Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

471 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm not sure they "laid out evidence" so much as they "made a bunch of allegations".  There's a difference between those two things.

Trump's 45 minute speech last week was him making a bunch of allegations.  Those hearings were full of evidence.  Affidavits, witnesses, videos, etc.  I watched maybe 20 minutes in total.  But there are hours and hours there to watch if someone felt the need to. Probably a massive waste of time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:
6 minutes ago, shader said:

Rudy had hearings with 4-5 state legislatures where they literally laid out all the evidence they had.  Would you like links to these hearings?  Perhaps every single thing Rudy and his team brought up was total BS.  But it was evidence. 

I'm not sure they "laid out evidence" so much as they "made a bunch of allegations".  There's a difference between those two things.

I saw a really good comment on twitter the other day which basically said, "You can tell if politicians are being disingenuous when they use the word 'allegation' instead of 'evidence'."

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yankee23Fan said:

The events that Guiliani spearheaded in hotel ballrooms were not hearings.  At best you can call them fact finding missions.  But to use the word "hearing" in that sense is improper because they weren't before the state legislatures in session.  And because of that, there were no rules of evidence.  Nothing done in those publicized... fact finding missions was done under oath, the rules of evidence did not apply, not did any of the rules of legislative procedure.

They were great theatre.  But they weren't hearings.  And frankly, as I have said before, those that support the GOP in this continued litigation period should be furious at Trump and his greater legal team for how they have handled this because they have done such a bad job that even if their arguments had any merit at all ( and I don't believe they do for full disclosure) the level of legal work has been so bad and so unprofessional that it's striking.  And the fact that it has been so bad and so unprofessional will enable someone, at sometime in the future, to cling to the massive amounts of losses they have suffered due to their incompetence and use those losses as a shield when there could be actual real problems with our election systems.  Simply put - even you don't want to accept that the actions of Trump, the leadership of the GOP and their collective legal teams and actions are in any way a threat to democracy as we define it - their collective incompetence in handling their arguments is.  Now and in the future.

We got in this discussion last week, and I'm not eager to jump back into describing what they are. Many members of the legislature that held them called them hearings, so I don't have an issue with calling them that.

My "conspiracy theory" on why those "hearings" were done is pretty dark so I won't share, but it would only apply if we end up seeing the Supreme Court reject Trump and then he takes unprecedented executive action based on the "hearings".

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, shader said:

It would depend why the election was over-turned. If Trump declared martial law and declared himself the winner, that would be a bit un-democratic, right?  I think we can all agree on that.    I'd bet the house that if Trump won and then it was proven that he committed fraud, you'd be arguing for "overturning the election".  Be honest, you know you would.  So the sheer act of "overturning an election" isn't necessarily an act against democracy, if it can be shown that the election wasn't fair.  

This whole thing is about Trump's side trying to say it wasn't fair, there was cheating, there was law-breaking, but thus far the legal system hasn't given any merit to those claims.  The Supreme Court case currently happening seems to be their last stand.  But if they were able to actually prove that, then overturning the election would actually be the democratic thing to do, right?   On the other hand, if the Supreme Court quickly rejects them, as most in here claim they will, then it will look like the right are a bunch of sore losers who can't take a loss.

 

 

I haven’t paid the closest attention, but I don’t think the allegations are that Biden committed fraud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

And that's why this attempt is a subversion of democracy.  The people voted to the rules given by the state at the time of voting.  If the state set those rules improperly, tossing out the votes of the entire state seems like a drastic remedy.  Perhaps the remedy should be that the state must adhere to their procedures in future elections.

Also, if the rules were set improperly, the time to press for redress is before ballots are cast, not months after the results didn't go the way that the plaintiff wanted.

Let's be fair for the purposes of discussion and debate:

You can make an argument (just for discussion and debate) that a state executive branch purposely took advantage of the nationwide pandemic to institute actions that its legislature would have never approved in normal session in a proper hearing with a proper vote.  And in that executive action, given the particular political sides of the parties, the executive branch came up with rules that on their face seem reasonable, but we designed to warp the election process towards a desired outcome.  And if that was the case, the people are innocent victims of an action that questions the integrity of the entire venture.  But just because there are a lot of innocent victims doesn't mean you just accept the results.  That is a "too big to fail" argument that is rejected in so many other venues by the very people that are enraged by Trump and his greater legal team, and now these states', actions.

That paragraph is not literally impossible.  You can't be fair in this discussion and brush that potential happening aside.  IT happens with gerrymandering all the time.  Frankly, it's one of the natural results of our system.  Using what appears to be reasonable arguments to change policy procedure and law towards an outcome that benefits a particular political party.

But once you accept that as being a potential event, you must also be fair when it comes to the response to that action.  The injured party - the state's legislature - has remedies.  Many.  And in most states, the state legislature has the power to get itself into session or demand a court order to get itself into session, to do its job and challenge the executive action.

And the problem with the Texas suit and the actions of the other states that are now publicly supporting it is that they are purposely ignoring every single proper procedure to do it, ignoring their own complicity in us getting to this point (if you logically think through their arguments) and by the very nature of their filing they are arguing that state sovereignty doesn't exist anymore.  Which in and of itself is a massive political science discussion part of this.  For any former confederate state to now argue the flip side is wholly interesting from a theoretical standpoint.

This is truly an interesting time.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shader said:

Well that depends if you want to be informed or want to parrot talking points.  That's up to you, I honestly don't care.  I'm just telling you you're wrong.

Do you consider repeated judge admonishment re: lack of admissible evidence of allegations under the various court decisions 'talking points'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dickies said:
45 minutes ago, shader said:

It would depend why the election was over-turned. If Trump declared martial law and declared himself the winner, that would be a bit un-democratic, right?  I think we can all agree on that.    I'd bet the house that if Trump won and then it was proven that he committed fraud, you'd be arguing for "overturning the election".  Be honest, you know you would.  So the sheer act of "overturning an election" isn't necessarily an act against democracy, if it can be shown that the election wasn't fair.  

This whole thing is about Trump's side trying to say it wasn't fair, there was cheating, there was law-breaking, but thus far the legal system hasn't given any merit to those claims.  The Supreme Court case currently happening seems to be their last stand.  But if they were able to actually prove that, then overturning the election would actually be the democratic thing to do, right?   On the other hand, if the Supreme Court quickly rejects them, as most in here claim they will, then it will look like the right are a bunch of sore losers who can't take a loss.

I haven’t paid the closest attention, but I don’t think the allegations are that Biden committed fraud

Also important: if Trump had committed election fraud to win the election, then it would be perfectly reasonable to argue for overturning the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, shader said:
1 hour ago, Dickies said:

How is overturning the election pro-democracy?  I’m not following you on this at all. 

It would depend why the election was over-turned. If Trump declared martial law and declared himself the winner, that would be a bit un-democratic, right?  I think we can all agree on that.    I'd bet the house that if Trump won and then it was proven that he committed fraud, you'd be arguing for "overturning the election".  Be honest, you know you would.  So the sheer act of "overturning an election" isn't necessarily an act against democracy, if it can be shown that the election wasn't fair.  

This whole thing is about Trump's side trying to say it wasn't fair, there was cheating, there was law-breaking, but thus far the legal system hasn't given any merit to those claims.  The Supreme Court case currently happening seems to be their last stand.  But if they were able to actually prove that, then overturning the election would actually be the democratic thing to do, right?   On the other hand, if the Supreme Court quickly rejects them, as most in here claim they will, then it will look like the right are a bunch of sore losers who can't take a loss.

Do you agree that President Trump is not asking for an investigation?  President Trump has declared he won, he has declared that the election is wrought with fraud.  President Trump has has declared that the election was stolen from him.  President Trump has made these declarations without any corroborating evidence.  That is not how our system works.  I hope you can understand why this situation is rubbing some folks the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I read it.

The entirety of it is based on Texas' argument that the Defendant States violated their own laws on administering the election and/or the various executive branches modified rules when the power to modify those states' election rules rests with the legislature.  

The problem, if you want to go down that road is that many if not almost all of the election rules and laws they are saying are improper were on the books before the general election.  Most if not all of them were used in the primaries.  If you take Texas' argument at face value, and remove all partisanship from the equation, the only conclusion you can draw from a legal standpoint, though, is that the proper time to challenge these actions was when they happened.  If you read the filing that screams out from it - Texas admits that it knew about everything in there in terms of voting and counting procedures well before the general election but they clearly didn't care... until they didn't like the outcome.

Beyond that - the proper entities to challenge the state executive branches are the respective state legislatures.  And they didn't.  Or if they did, they lost in court, or settled the cases and within the settlements modified their rules (which happens literally every election cycle everywhere, we just don't hear about it because overwhelmingly it happens at the county and local level.)  And the proper venues are the state courts.  Which, not to beat the dead horse anymore into dust, has already happened 56 times since the general election.

I would like to believe the Supreme Court is going to deny this thing outright.  But who the **** knows anymore.  I'd love to be in the room while their talking about it though.

