if they manage to throw them out do Dem's have enough of a buffer that it wont matter?
texas hasn't gone blue in like 45 years
so if they were in the lead the 100k would be a terrible blow
if they manage to throw them out do Dem's have enough of a buffer that it wont matter?
Refusing to believe uncomfortable truths because they're uncomfortable is an easy way to roadblock solutions from being implemented. A fascist does not need conscious declaration to be a fascist or spout fascist ideals (a convenient cover for a group of people who thrive on coded language), and every fascist is someone's relative. Evil is not special; instead it is banal and considerably easy to perform.Here's the thing: All of the evidence points to Republicans being in favor of fascism. But I struggle to believe that's the case because, well, fascism is awful. Like, both my parents are staunch conservatives but fascism seems like a step too far for me. Seems like. That's why I'm wondering how cognizant Republicans are of what they are fighting for and against. It's one thing to be cheering for your own party, but how many can take a step back and realize they are in support of fascism?
Yes, I imagine there are certain Republicans who, whether they name it fascism or not, are consciously in favor of those beliefs. But the majority? I have no idea. It could be 90% are openly fascist, or it could be 9%. I'd believe anything.
Even if these get thrown out, they would have to give that county some sort of extension or something I imagine?
That would be such a failure of the American system. That's an impossible "remedy" to meet.If they tossed the remedy would be to contact those 100k and tell them to vote.on Tuesday in person at proper polling places.
I think they'll not toss and shut down drive through for Tuesday. The judge is very bad on this one. Audible groans across the area when the assignment was revealed to be him.
That would be such a failure of the American system. That's an impossible "remedy" to meet.
What do you want? Me to say we have a super secret button that will fix it?So just vote, the very thing that he can stop, invalidate, or throw away?
But they can throw out a method of voting that is perfectly valid under texas election code lol.Well of course but they cant offer a remedy that would violate the texas election code!
But they can throw out a method of voting that is perfectly valid under texas election code lol.
Really unfortunate. But hopefully damage is minimized. Tactics like this only show how in danger Texas is being lost to Dems this cycle.
What do you want? Me to say we have a super secret button that will fix it?
He doesn't have "all the power".I'm just saying you guys are underestimating what Trump can do. Keep in mind he has no power back in 2016. He now has all the power in 2020.
The SC isn't handing him the election. It would literally have to come down to a Florida 2000 scenario again, which has under a half percent chance of happening. Senate has no bearing of the election.He's the President, the Senate is in his back pocket, and SCOTUS will basically go in his favor every time. So, yeah, he kinda does.
Sounds like the parties need to come together and agree to compromise and only throw out 50,000 votes.
Sounds like the parties need to come together and agree to compromise and only throw out 50,000 votes.
Not great. Not terrible.Sounds like the parties need to come together and agree to compromise and only throw out 50,000 votes.
I give this joke a 269/538Sounds like the parties need to come together and agree to compromise and only throw out 50,000 votes.
strap in for some bullshitDuring sentencing of a convicted child smuggler in December 2013, Hanen sharply criticized the United States Department of Homeland Security in an opinion that "veered far from the matter at hand" and "that quickly won rave reviews on right-wing news sites." Not only did he criticize the policy of reuniting children with their immigrant mothers, he further rebuked the Department for not prosecuting this child's mother. Hanen wrote, "DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is not. Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws." In February 2015, Hanen granted the State of Texas's motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction barring President Barack Obama from carrying out the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. In United States v. Texas, that ruling was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2016 (with an eight-member bench due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia).
Hanson made national news for related assertions and sanctions which were later withdrawn by the Fifth Cicruit. On May 19, 2016, while the case was awaiting decision at the Supreme Court, Hanen demanded that some 3,000 Department of Justice lawyers in 26 states take ethics classes, and ordered other sanctions for those who argued Texas v. United States, involving President Obama's immigration executive actions. Hanen did not explain why he extended his sanctions to attorneys who had no involvement in the case. Hanen accused Justice Department's lawyers of lying to him during arguments in the case, and barred them from appearing in his courtroom. He accused the department of "a calculated plan of unethical conduct". Hanen further ordered Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint someone within the department to ensure compliance with his order.
