US continues to go backward...
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
PF5
Ranger
US Senator Rubio says he won't accept election results if 'unfair' reuters
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, an ally of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, will not accept the results of the Nov. 5 election if they are "unfair," he said on Sunday.
"Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator?" NBC News' "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker asked Rubio, a Florida Republican, in an interview.
"No matter what happens? No," Rubio answered. "If it's an unfair election, I think it's going to be contested by either side."
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss in November, stoking doubts about the election's legitimacy even as polls show the former president leading in battleground states, Reuters reported on Thursday.
In recent interviews, Trump has refused to commit to accepting the election results, intensifying a strategy he used during the 2020 election. Trump's false claims that his 2020 defeat was the result of fraud inspired his supporters to assault the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Rubio, now in his third term in the Senate, is considered a potential candidate to be named as Trump's vice presidential running mate.
Earlier this month, two other potential running mates - U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum – refused to commit to accepting election results.
Rubio said Democrats "opposed every Republican victory since 2000" although those candidates conceded their losses.
"If it's unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do," Rubio said. "We're going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws."
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, an ally of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, will not accept the results of the Nov. 5 election if they are "unfair," he said on Sunday.
"Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator?" NBC News' "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker asked Rubio, a Florida Republican, in an interview.
"No matter what happens? No," Rubio answered. "If it's an unfair election, I think it's going to be contested by either side."
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss in November, stoking doubts about the election's legitimacy even as polls show the former president leading in battleground states, Reuters reported on Thursday.
In recent interviews, Trump has refused to commit to accepting the election results, intensifying a strategy he used during the 2020 election. Trump's false claims that his 2020 defeat was the result of fraud inspired his supporters to assault the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Rubio, now in his third term in the Senate, is considered a potential candidate to be named as Trump's vice presidential running mate.
Earlier this month, two other potential running mates - U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum – refused to commit to accepting election results.
Rubio said Democrats "opposed every Republican victory since 2000" although those candidates conceded their losses.
"If it's unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do," Rubio said. "We're going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws."
But, but, but he was just speaking to Catholics!!!! Everyone denouncing his words are just intolerant! Am I right?
What do those nuns know about Catholic beliefs anyway?
mugatu
Ranger
Oh H#LL NO! That's freaking BS. A US citizen serving in another nations defense forces should NEVER be considered equal by our government in any way.
Isreal isn't even a good ally. They aren't NATO, they aren't FIVE EYES.
Yet another showing that the GOP doesn't get it regarding our service members. They don't care and I don't understand how they maintain the support of such a large percentage... other than FOX News being played constantly on every base.
Last edited:
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Maybe those Republicans have been bought out by the Zionist lobby. I heard that Trump has been bought out by the Zionist lobby and as a result will be "installed" as president. Under Trump it will be Israel first. Zionists have abandoned Biden for stopping bomb shipments to Israel.
1 of the terms that says you hate the Jews.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Oh, have you heard of the ZOG conspiracy theory? If not here goes from Wiki. (It's where this idea comes from that it will be Israel first, not America first, if Trump is elected.)
The Zionist occupation government, Zionist occupational government or Zionist-occupied government (ZOG), sometimes also referred to as the Jewish occupational government (JOG),[1][2] is an antisemitic conspiracy theory claiming Jews secretly control the governments of Western states.[3][4] It is a contemporary variation on the centuries-old belief in an international Jewish conspiracy. According to believers, a secret Zionist organization is actively controlling international banks, and through them governments, in order to collude against white, Christian, or Islamic interests.[5]
The expression is used by white supremacist, white nationalist, far-right, nativist[6] or antisemitic groups in Europe[7] and the United States,[8][9][10][11][12][13] as well as by ultra-nationalists such as Pamyat in Russia and various far-right groups including the Freemen, Identity Christians and the Ku Klux Klan.[6]
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
I wouldn't be surprised a number of Republicans are hoping in coming months before the election that illegal immigrants will launch some huge, horrendous terrorist incident and blame Biden on it.
PF5
Ranger
Supreme Court backs South Carolina Republicans in race-based voting map fight reuters
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court made it harder to prove racial discrimination in drawing electoral districts in a major ruling on Thursday backing South Carolina Republicans who devised an electoral map that moved 30,000 Black residents out of a congressional district.
The justices in a 6-3 decision, with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting, reversed a lower court's ruling that the Republican-drawn map violated the rights of Black voters under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court's ruling was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The court's liberal justices issued a sharply worded dissent, expressing alarm at the decision to raise the bar to prove that an electoral map racially discriminates in violation of the Constitution.
"What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers" who often have incentives to use race to achieve partisan ends, or to suppress the electoral influence of minority voters, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "Go right ahead, this court says to states today."
