My supreme court prediction: we can’t decide anything because the Trump administration hasn’t actually sent anybody to the polls. Wait till Election Day and we will make a decision after a complaint makes its way back up to the Supreme Court.
post
The real question is, who's going to enforce this? They're gonna deploy the local PD to face off against a lawless nameless heavily armed federal military force?
Early vote in person if you can. It doesn't all need to be done on election day, much less crowded now and the corrupt feds can't be there every day from now until November.
If you do see armed terrorists hanging around a call to the police saying you don't feel safe might be an interesting test of local law enforcement.
Hey, question from a non-American. Can your president simply say, "I don't accept the results of this election" and declare it to be null and void or in abeyance?
There is no "legal" mechanism for this. States run the elections and send their representatives directly in the new session of Congress, independently from any executive branch office. The president isn't supposed to have a say in which or how many representatives can start the new term of Congress.
As for what Trump would actually do regardless of the laws to potentially change or stop a new Congress, no one knows for sure. It would probably be a new level of constitutional crisis if he did try to illegally change or stop the new Congress.
Democrats could have kept trump from ever being in power by releasing all kinds of damning info about him since everyone already knew he was a sex trafficker.
Democrats could have had him removed after impeachment the first term with high crimes and treason. They could have used the 25th amendment too.
Democrats could have used committee positions and procedural tricks like the GOO to stall bills and sabatoage any productive actions.
Democrats could have kept trump from office after January 6th and the fake elector scheme
Democrats could have had him removed for high crimes and treason the second term.
Democrats could have stopped him from illegally destroying the Whitehouse and building a six story bunker with an AI data center and drone airport which will be surrounded by sniper towers.
Democrats could have him removed after the many times that he threatened to nuke a civilization.
Democrats could have removed him when he destroyed the UN and NATO and changed our allies relationships forever.
Democrats could have removed him when he committed warcrimes in Iran and South America and now we are under investigation for warcrimes by the ICC and UN. The first investigator was murdered in broad daylight.
So now, to prep for the midterms,
Hakeem is meeting with Jared Kushner secretly AIPAC Dems are funding aipac Republicans over DSA candidates. (BlUe No MaTtEr WhO) Tammy duckworth is saying that if we win, we shouldn't waste time on impeachment so we can move forward and "compromise" with MAGA
If anyone or anything could stop what's happening, it would have happened by now.
He won't accept the results and there isn't anyone who will enforce the law.
Please post who will enforce the election results if you disagree
Democrats could have kept trump from ever being in power by releasing all kinds of damning info about him since everyone already knew he was a sex trafficker.
I don't know if that would have worked or not. The GOP had every opportunity to remove Trump when he basically committed treason by asking for Russia to get Hillary's emails on live TV.
Agreed. I'm just saying that we don't have an opposition party.
Hakeem Jeffries is funded by a Peter Thiel and just appointed more dem Thiel agents into some AI regulatory committee.
The Dems want to "compromise"
I won't ever compromise with fascists. What does that even mean? Are we good with 30000 people in a camp instead of 60000? Will we let pedophiles use "just the tip"?
How do you compromise with pedophilic fascists? You don't because they CANNOT exist in a normal society
Some people are still convinced the law is some natural force that will simply happen without enforcement
Democrats serve the same master as Republicans: money. The first rule of service is to never screw with the money.
Haha you morons still think you have a country.
I just decided. I'm going to start blocking dicks like you each time I see one of these, 0 input, "fuck America" replies. You're not adding anything to the discussion. You're first!
I don't block people, I just tag them with a 💩 or 🤡 emoji so I know they aren't worth dealing with.
Yeah, this guy is tagged "Little Shit" and keeps showing why. What a loser.
Where are they even from? I doubt their country is a bastion of morality.
Might block me but why shouldn't the world say fuck america? I mean your president and politicians have threatened to take over my country multiple times. As stated above you have changed relationship with alias for at least awhile don't expect it to go back to "normal". If it does the west should just officially become part of America I know as it is right now they can't function without them. How many governments are on American platforms around the world. The largest spy network and people pay them to use it.
Sure. And I'm the one doing it all /s. You're yelling at the wrong fucking Americans.
If you’re an American living in America, you’re the right American because you’re all the same.
This is such a simplistic take.
There are actually a lot of Americans who are as upset as anybody but not in a position to leave
Libs: oh you better not! we need to vote because that will work against you! wags finger
remember to "vote" this nov! your choices are bluemaga and maga, hav fun!
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Democrats finally mobilized on an issue in which they have a direct, personal interest. I see that even my Senator is getting in on it, when her other brave effort to combat war crimes, genocide, and the rise of fascism is (*checks notes*) a bill to ensure that everybody in Wisconsin can watch the Packers on television.
I get the sentiment. I will highlight, the Supremely Corrupt Court often seems to like to say, "actually that's not your problem those people are suffering", and dismiss cases due to the lack of standing or prematurely dismissing fascism stuff we already know was coming.
So that would be an argument for there to be a tangible direct interest, in order to put forward a case to the courts.
all 35 comments