarter of million dead Americans and Republicans not seeming to care, it’s really, really difficult to give a **** about conservatives whining about their hurt feelings.
Bringing up "Native Americans" in response to somebody who's against massive immigration... you could hardly come up with a response any wronger.
You're essentially proving how important it is to keep invaders out, by pointing out "they failed to do so, and look how that worked out for them".
Well, I don't think the Native Americans had much choice in the matter, so the argument fails right there.No the argument is that "right" thing to do would have been for the Native Americans to not let the Europeans immigrate into America. That is it's an argument against immigration because the biggest immigration in history, that of the Old World into the New World, did not end well for the people here before the immigrants.
I don't agree with it, but let's be clear on what the argument is.
The argument falls apart because we have factors we can account so everything isn't decided by "Guns, germs, and steel" so to speak.