The lower court on March 28, because of the length of time it took the Supreme Court to act, decided that the disputed map can be used in this year's congressional elections, a ruling that could undercut Democratic chances of winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The conservative majority on Thursday sided with South Carolina Republicans who argued that the state's first congressional district map was designed to secure partisan advantage, a practice that the Supreme Court in 2019 decided was not reviewable by federal courts - unlike map-drawing that is mainly motivated by race, which remains illegal.
The majority found that the NAACP civil rights group and Black voters who challenged the map failed to prove that the map's design was chiefly motivated by race.
This case was being closely watched ahead of the Nov. 5 U.S. election in which the presidency and control of both chambers of Congress will be decided. Democrats lost their majority in the 435-seat House in the 2022 election and are hoping to overcome the slim Republican majority this year, with every competitive district crucial to the outcome.
Republicans hold a 217-213 margin in the House.
Ongoing legal battles over redistricting in several other states could be enough to determine control of the House in the election.
The South Carolina legal fight centered on a map adopted in 2022 by the Republican-led state legislature that redrew the boundaries of one of the state's seven U.S. House districts - one that includes parts of Charleston along the Atlantic coast.
Alito wrote that "no direct evidence supports the district court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1," and that "circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process."
The lower court took a "misguided approach" to resolving the case, including the evidence it relied on and by "paying lip service" to the assumption that the legislature acted in good faith, Alito wrote.
A federal three-judge panel in January 2023 ruled that the map unlawfully sorted voters by race and deliberately split up Black neighborhoods in Charleston County in a "stark racial gerrymander."
Gerrymandering is a practice involving the manipulation of the geographical boundaries of electoral districts to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others. In this case, the state legislature was accused of racial gerrymandering to reduce the influence of Black voters, who tend to favor Democratic candidates.
Kagan said the electoral sorting based on race will continue as a result of Thursday's ruling: "We should demand better - of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this court." Kagan said the ruling "thwarts efforts to undo a pernicious kind of race-based discrimination," and is "meant to scuttle gerrymandering cases."
The boundaries of legislative districts across the country are redrawn to reflect population changes measured by the census conducted by the U.S. government every decade. In most states, redistricting is done by the party in power.
The new map in South Carolina increased the district's share of white voters while reducing its share of Black voters, which the lower court referred to as "bleaching."
The map shifted 30,000 Black residents who had been in the 1st congressional district into the neighboring 6th congressional district, which stretches 125 miles (200 km) inland from Charleston. These voters were unlawfully "exiled," the three-judge panel wrote.
The 6th district has been held for three decades by Democrat Jim Clyburn, one of the most prominent Black members of Congress. Clyburn's is the only one of South Carolina's House districts held by a Democrat.
With the district's previous boundaries in place, Republican Nancy Mace only narrowly defeated an incumbent Democrat in 2020 - by just over 1 percentage point, or 5,400 votes. With the redistricting, Mace won re-election in 2022 by 14 percentage points.
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court made it harder to prove racial discrimination in drawing electoral districts in a major ruling on Thursday backing South Carolina Republicans who devised an electoral map that moved 30,000 Black residents out of a congressional district.
The justices in a 6-3 decision, with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting, reversed a lower court's ruling that the Republican-drawn map violated the rights of Black voters under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court's ruling was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The court's liberal justices issued a sharply worded dissent, expressing alarm at the decision to raise the bar to prove that an electoral map racially discriminates in violation of the Constitution.
"What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers" who often have incentives to use race to achieve partisan ends, or to suppress the electoral influence of minority voters, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "Go right ahead, this court says to states today."
The lower court on March 28, because of the length of time it took the Supreme Court to act, decided that the disputed map can be used in this year's congressional elections, a ruling that could undercut Democratic chances of winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The conservative majority on Thursday sided with South Carolina Republicans who argued that the state's first congressional district map was designed to secure partisan advantage, a practice that the Supreme Court in 2019 decided was not reviewable by federal courts - unlike map-drawing that is mainly motivated by race, which remains illegal.
The majority found that the NAACP civil rights group and Black voters who challenged the map failed to prove that the map's design was chiefly motivated by race.
This case was being closely watched ahead of the Nov. 5 U.S. election in which the presidency and control of both chambers of Congress will be decided. Democrats lost their majority in the 435-seat House in the 2022 election and are hoping to overcome the slim Republican majority this year, with every competitive district crucial to the outcome.
Republicans hold a 217-213 margin in the House.
Ongoing legal battles over redistricting in several other states could be enough to determine control of the House in the election.
The South Carolina legal fight centered on a map adopted in 2022 by the Republican-led state legislature that redrew the boundaries of one of the state's seven U.S. House districts - one that includes parts of Charleston along the Atlantic coast.
