>>11980594 (/lb)

I think the senior partner at my firm is sincere but wrong, I've known him and worked with him for many years. He's just deceived.

>>11980586 (/lb)

Easiest $200 isn't it.

>>11980603 (/lb)

The fact highly experienced, intelligent, and senior people still trust the fake news. Does it take that much courage and wisdom to perceive the msm as corrupt propaganda arm of a political party?

>>11980896 (/lb)

So many people are silent about this. Nobody in my division at my firm is saying anything, it's like everyone has their idea the election was rigged but nobody has the guts (including me) to really lay the hammer down and say what we feel. You're right, everyone is playing the game, not wanting to risk being 'that guy'.

Well, to be honest with myself we're not doing what we're doing at my firm because of any of our political views, we have a job to do and it's not giving political advise, so really I am also sort of happy nobody is talking about it and instead focusing on serving our clients. It's just that comment from the senior partner, the way he said it, like it was uncontroversial and totally normal that Biden won and will be taking over the WH in Jan. It's evidence that my firm is at a much higher risk than I thought, my firm is at a high risk of behaving in accordance with disinformation, and that troubles me, it affects us all.

26 - 9 = Add 17 Marxist justices.

Democrats are sending a message, POTUS calls them out.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337400706551123969

>>11981043

>>11981012

You triggered and you're projecting.

POTUS announces he has checkmate, and you're whining and panicking.

He's telling the conservative majority SCOTUS, and the world, that if SCOTUS rules in favor of Biden, they'd be effectively ruling their own legal vision and themselves out of power, because they'll be met with 17 (26-9) additional Marxist justices, and two they would have to deal with the fact that their 'legacy' will forever be to have effectively handed over the Supreme Court to the globalist criminal syndicate.

SCOTUS justices are also human, and I don't think for one second any justice would willingly rule in such a way that it destroys their own ability to impact SCOTUS decision making.

POTUS is a businessman primarily, he understands self-interest and negotiating. He is explaining to the world, and reminding SCOTUS, that the most selfish ruling they can do is equal to the most legal ruling at the same time. How often does that happen at that level? How powerful is self interest when it comes down to your own livelihood and career? How powerful is it when doing what is right for your career also just happens to be what is right for the country, the world, humanity?

Courage and Wisdom.

And another remind, even if SCOTUS does the unthinkable and votes totally irrationally (against their own self interest, and against the law, and against all of humanity), the Constitution grants the military the power to take over when the Constitution itself is targeted for destruction by all enemies foreign and domestic. Trump's EO from 2018 will kick in and that's when it will be a very quick round up and execution of the criminals, and the speed at which that will happen will prevent the fake news from forming a 'narrative' to mislead the public, as at that time the previously hidden information the good guys have will all be disclosed, guaranteeing the public will 'accept' what is happening.

It's why this thing took at least 4 years to prepare. It's why POTUS has been calling fake news fake news since the start. Their credibility had to be destroyed first so that the truth could be revealed without suppression.

WHAT NOW RED TEXT DUMB FUCK?

>>11981223

>>11981252

You're triggered bigly.

What's the matter, seething over the fact that the most legal ruling SCOTUS could do, is also at the same time the most selfish and good for SCOTUS ruling they could do?

What do you they are going to do when the most legal constitutional ruling is at the same time the best for SCOTUS?

I'll give you a minute to let that sink in, red text triggered 'Anon'.

Really take a moment to think how the SCOTUS would rule when doing the legal thing is also the most selfish egotistical 'me me me' ruling they could do.

Satanist philosophy cannot penetrate metaphysical reality when the ego and non-ego are UNITED.

Do you see it?

Your master's 'dialectic' nonsense that is predicated on assuming a division within the universe, within humanity, within the individual, HAS BROKEN DOWN AT SCOTUS.

Your masters cannot 'infiltrate' and divide and destroy SCOTUS when the subject and object, ego and non-ego, body and spirit, the people and the rule of law, truth and knowledge, ARE UNITED AS ONE.

You cannot win, red text panicking 'Anon'.

Your masters have lost.

It's checkmate.

Cope.

>>11981336

Awww, what's the matter, those words Hurt you so much you cannot even cope with replying?

What's the matter, seething over the fact that the most legal ruling SCOTUS could do, is also at the same time the most selfish and good for SCOTUS ruling they could do?

What do you think they are going to do when the most legal constitutional ruling is at the same time the best for SCOTUS?

CHECKMATE

>>11981369

You're triggered so bad you're going out of your mind. OK, I'll put it in one sentence, in the form of a question:

How do you think SCOTUS will rule when the most legal ruling is also at the same time the most selfish for SCOTUS ruling?

>>11981390

How do you think SCOTUS will rule when the most legal ruling is also at the same time the most selfish for SCOTUS ruling?

CHECKMATE

>>11981374

How's Beijing?

>>11981367

I'll ask it another way, and welcome you to provide your own conclusion:

What happens when judges find themselves in a situation where the most selfish ruling they could make also happens to be the most Constitutional?

>>11981437

>http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

Wow that was fast!

It's almost like the good guys knew well in advance all the bullshit excuses 'they' would argue.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

CHECKMATE

>>11981578

What happens when the most selfish ruling SCOTUS could do is also the most Constitutional?

You still haven't answered this question, red text 'Anon'.

>>11981125

How do you think SCOTUS will rule when the most legal ruling is also at the same time the most selfish for SCOTUS ruling?

You still haven't answered this question, red text 'Anon'.