Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> immigrants bad

This is 100% gaslighting by mainstream media. Immigration _per se_ isn't bad. I say so as an immigrant myself. Trump is married to an immigrant. But unrestricted low-skill illegal migration in tens of millions is most definitely bad, and it leads to modern day slavery, while at the same time depressing the wages of the working poor and making them dependent on welfare. That's why Kochs want it so much. So bad, in fact, that Barack Obama deported a lot more illegal migrants than Trump ever did. So long standing that Bill Clinton highlighted the issue in his 1995 State of the Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA. So severe that Hillary Clinton voted for a border wall: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas.... Immigration from countries where one can't even meaningfully do a background check is also bad. Skilled immigration program abused to get H1B wage slaves to the detriment of US grads who are drowning in debt is very bad indeed.

> disputing and attempting to overturn democracy

Nobody is "attempting to overturn democracy". There are hundreds of sworn affidavits and abundant video evidence of election irregularities. This needs to be followed up on, for the same reason why Nancy Pelosi was calling for the same in 2017: https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080. She spent _4 years_ undermining the choice of the American people, and by extension "democracy". Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit (as it was in Pelosi's case), the court will throw it out. If it's not you should be just as interested in hearing about it, because such things tend to backfire, just like Harry Reid's filibuster fiasco did.

Here's an explanation of what happened to you that will alleviate your cognitive dissonance somewhat: https://twitter.com/astateofEmily/status/1327079491760361472




> Presenting evidence in the court of law is democracy. If evidence is shit, the court will throw it out.

This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe?


> This has happened in all the lawsuits so far, I believe?

You're being gaslit about that too, although yes, some motions were denied and some lawsuits were rejected outright. Watch the last link in my original post. It explains the propaganda barrage perfectly.

There are a bunch of deadlines and appellate levels baked into this process for a reason. If Al Gore could hold things up for over a month over a few hundred votes, all the concerns about following lawful process are null and void. Same with histrionics about "overturning democracy".

The choice is pretty simple even to Trump voters: either Trump finds the smoking gun and deservedly gets a second term, or he's full of shit and he doesn't deserve a second term. Nobody on the right will set cities on fire either way.


No videos, give me some text reporting. Which lawsuits have (a) submitted evidence and (b) not had it thrown out?


https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

Literally 10 seconds in DuckDuckGo. Notice that where lawsuits are rejected they are mostly rejected over lack of standing, and will be re-filed elsewhere with stronger evidence, or dropped outright due to insufficient evidence. This is what the legal system is for - to establish the veracity of claims, and obtain relief when due. Still more lawsuits will be filed next week. The current crop are just the small fry ones that could be filed quickly.

None of this constitutes "overturning democracy" in any shape or form.

I do recommend that you watch the video though.


At the rate law firms are dropping Trump, those cases next week will have to be argued by Rudy himself. And god willing, he'll give us some more press conferences as a bonus.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: