this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
115 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2879 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EleventhHour 75 points 4 months ago (6 children)

I can 100% guarantee that he absolutely will not accept a loss of any kind ever. He is literally incapable of it.

[–] retrospectology 29 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The thin silverlining to that scenario is he's not president/commander in chief and can't have his goons lower security so his rioters can get in.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago

What if I told you that his goons still hold plenty of official positions in government security?

[–] Boddhisatva 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are 70+ election officials in battleground states that are election denying Trump supporters.

The fix is already in if we don't find a way to stop it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Really makes you wonder what Crooks was thinking

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Nah. Instead, he has a supreme court that could rule to let it go to the states who would not change who is in charge, thus meaning he gets to win, all on an election challenge saying Kamala cheated

(I really, REALLY hope the peeps saying this are wrong, I'm Canadian so don't have the fullest grasp of the intricacies of the US election system and what happens if the Supreme Court sides with whoever claims the winner cheated)

[–] batmaniam 2 points 4 months ago

Pretty solid. The supreme court only gets a say on a case thst gets to them, which is to say while they have a ton of sway, they're still a court. Someone has to file a suite, and it has to then be appealed (because neither side in a suite like that is going to NOT appeal). Each time you appeal it moves "up the chain" of a specific judicial circuit. While the circuits were meant to be more of geographical admin thing, the Trump presidentancy saw McConnell absolutely jam pack a circuit with shitty judges. The shenanigans during the document trial with Judge Cannon are a perfect example.

So they'd have to start with an actual suite. But that could be something as small as "in one polling place we found a Harris sign 99ft from the entrance!" (in the US it has to be 100ft). Normally that would be laughed out of court, but if the judge agrees the judge agrees. Then you appeal, and... Well...

load more comments (2 replies)