Alito wrote that "no direct evidence supports the district court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1," and that "circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process."
The lower court took a "misguided approach" to resolving the case, including the evidence it relied on and by "paying lip service" to the assumption that the legislature acted in good faith, Alito wrote.
A federal three-judge panel in January 2023 ruled that the map unlawfully sorted voters by race and deliberately split up Black neighborhoods in Charleston County in a "stark racial gerrymander."
Gerrymandering is a practice involving the manipulation of the geographical boundaries of electoral districts to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others. In this case, the state legislature was accused of racial gerrymandering to reduce the influence of Black voters, who tend to favor Democratic candidates.
Kagan said the electoral sorting based on race will continue as a result of Thursday's ruling: "We should demand better - of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this court." Kagan said the ruling "thwarts efforts to undo a pernicious kind of race-based discrimination," and is "meant to scuttle gerrymandering cases."
The boundaries of legislative districts across the country are redrawn to reflect population changes measured by the census conducted by the U.S. government every decade. In most states, redistricting is done by the party in power.
The new map in South Carolina increased the district's share of white voters while reducing its share of Black voters, which the lower court referred to as "bleaching."
The map shifted 30,000 Black residents who had been in the 1st congressional district into the neighboring 6th congressional district, which stretches 125 miles (200 km) inland from Charleston. These voters were unlawfully "exiled," the three-judge panel wrote.
The 6th district has been held for three decades by Democrat Jim Clyburn, one of the most prominent Black members of Congress. Clyburn's is the only one of South Carolina's House districts held by a Democrat.
With the district's previous boundaries in place, Republican Nancy Mace only narrowly defeated an incumbent Democrat in 2020 - by just over 1 percentage point, or 5,400 votes. With the redistricting, Mace won re-election in 2022 by 14 percentage points.
I really hate it when I think I have $250K in my checking account but am actually overdrawn.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
I don’t know how many pay attention but the shift further extreme in the Calvinistic TheoBro community is becoming alarming. In reality it’s not a shift but a confidence they have to be more public about their extremism views.
Don’t just think pro life but go further. Banning IVF and contraception. A rolling back of the Civil Rights Act. Repeal
the 19th Amendment. Only men can own property. Only married men can vote.
They no longer believe the Constitution works. They are openly saying this.
While fundamentally opposed when it comes to theology, hardline Catholics and fundamental Calvinists are ratcheting up the rhetoric.
I have thought for some time we are moving towards authoritarianism but I think we are moving more towards a theocracy. Trump is malleable and his stage life is coming to an end. Both the hardline Catholics and fundamental Calvinists are well organized and extremely well funded. They have been conning sheep for decades in this country and are now fully entrenched at most levels of Govt. US Speaker of the House as well as 6 US Supreme Court Justices. They have played the long game well.
The next battle will be not if but WHEN what is commonly called the Evangelical right which is made up of extremes from both theologies fractures and the centuries old doctrinal differences give way. Those that are sure they are God’s elect will have no further us or worse tolerance for anyone who is not “Elect”. This belief permeates every facet of their life and they will try to impose iit on everyone. The most fascinating paradox of the Calvinist or New Reformed “Christian” is the belief that everyone in their family or church is part of the elect. They don’t know that’s not how that works.
Don’t just think pro life but go further. Banning IVF and contraception. A rolling back of the Civil Rights Act. Repeal
the 19th Amendment. Only men can own property. Only married men can vote.
They no longer believe the Constitution works. They are openly saying this.
While fundamentally opposed when it comes to theology, hardline Catholics and fundamental Calvinists are ratcheting up the rhetoric.
I have thought for some time we are moving towards authoritarianism but I think we are moving more towards a theocracy. Trump is malleable and his stage life is coming to an end. Both the hardline Catholics and fundamental Calvinists are well organized and extremely well funded. They have been conning sheep for decades in this country and are now fully entrenched at most levels of Govt. US Speaker of the House as well as 6 US Supreme Court Justices. They have played the long game well.
The next battle will be not if but WHEN what is commonly called the Evangelical right which is made up of extremes from both theologies fractures and the centuries old doctrinal differences give way. Those that are sure they are God’s elect will have no further us or worse tolerance for anyone who is not “Elect”. This belief permeates every facet of their life and they will try to impose iit on everyone. The most fascinating paradox of the Calvinist or New Reformed “Christian” is the belief that everyone in their family or church is part of the elect. They don’t know that’s not how that works.
Last edited:
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Time will tell for which way the country is going for sure from the elections in Nov. 1924. 2022 Oklahoma elections told a lot which wasn't good by the size of the election victories for Stitt and Walters. Far right Christian Republicans, especially in Red States, just need to keep telling outrageous lies about what Democrats do and believe in to assure big election victories, most of all in rural areas.
Similar threads
