Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

e: "incorrectly" I ONLY use that word because NONE of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly.

First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this. The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president. The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS. NONE.

And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation. The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner. The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent)

Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one; There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.

e: "incorrectly" I **ONLY** use that word because **NONE** of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly. First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this. The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president. The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS. NONE. And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation. The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner. The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent) Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one; There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (10).
[–] • 2 pts (edited )

The expectation that the audits will remove Biden are ill-founded. What will likely happen is that the audits and potential re-run elections will cause the democrats to be ejected at the state level. It means that the country will have to weather the Biden administration till the 2022 elections when new house and senate seats get filled, tipping the balance to thwart most of the damage Biden can do to America from that point on.

EDIT: It also means that all the Biden stuff will look less and less legitimate and the Biden administration will have two options: 1. To ignore public opinion and do whatever the fuck they want (pushing the public even further to the right in reaction). or 2. Back off and appear to be more legitimate in action to prevent further damage to the Democratic party (but at the expense of the party's objectives).