Octopus Overlords

For example, just a few hours after allegedly shooting up the precinct, Hunter messaged an associate in California, Steven Carrillo.

“Boog,” Hunter wrote.

“Did,” Carrillo responded.

“Go for police buildings,” Hunter advised.

“I did better lol,” Carrillo answered. Indeed, shortly before that exchange, according to authorities, Carrillo had shot and killed a Federal Protective Service officer, David Patrick Underwood, in Oakland.

Experts said the affidavit suggests evidence of a development that many have long suspected and feared: The so-called boogaloo boys may not be just disconnected extremists who share a penchant for Hawaiian shirts and chaos. They may have built nationwide systems to coordinate acts of violence and terror

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:11 am https://twitter.com/aliciaparlap/status ... 5437157377

Holman wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:01 am

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:11 am https://twitter.com/aliciaparlap/status ... 5437157377

On source of election-night stress to prepare for:

It so happens that the swing states friendliest to Trump are in a position to report most of their results on the usual schedule, while the swing states friendliest to Biden will be taking some days to report their early/mail-in (and majority Dem) results. This means the maps on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning will look like a Trump win, and of course he's going to seize on that.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:37 pm

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

That's ideal, but it's more important to have accurate results than to have certain results on election night. To state the obvious, he's not interested in certainty or finality, he's interested in having the ability to cut off counting if preliminary results show him winning at any point.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:41 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:37 pm

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

That's ideal, but it's more important to have accurate results than to have certain results on election night. To state the obvious, he's not interested in certainty or finality, he's interested in having the ability to cut off counting if preliminary results show him winning at any point.

I'm just waiting for him to flip when he gets creamed on election night.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:37 pm...It's more important to have accurate results than to have certain results on election night.

Jaymann wrote:Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:53 pm

Jaymann wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:29 pm Trump has said one thing I agree with: We need to know the results on election night.

Why? We almost certainly are not going to know all the results on election night based on the number of early voters and states that don't start counting those votes until election day. It's perfectly common for results from a number of states to not be called on election night. And news outlets that call the election are almost doing it on projections based on exit polls, # of votes counted vs. votes left, etc. and are not the arbiters of who wins. The certification of votes from each state always happen days after the actual vote takes place.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm My plan, consistent with 2018, is to not tune into election results until after 11 pm. Worked well for me, since I found out later that early results were looking bad for Democrats.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm My plan, consistent with 2018, is to not tune into election results until after 11 pm. Worked well for me, since I found out later that early results were looking bad for Democrats.

In new petition, GOP candidates and state Rep. Toth ask Texas Supreme Court to REJECT Harris County votes cast in drive-thru lanes (100,000+ so far), calling it illegal curbside voting reserved for sick/disabled. A new argument after earlier bid to end drive-thru voting failed.

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:25 pmFuck these terrified assholes and their constant voter suppression bullshit.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the counting of ballots in North Carolina received up to nine days after the election as long as the ballots are postmarked by Election Day, a victory for Democrats in another key state.

Republicans and the Trump campaign had asked the court to reinstate a deadline set in June by the state Legislature that allowed ballots to be received only up to three days after Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the decision because she had not had time to fully review the briefs, the court said.
...
There were two separate challenges, one brought by the Trump campaign and other Republicans and a second brought by Republican North Carolina legislators.

Tuesday's orders did not specify a vote count. In both, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas noted their dissent. It would have taken five justices to grant the Republicans' request.

The US Supreme Court is leaving in place for now a Pennsylvania state Supreme Court decision that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after the election, even if there is no legible postmark.

The justices on Wednesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to review the decision on an accelerated basis.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the consideration of the motion.
...
The order was issued with no noted dissents, but in a statement accompanying the order, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said that it was too close to the election for the justices to step in.

"I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," Alito said, but he left open the possibility that the court could still hear the case on a shortened schedule after the election. The state attorney general's office said county boards will segregate all ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day until 5 p.m. on November 6, Alito noted.

Alito made clear that he was highly skeptical of the ruling by Pennsylvania's high court. He said the question had "national importance' and that there is a "strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution."

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:35 pm
Alito made clear that he was highly skeptical of the ruling by Pennsylvania's high court. He said the question had "national importance' and that there is a "strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution."

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:21 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:35 pm
Alito made clear that he was highly skeptical of the ruling by Pennsylvania's high court. He said the question had "national importance' and that there is a "strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution."

I’d love to hear how an order to actually receive ballots “violates the Federal Constit...

Nvm, it’s Alito. No logic would enter into that decision.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:41 am

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:21 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:35 pm
Alito made clear that he was highly skeptical of the ruling by Pennsylvania's high court. He said the question had "national importance' and that there is a "strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution."

I’d love to hear how an order to actually receive ballots “violates the Federal Constit...

Nvm, it’s Alito. No logic would enter into that decision.

Doesn't the constitution specify an election day?

Section 4: Elections
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

3 U.S. Code § 1 - Time of appointing electors
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672.)