Hanen also purported to order U.S. immigration officials to turn over, within weeks, the names and addresses of 50,000 people who received deferral under the expanded deferred-action initiative. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants' Rights Project, and the ACLU of Texas petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to vacate the order or postpone the deadline. Separately, the Justice Department argued in a filing in the district court than Hanen's ordered sanctions "exceed the scope of [the court's] authority and unjustifiably impose irreparable injury on the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and thousands of innocent third parties." The Justice Department also argued that additional ethics courses could cost up to $7.8 million over five years.
looking up Judge Hanen, that man would absolutely throw out 100,000 ballots if he felt like it
wiki:
strap in for some bullshit
Refusing to believe uncomfortable truths because they're uncomfortable is an easy way to roadblock solutions from being implemented. A fascist does not need conscious declaration to be a fascist or spout fascist ideals (a convenient cover for a group of people who thrive on coded language), and every fascist is someone's relative. Evil is not special; instead it is banal and considerably easy to perform.
The American Republican Party at this moment in time is fascist, and anyone who wholeheartedly describes themselves as being aligned with them is at least subconsciously okay with fascism in the pursuit of their ends. Instead of hemming and hawwing atbthe characterization because fascism is obviously bad, or because a relative of ours is down the rabbit hole, we need to call Republicans for what they are.
Of course most are in favor of it. I maintain Innuendo Studios' conclusion that conservatives are drawn more to rigid hierarchies than equalitarian democracies just as a general philosophical preference, and thus don't really hold the same regard for democratic systems and the role of law that left-leaning folks do. Thus, conservatives will happily rationalize any hit to democracy to maintain power, because that's all they value, whether it's because they legitimately believe that non-conservatives are trying to destroy America and they want to do whatever it takes to stop us, or whether or not they desperately want to fulfill their race war LARPing and want to kill up a bunch of minorities because it gets them off or whatever. Whether or not they legitimately believe they are the last bastions of the American regime really doesn't matter. Ultimately, democracy is just a means to an end that can be happily discarded if it isn't working out for them.My question was if most Republicans are in favor of circumventing democracy to get what they want, not if they actually think "I'm a fascist!"
Like, if you say down a Republican and explained what they were supporting, would they balk or hold fast? Are they true believers, ignorant, or indifferent?
Good take, but I would add the never-ending fight to protect unborn babies. Those little things could be forever indebted to the system, so they represent profit. Add to that the delusion that these sycophants are trading their own salvation to save an innocent and that grants them full moral autonomy and it becomes one of the most egregious offenses to humankind. Blue. MF. Wave.Of course most are in favor of it. I maintain Innuendo Studios' conclusion that conservatives are drawn more to rigid hierarchies than equalitarian democracies just as a general philosophical preference, and thus don't really hold the same regard for democratic systems and the role of law that left-leaning folks do. Thus, conservatives will happily rationalize any hit to democracy to maintain power, because that's all they value, whether it's because they legitimately believe that non-conservatives are trying to destroy America and they want to do whatever it takes to stop us, or whether or not they desperately want to fulfill their race war LARPing and want to kill up a bunch of minorities because it gets them off or whatever. Whether or not they legitimately believe they are the last bastions of the American regime really doesn't matter. Ultimately, democracy is just a means to an end that can be happily discarded if it isn't working out for them.
In the final years of Barack Obama's presidency, major administration initiatives on immigration, transgender rights, and employee pay met their end at the hands of federal judges in the far reaches of Texas. In the three cases challenging the administration's actions, lawyers for the state of Texas-the lead plaintiff-trekked hundreds of miles from the state capital in Austin to seek nationwide injunctions in the towns of Brownsville, Sherman, and Wichita Falls.The three venues had one important thing in common. Thanks to court-created judge-assignment rules, Texas was able to gain significantly more control over the judges selected to hear the cases by filing in smaller courthouses instead of in major cities like Houston,Dallas, or San Antonio.
looking up Judge Hanen, that man would absolutely throw out 100,000 ballots if he felt like it
wiki:
strap in for some bullshit
Could they appeal this guys ruling? He doesn't hide his partisanship.