SCOTUS, unsurprisingly, rejects election lawsuits in Wisconsin and Georgia - The Great Awakening

637

SCOTUS, unsurprisingly, rejects election lawsuits in Wisconsin and Georgia (mobile.twitter.com)

posted 3 years ago by Puncake150 3 years ago by Puncake150 +637 / -0

161 comments

161 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (161)

sorted by:

▲ 105 ▼

– ashlanddog 105 points 3 years ago +105 / -0

If the SCOTUS is trying to piss me off, they are succeeding....

permalink save report block reply

▲ 44 ▼

– Swordguy5 44 points 3 years ago +48 / -4

I suspect this shit has been in tribunal since just before the 20th, probably about the last time Pelosi acted as speaker of the house without a speaker pro tempura.

You cannot try a case in both SCOTUS and tribunal, so they don't really have an option. Hence the "moot" comment last time and the lack of comment this time. They would say something if they wanted to shut us down.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 35 ▼

– BasedInFact 35 points 3 years ago +35 / -0

Although allow me give you a wee bit of grief for your (likely the fault of damn autocorrect) reference to the "speaker pro tempura ?." ?

Unless that was your subtle way of suggesting that Nancy and the Democrats are going to get fried! In which case, bravo! ?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 2 ▼

– LeannaJGrimes 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

Thanks for the chuckle! I wish they would serve tempura, I'll take the shrimp! Hee hee! Stupid autocorrect has made me say the wildest things.

permalink parent save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q