Lilli (ETA)
@lillieta.bsky.social
Co-Founder, Board Member, Champion Cat-Herder 🐈 with the Election Truth Alliance (ETA). 📊🔍
🔗To learn more & support the ETA: ElectionTruthAlliance.org
🔗To support me directly: https://buymeacoffee.com/lillieta
🔗To learn more & support the ETA: ElectionTruthAlliance.org
🔗To support me directly: https://buymeacoffee.com/lillieta
It does not take much tinfoil hat-ing at accept that voting machines are vulnerable, Kamala Harris's 2019 book has a whole chapter about it.
January 21, 2025 at 8:36 AM
It does not take much tinfoil hat-ing at accept that voting machines are vulnerable, Kamala Harris's 2019 book has a whole chapter about it.
January 2, 2025 at 1:02 PM
If you need language to rebut uninformed/bad faith characterizations of invoking the 14th as "the same" as the GOP's attempted coup:
Two things can be true.
1. No one is entitled to an electoral victory.
AND
2. No one is entitled to hold office who is a disqualified insurrectionist.
#14thNow
Two things can be true.
1. No one is entitled to an electoral victory.
AND
2. No one is entitled to hold office who is a disqualified insurrectionist.
#14thNow
![[Username Redacted]
GOP in 2020: "STOP THE STEAL!"
DEMS in 2024: "STOP THE STEAL!"
See? Both parties are the same... neither one has the first fucking idea who they should actually be pissed off at.
Upvote
-1
Downvote
L1llandr1
Respectfully, that seems like false equivalence. Stealing implies taking something away that you were already entitled to.
No one is entitled to an electoral victory.
Concurrently, no one is entitled to hold office who is a disqualified insurrectionist.
Those two things can and should be true at once.
Upvote
+4](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rdtigipotkp2wm4znsepjtyk/bafkreialqyon45ikvqmf36s3bvrfumlufh643izdjej2kruem33qqumyaa@jpeg)
January 2, 2025 at 12:47 PM
If you need language to rebut uninformed/bad faith characterizations of invoking the 14th as "the same" as the GOP's attempted coup:
Two things can be true.
1. No one is entitled to an electoral victory.
AND
2. No one is entitled to hold office who is a disqualified insurrectionist.
#14thNow
Two things can be true.
1. No one is entitled to an electoral victory.
AND
2. No one is entitled to hold office who is a disqualified insurrectionist.
#14thNow
Respectfully, it is indeed possible - constitutionally, legally, logistically.
Urge 1/5 of Congress to object to disqualified insurrectionist Trump's electoral votes.
Sometimes it is better to fight and lose than not to fight at all. This is an issue worth fighting for.
Urge 1/5 of Congress to object to disqualified insurrectionist Trump's electoral votes.
Sometimes it is better to fight and lose than not to fight at all. This is an issue worth fighting for.
January 2, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Respectfully, it is indeed possible - constitutionally, legally, logistically.
Urge 1/5 of Congress to object to disqualified insurrectionist Trump's electoral votes.
Sometimes it is better to fight and lose than not to fight at all. This is an issue worth fighting for.
Urge 1/5 of Congress to object to disqualified insurrectionist Trump's electoral votes.
Sometimes it is better to fight and lose than not to fight at all. This is an issue worth fighting for.
The procedures for counting Electoral Votes are laid out in the Electoral Count Reform Act 2022.
January 2, 2025 at 9:53 AM
The procedures for counting Electoral Votes are laid out in the Electoral Count Reform Act 2022.
January 2, 2025 at 9:07 AM
"Just once, I’d like to see Democrats fight as hard for real causes as Republicans do for fake ones."
January 2, 2025 at 9:00 AM
"Just once, I’d like to see Democrats fight as hard for real causes as Republicans do for fake ones."
This would not play out until the certification process concludes, the rules for which are laid out in the Electoral Count Reform Act (2022).
Why are you so desperate to insist that the tool with the most actual heft to block Trump has 'no chance of success'? You are literally obeying in advance.
Why are you so desperate to insist that the tool with the most actual heft to block Trump has 'no chance of success'? You are literally obeying in advance.
January 1, 2025 at 1:36 AM
This would not play out until the certification process concludes, the rules for which are laid out in the Electoral Count Reform Act (2022).
Why are you so desperate to insist that the tool with the most actual heft to block Trump has 'no chance of success'? You are literally obeying in advance.
Why are you so desperate to insist that the tool with the most actual heft to block Trump has 'no chance of success'? You are literally obeying in advance.
