I appreciate they're trying to send a well-timed message, but it also conjures up some grim scenarios in the weeks ahead.
The thing is, everyone's like, oh man, only 12 more days of not knowing. But I seriously doubt we will cease our unknowing in that regard on Nov. 6.
Assuming #Harris wins, we should know the night of November 5
This is different than the #Republicans malice and their legions of brainwashed zombies "not knowing" she won the election
Such that her win would be in jeopardy by various plots, for awhile
Hours? Days? Weeks?
That depends upon how big her win, thus how much wiggle room the ghouls have to play to kill our #democracy
And how big her win would be, depends upon you:
Don't really understand all the worry. They can make a big fuss, but a huge difference is Dems are in power. If we cleary win, it really doesn't matter how much they refuse to accept. Unless SCOTUS steps in. That would be a mess.
@mastodonmigration @briankrebs
Yup: 2000
#Clinton, #Democrats were in power, #SCOTUS decided
If the #Florida count went on and SCOTUS didn't call it off, #Gore might have prevailed
Instead we got the previous measure of #Republican stupid (#Bush, since outdone by #Trump) backed by the previous measure of malice (#Cheney, since outdone by #Putin), and a pointless invasion of #Iraq
Let's not repeat that 😬
@benroyce That's not what happened in 2000, though. People forget what the actual case before the court was.
The Supreme Court did not call off the counting. That wasn't the question before them. Instead, the question was whether a lower court had legal authority to intervene the counting process, and the Supreme Court merely pointed out that the lower court was wrong.
The court had no role in the counting process. It only had a role in making sure the lower court acted according to law, which it didn't, so the Supreme Court reversed them.
The state was free to continue counting as per law.
And in the end multiple journalistic institutions concluded that had the count going on Bush would have won anyway.
@volkris @mastodonmigration @briankrebs
you lied twice
are you uninformed and you want me to help you?
1. of course SCOTUS called off the counting. "but they used legalese to do so" as your amazing point is just funny
2. "multiple journalistic institutions". what, fox news?
@benroyce Read the SCOTUS ruling.
It says the opposite.
If I wasn't on my phone I would give you a link directly to it, but it's public, so you should have no problem finding the ruling.
And after you read the ruling I want you to realize how many folks have lied about what it said over the years, and don't believe them anymore.
@benroyce One thing to keep in mind is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to stop such account. It is sitting as a court of appeals, and it would take not only a different branch of government but even a different government to stop the count.
So no, read the ruling, the Supreme Court did not stop the count, but furthermore, it could not have stopped the count even if it wanted to.
That's just not how the Supreme Court works in the US system of government.
Again, I don't know who's telling you these things, but they are lying to you.
Want to prove me wrong? Quote from the ruling where the Supreme Court stopped the count.
@benroyce exactly.
You're uninterested, you don't care what the truth is.
You're just believing what you've been told and not interested in reading about it to see that what you've been told is wrong.
You're just going with it.
Quite unread.
@benroyce exactly.
You're uninterested, you don't care what the truth is.
You're just believing what you've been told and not interested in reading about it to see that what you've been told is wrong.
You're just going with it.
Quite unread.
i deeply apologize, my eyes glazed over, and i did not read this wonderful new heavy breathing "WELLACHKSHUALLLYYY" of yours my lying friend
again 😱
calm down now reply guy, i'll think you'll be ok
shhh shhh. there there
Oh I'll be okay. No it's up to you whether you actually want to be informed about the world, but I'll be okay either way.
Check out the ruling if you care about the world.
Again, I'm inviting you to quote from the ruling to prove me wrong. But if you don't care, hey that's your call.
No skin off my back, but hey here's an invitation to prove some random person on the internet wrong.
🤣 🤣 🤣
dude, why are you replying?
i told you twice i'm not reading your comments. do you think i read this one?
are you lonely?
@benroyce No I don't think you're that interested in knowing how the world works. You seem pretty comfortable in your ignorance.
But it does amuse me that I'm inviting you to well actually me, but you're too busy being disconnected from the world to notice.
It just really captures what I'm saying, so your responses are giving me a nice warm glow of approval.
The affirmation is nice.
"there's some muttering the corner"
"do you know what they're saying?"
"no i can't make it out, and i'm not interested"
"so why do they do it?"
"i dunno, some people have issues"
@benroyce exactly.
@volkris @mastodonmigration @briankrebs
you're a liar
and not only that, a hilarious weak liar. there's nothing to address with you, i just need to point and laugh
"SCOTUS didn't stop the count"
🤣
and i notice how you didn't even address your second lie
because your point isn't honesty, it's pushing your ignorant bullshit on this topic
sunshine: might you be wrong. is that a possibility?
inconceivable!
argue on, brave disinfo reply guy!