Generational Dynamics World View News

[Bob Butler]

I have a feeling that if they rule this way, they will not try to apply it retroactively, because the ramifications of attempting to do so are too overwhelming. But going forward, the political landscape would be changed hugely. And Biden's presidency would forever have a huge asterisk next to it in the history books.

At least the Covid related changes were to let as many people vote as possible under trying circumstances. The Big Lie was to steal an election. Still, I see there being lots of asterisks in the history book chapters on 2020. At least they avoided a crisis war.

[Xeraphim1]

Still protests in Iran.

It's been over 40 days now and the Mullahs still can't keep this contained.

[Cool Breeze]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from NC that will decide this issue: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 ... s-00059380. If they rule that the Constitution actually means what it says, then suddenly Biden was fraudulently elected, because the laws were illegally changed.

Interesting, but if the Supremes found the changes should have been confirmed through the legislatures, they would have to put an equal nix on a lot of elections other than the presidential one. While I wouldn't be shocked by their providing binding guidance on future elections, I doubt they would throw away all 2020 elections. Meanwhile, Covid is not a surprise factor anymore, and we should have time to balance out any changes for 2024. 2020 or even 2022 seem too late. Could you see changing the rules for an election where voting is already underway?

I have a feeling that if they rule this way, they will not try to apply it retroactively, because the ramifications of attempting to do so are too overwhelming. But going forward, the political landscape would be changed hugely. And Biden's presidency would forever have a huge asterisk next to it in the history books.

You are correct, and yet again, those of us called names like "conspiracy theorists" (already proven right by tim's post too, above) were right. Again.

[Guest]

Still protests in Iran.

It's been over 40 days now and the Mullahs still can't keep this contained.

Only when the Shah has returned will Iran be free.

[Bob Butler]

Only when the Shah has returned will Iran be free.

The Shah favored the western oil buyers over his people. I do not really consider his return at all likely. A more secular government that does not oppose the people's culture as much is more likely.

[Guest]

Only when the Shah has returned will Iran be free.

The Shah favored the western oil buyers over his people. I do not really consider his return at all likely. A more secular government that does not oppose the people's culture as much is more likely.

You oppose your own people's culture. Who are you to talk?

























?

[Tom Mazanec]

Bob Butler:

At least they avoided a crisis war.

So far...

[Bob Butler]

You oppose your own people's culture. Who are you to talk?

I would expect the local Iranians to act in their own interest rather than someone who long ago was more linked to a foreign power. The Shah has last played in significant role when? In the recent Middle East conflicts, which faction did he lead? Just after World War II the major western powers carved up the Middle East for their own convenience. Those days have long passed.

[thomasglee]

Is the Big Lie a big lie?

No, it's not a big lie, it's a big question, a very reasonable one, and this is why (stay with me, Bob).

Democrats sued to have courts change voting laws in several key states prior to the 2020 elections. This is important, because the Elections Clause says that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof”
Many (mostly conservative) legal scholars have pointed out that because the Constitution specifically says "legislature," and not "state government," this must mean that the legislature actually has final say in how elections are run, and the state courts do not have free rein to intervene and re-write election laws.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from NC that will decide this issue: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 ... s-00059380. If they rule that the Constitution actually means what it says, then suddenly Biden was fraudulently elected, because the laws were illegally changed.

This is the first viable explanation to the "fraudulent election" I have heard. I did not hear any evidence of votes being stolen or miscounted, but there certainly was a lot of last minute "changes" due to "covid" that didn't pass the sniff test. (Like mailing out ballots without validation, like they are evidently still doing in PA).

If this is the first time you've heard this explanation, you haven't been listening. This was said even before the election. It was pointed out by many before the election that these changes were illegal, because the changes were not made by state legislatures but by either Gubernatorial decree, or by courts. On the one hand I'm shocked this is the first you've heard this explanation, but on the other, I'm not, because so many who claim to have been following the debate haven't.

[FullMoon]

No, it's not a big lie, it's a big question, a very reasonable one, and this is why (stay with me, Bob).

Democrats sued to have courts change voting laws in several key states prior to the 2020 elections. This is important, because the Elections Clause says that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof”
Many (mostly conservative) legal scholars have pointed out that because the Constitution specifically says "legislature," and not "state government," this must mean that the legislature actually has final say in how elections are run, and the state courts do not have free rein to intervene and re-write election laws.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from NC that will decide this issue: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 ... s-00059380. If they rule that the Constitution actually means what it says, then suddenly Biden was fraudulently elected, because the laws were illegally changed.

This is the first viable explanation to the "fraudulent election" I have heard. I did not hear any evidence of votes being stolen or miscounted, but there certainly was a lot of last minute "changes" due to "covid" that didn't pass the sniff test. (Like mailing out ballots without validation, like they are evidently still doing in PA).

If this is the first time you've heard this explanation, you haven't been listening. This was said even before the election. It was pointed out by many before the election that these changes were illegal, because the changes were not made by state legislatures but by either Gubernatorial decree, or by courts. On the one hand I'm shocked this is the first you've heard this explanation, but on the other, I'm not, because so many who claim to have been following the debate haven't.

This is still an issue because the legitimate concerns regarding the many shenanigans surrounding this particular election were sidelined and kept from being properly cleared up. Then we had a false flag demonstration on the capitol grounds which shifted the focus and turned opinion against the possibility of a fraud. Not clearing it up might be a tactic used to force people into subjugation of apparent truth for obedience to authority. Maintaining social division helps some