You're doing the lord's work here!
Point him to the Electoral Count Reform Act and how the Electoral votes are counted. He points at the 20th Amendment saying "if the President Elect fails to qualify" without acknowledging it is only unambiguous WHO the pres elect is post-certification. Despicable!
Point him to the Electoral Count Reform Act and how the Electoral votes are counted. He points at the 20th Amendment saying "if the President Elect fails to qualify" without acknowledging it is only unambiguous WHO the pres elect is post-certification. Despicable!
December 31, 2024 at 10:37 PM
You're doing the lord's work here!
Point him to the Electoral Count Reform Act and how the Electoral votes are counted. He points at the 20th Amendment saying "if the President Elect fails to qualify" without acknowledging it is only unambiguous WHO the pres elect is post-certification. Despicable!
Point him to the Electoral Count Reform Act and how the Electoral votes are counted. He points at the 20th Amendment saying "if the President Elect fails to qualify" without acknowledging it is only unambiguous WHO the pres elect is post-certification. Despicable!
As of 5 days ago, Parastoo Ahmadi was released on the equivalent of $38k in bail.
www.iranintl.com/en/202412230...
www.iranintl.com/en/202412230...
December 29, 2024 at 11:55 AM
As of 5 days ago, Parastoo Ahmadi was released on the equivalent of $38k in bail.
www.iranintl.com/en/202412230...
www.iranintl.com/en/202412230...
You need the same things as a lantern but also a type of block from the Nether. 👀 Soul soil or soulsand! You can find it in a Nether biome called the soulsand valley. 👀 And you can make soul campfires and soul torches, too! Be careful on your journey, though -- it can be a dangerous errand!
December 29, 2024 at 10:54 AM
You need the same things as a lantern but also a type of block from the Nether. 👀 Soul soil or soulsand! You can find it in a Nether biome called the soulsand valley. 👀 And you can make soul campfires and soul torches, too! Be careful on your journey, though -- it can be a dangerous errand!
This has been a moment where John Gray's underrated work "Al Qaeda and What It Means to be Modern" (2003) is truly more relevant than ever!
December 29, 2024 at 9:50 AM
This has been a moment where John Gray's underrated work "Al Qaeda and What It Means to be Modern" (2003) is truly more relevant than ever!
The SCOTUS opinion is dreadfully crafted, but is limited to whether the states or Congress can enforce Sec 3 to bar Candidate Trump from running for office.
Sec 3 can and HAS been used to bar elected insurrectionists from holding office WITHOUT legislation being passed to 'disqualify' them.
Sec 3 can and HAS been used to bar elected insurrectionists from holding office WITHOUT legislation being passed to 'disqualify' them.
December 26, 2024 at 10:57 PM
The SCOTUS opinion is dreadfully crafted, but is limited to whether the states or Congress can enforce Sec 3 to bar Candidate Trump from running for office.
Sec 3 can and HAS been used to bar elected insurrectionists from holding office WITHOUT legislation being passed to 'disqualify' them.
Sec 3 can and HAS been used to bar elected insurrectionists from holding office WITHOUT legislation being passed to 'disqualify' them.
So:
The Constitution says that Congress can, "by appropriate legislation", enforce s3 a14.
Historically, this has included enforcement through Amnesty Bills that FAIL TO PASS with a 2/3 majority in both houses to remove disqualification.
SCOTUS says "states can't decide", only Congress.
The Constitution says that Congress can, "by appropriate legislation", enforce s3 a14.
Historically, this has included enforcement through Amnesty Bills that FAIL TO PASS with a 2/3 majority in both houses to remove disqualification.
SCOTUS says "states can't decide", only Congress.
December 24, 2024 at 6:44 AM
So:
The Constitution says that Congress can, "by appropriate legislation", enforce s3 a14.
Historically, this has included enforcement through Amnesty Bills that FAIL TO PASS with a 2/3 majority in both houses to remove disqualification.
SCOTUS says "states can't decide", only Congress.
The Constitution says that Congress can, "by appropriate legislation", enforce s3 a14.
Historically, this has included enforcement through Amnesty Bills that FAIL TO PASS with a 2/3 majority in both houses to remove disqualification.
SCOTUS says "states can't decide", only Congress.
#3: Baude + Paulson: Top legal scholars say that almost all the argument re: whether passing legislation is required, appears only in the non-unanimous opinions; there are no firm directives in the 9-0 opinion, only atmospherics, and suggest such directives may have been edited out last minute.
