Texas about to see a whole new perspective when they are forced to support welfare states.....Let them leave and fend for themselves so the US can send the military in and take over like we do other countries
Official Biden vs. Trump 2020 General Election Thread (Biden WINS 306 Electoral College Votes)
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
Black voter turnout nationally dropped a full 6% from 2012 to 2016. You're right that it was a return to the norm, because the norm is that Black voters are perpetually disillusioned and don't feel that government is actually concerned with their interests.
And in terms of the 2016 election, the numbers were much worse in the critical states (up to nearly a 20% drop) than they were nationally and certainly played a big role in Clinton's loss.
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin in 2016 declined by nearly 20%
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
Low Black Turnout May Have Cost Clinton the Election
4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016, more than a third of them Black
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
Pretty convincing? I remember why it's so painful to argue with you. A mere 0.3% shift of results in the swing states would have cost Biden the election and that's despite the massive boost he got from mail-in voting, early voting, and pandemic/economic anger. Great evidence that he should just rest on his laurels, right?
Lol, so many shytty options to choose from...
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
So because he got more votes than any sitting President, that means he should automatically win? Damn the guy who got more votes? He's such a pathetic loser.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
His 'logic' is "I got the most votes ever for a sitting president, and sitting presidents usually win reelection. Therefore, I won."
"Obama got the most votes ever for a candidate in 2008, and there's no way Biden got more than that, so it must be fraud, even though I also got more votes than that."
"Obama got 3 million fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008 and still won reelection easily. I got 11 million more votes than in 2016, so therefore I should have won reelection."
Last-ditch effort to throw election to Trump quashed by Supreme Court (yahoo.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election by invalidating millions of votes in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The lawsuit, which was joined by 17 states President Trump won in 2020, asked the court to allow the legislatures in the battleground states where the Trump campaign is contesting results to appoint new electors. But the court declined to take up the case, delivering what may be the death knell to Trump’s reelection fight.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the court denied the complaint for “lack of standing,” meaning Texas did not succeed in showing that it has a vested interest in the manner in which other states conduct elections.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, filed the Dec. 7 complaint against the states, which had certified Joe Biden as the winner, alleging multiple baseless claims. Those allegations — such as widespread voting irregularities and the unsubstantiated claim that Biden’s lead in those states is statistically improbable, specifically, a less than “one in quadrillion” chance — had already been the basis for numerous unsuccessful state and federal lawsuits.
The defendant states responded to the complaint on Thursday, basically arguing what the court concluded Friday — that Texas doesn’t have the standing to sue over how other states conduct elections.
“Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four sister States run their elections, and Texas suffered no harm because it dislikes the results in those elections,” Pennsylvania’s brief said.
In a statement issued after the ruling, Paxton said it’s “unfortunate” that the court decided not to take the case, and added that he’ll “continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.”
From the moment the case was filed, legal experts dismissed it as meritless, saying that if Texas is allowed to sue over other states’ election procedures, then theoretically any state can legally concern itself with how another state operates its elections.
“If we were to allow states to start challenging one another, in a kind of massive intra-family dispute among sister states, there would be no end to it,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and constitutional scholar, told Yahoo News on Wednesday. “Texas might say we don’t agree with the way Georgia counted its votes. Michigan might say we don’t think that Alabama did it right. It would be endless.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election by invalidating millions of votes in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The lawsuit, which was joined by 17 states President Trump won in 2020, asked the court to allow the legislatures in the battleground states where the Trump campaign is contesting results to appoint new electors. But the court declined to take up the case, delivering what may be the death knell to Trump’s reelection fight.
In a decision issued Friday evening, the court denied the complaint for “lack of standing,” meaning Texas did not succeed in showing that it has a vested interest in the manner in which other states conduct elections.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, filed the Dec. 7 complaint against the states, which had certified Joe Biden as the winner, alleging multiple baseless claims. Those allegations — such as widespread voting irregularities and the unsubstantiated claim that Biden’s lead in those states is statistically improbable, specifically, a less than “one in quadrillion” chance — had already been the basis for numerous unsuccessful state and federal lawsuits.
The defendant states responded to the complaint on Thursday, basically arguing what the court concluded Friday — that Texas doesn’t have the standing to sue over how other states conduct elections.
“Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four sister States run their elections, and Texas suffered no harm because it dislikes the results in those elections,” Pennsylvania’s brief said.
In a statement issued after the ruling, Paxton said it’s “unfortunate” that the court decided not to take the case, and added that he’ll “continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.”
From the moment the case was filed, legal experts dismissed it as meritless, saying that if Texas is allowed to sue over other states’ election procedures, then theoretically any state can legally concern itself with how another state operates its elections.
“If we were to allow states to start challenging one another, in a kind of massive intra-family dispute among sister states, there would be no end to it,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and constitutional scholar, told Yahoo News on Wednesday. “Texas might say we don’t agree with the way Georgia counted its votes. Michigan might say we don’t think that Alabama did it right. It would be endless.”
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
classic ignorance
God Almighty
Your Lord
You're gonna post a Yahoo link without informing us that Yahoo is now a part of Verizon Media?
Shameful. There are rules, you know.
Shameful. There are rules, you know.
amy covid barret was supposed to end america as we know it 
AndroidHero
Superstar
Wasn't Milo banned from Twitter and mainstream conservatives before Trump was elected?
mc_brew
#NotMyPresident
..... .... .. .::. .. .... .....
-.-- --- ..- .----. .-. . / .- / -.-. --- --- -.