December 24, 2024 at 6:24 AM
#3: Baude + Paulson: Top legal scholars say that almost all the argument re: whether passing legislation is required, appears only in the non-unanimous opinions; there are no firm directives in the 9-0 opinion, only atmospherics, and suggest such directives may have been edited out last minute.
What IS spoken to in the 9-0 "per curiam" opinion is HOW that enforcement lies with Congress. It mentions that Colorado voters who brought the suit concede that the responsibility for enforcing sec 3 of the 14th lies with Congress, with no limits to this power implied in the Constitution.
December 24, 2024 at 5:54 AM
What IS spoken to in the 9-0 "per curiam" opinion is HOW that enforcement lies with Congress. It mentions that Colorado voters who brought the suit concede that the responsibility for enforcing sec 3 of the 14th lies with Congress, with no limits to this power implied in the Constitution.
The thing that matters most here is the 9-0 main opinion, so let's tackle that first.
You circled in red that "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress" and not the states. On that, I think we all agree, including all 9 justices.
You circled in red that "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress" and not the states. On that, I think we all agree, including all 9 justices.
December 24, 2024 at 5:49 AM
The thing that matters most here is the 9-0 main opinion, so let's tackle that first.
You circled in red that "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress" and not the states. On that, I think we all agree, including all 9 justices.
You circled in red that "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress" and not the states. On that, I think we all agree, including all 9 justices.
🧵Okie so
#1 First of it's so minor, but I disagree that a SCOTUS decision is "law". Per A1 S1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The SC cannot make laws, only Congress can. [1/?]
#1 First of it's so minor, but I disagree that a SCOTUS decision is "law". Per A1 S1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The SC cannot make laws, only Congress can. [1/?]
December 24, 2024 at 5:37 AM
🧵Okie so
#1 First of it's so minor, but I disagree that a SCOTUS decision is "law". Per A1 S1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The SC cannot make laws, only Congress can. [1/?]
#1 First of it's so minor, but I disagree that a SCOTUS decision is "law". Per A1 S1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The SC cannot make laws, only Congress can. [1/?]
REMINDER: Despite how the media reported on the Trump v Anderson SCOTUS decision, top legal scholars say Trump remains constitutionally disqualified per sec 3 of the 14th, and may not lawfully serve as president "unless Congress removes the disqualification by 2/3 majorities of both houses".
December 23, 2024 at 11:55 PM
REMINDER: Despite how the media reported on the Trump v Anderson SCOTUS decision, top legal scholars say Trump remains constitutionally disqualified per sec 3 of the 14th, and may not lawfully serve as president "unless Congress removes the disqualification by 2/3 majorities of both houses".
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Summary excerpt: "Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson", 138 Harvard Law Review, September 10, 2024. Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Paulsen (University of St. Thomas School of Law).
More info in the article itself ofc.
Summary excerpt: "Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson", 138 Harvard Law Review, September 10, 2024. Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Paulsen (University of St. Thomas School of Law).
More info in the article itself ofc.
December 23, 2024 at 11:25 PM
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Summary excerpt: "Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson", 138 Harvard Law Review, September 10, 2024. Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Paulsen (University of St. Thomas School of Law).
More info in the article itself ofc.
Summary excerpt: "Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson", 138 Harvard Law Review, September 10, 2024. Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Paulsen (University of St. Thomas School of Law).
More info in the article itself ofc.
If Kamala herself has more legitimacy in your eyes, here she in "The Truths We Hold", in the chapter 'Smart on Security'.
That voting machines can and do very get connected to internet is true regardless of who is saying so, or their motivation. (Or if it conflicts with our own wants and beliefs.)
That voting machines can and do very get connected to internet is true regardless of who is saying so, or their motivation. (Or if it conflicts with our own wants and beliefs.)
December 4, 2024 at 4:08 AM
If Kamala herself has more legitimacy in your eyes, here she in "The Truths We Hold", in the chapter 'Smart on Security'.
That voting machines can and do very get connected to internet is true regardless of who is saying so, or their motivation. (Or if it conflicts with our own wants and beliefs.)
That voting machines can and do very get connected to internet is true regardless of who is saying so, or their motivation. (Or if it conflicts with our own wants and beliefs.)
The MSNBC, NY Times, and AP vote tracker have been updated continuously since election day.
November 17, 2024 at 11:12 PM
The MSNBC, NY Times, and AP vote tracker have been updated continuously since election day.