I'm not sure whether it matters, but at least in the case of Wisconsin our election laws have been significantly re-written over the past 5 years or so by a legislature that is controlled by Republicans.  Our Supreme Court has had a conservative majority throughout this time and has ruled on many election law challenges and almost always (other than the very recent post-election lawsuits) favored the Republican position.  Our governor was Republican until 2018.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have been very aggressive on election procedures, putting in place a voter ID law, severely restricting early voting, and completely eliminating the election oversight board we had in place, and replacing it with a more politicized body.  Election procedures in our state are completely designed by by Republicans and are unashamedly engineered to favor their perceived interests.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm not sure whether it matters, but at least in the case of Wisconsin our election laws have been significantly re-written over the past 5 years or so by a legislature that is controlled by Republicans.  Our Supreme Court has had a conservative majority throughout this time and has ruled on many election law challenges and almost always (other than the very recent post-election lawsuits) favored the Republican position.  Our governor was Republican until 2018.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have been very aggressive on election procedures, putting in place a voter ID law, severely restricting early voting, and completely eliminating the election oversight board we had in place, and replacing it with a more politicized body.  Election procedures in our state are completely designed by by Republicans and are unashamedly engineered to favor their perceived interests.

Also: didn't the Wisconsin legislature or Supreme Court shoot down any executive attempts to change election procedures? Wouldn't that completely contradict Paxton's entire case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, shader said:

Correct.  But they do have sworn affidavits, video evidence, experiments...trust me, the people on the right do not think they are trying to overturn the will of the people.  They are 100% convinced that there was mass fraud.  Were they all duped on shaky evidence?  It certainly looks that way. But there is evidence that exists and for someone to just close their ears and say there is zero evidence, won't help things.  But then, it doesn't seem like most people are all that interested in hearing what the other side has to say.

Why would they be after what's been determined by the courts thus far. The only question about the "evidence" is whether there's supposed to be a hyphen between the words "piss" and "poor".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Doug B said:
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

already but the Supreme Court case is frivolous

Snippets of the breakdown 

Plainly, this is because the complaint Paxton has filed is a political document that has no prospect of being taken seriously as a set of legal claims.

In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts

Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. 

From National Review, which is about as long-standing as it gets in conservative media.

Yea - great read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JAA said:

Do you agree that President Trump is not asking for an investigation?  President Trump has declared he won, he has declared that the election is wrought with fraud.  President Trump has has declared that the election was stolen from him.  President Trump has made these declarations without any corroborating evidence.  That is not how our system works.  I hope you can understand why this situation is rubbing some folks the wrong way.

Furthermore, he was making all these declarations that the election was going to be wrought with fraud months before the election even happened. He sowed the doubt beforehand so his followers would believe it in the case he lost the election. Then we are followed up with Dominion, CCTV videos, dead people voting, etc., that have all been summarily run out of court and yet here we are. The fact that the Texas suit is only these four states tells you everything you need to know. Even Texas themselves had the executive branch change election rules in response to COVID. They were one of many states to do so (much more than four), but only these four matter in the Supreme Court filing. It is extremely obvious that this case is politically motivated and is seeking to overturn the election.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, shader said:

We got in this discussion last week, and I'm not eager to jump back into describing what they are. Many members of the legislature that held them called them hearings, so I don't have an issue with calling them that.

My "conspiracy theory" on why those "hearings" were done is pretty dark so I won't share, but it would only apply if we end up seeing the Supreme Court reject Trump and then he takes unprecedented executive action based on the "hearings".

Here's the problem with that position (from my point of view, and I venture to guess the point of view of everyone that is not a supporter of Donald Trump and/or the GOP currently) (and I truly don't mean this as an attack or gotcha at all, I'm just using the post as a starting point):

Words mean things.  They always have and they always will.  No one, no party, no group, no religion, no country, no government, ever uses them perfectly every time.  However, clinging to the overriding cultural norms of the use of words - especially in politics, law and government - matters a great deal.  As a small aside, in a courtroom - every courtroom - words, phrases and even written format, matter greatly.  They are, in essence, the bedrock of how the system works.

Regardless of whether or not a partisan, hyper-partisan, moderate just going to listen and hear, and/or agnostic towards to the information provided attended those ballroom meetings who also happened to be an elected representative of a particular state, chooses to call them "hearings," are immaterial.  And you need to think this through logically.  If those things were "hearings" then the formal meeting of every single town council, county freeholder, parish committee, state legislature and United States Congress, is no longer necessary to govern our towns, counties, states and national governments.  Simply put, whatever smaller-than-the-whole group of those elected leaders decides to meet together and hold "hearings" can do it in any locale, at any time, with - and this is important - any structure they deem fit without a single rule in place to protect things like, substantive rights, due process rights, or anything else.  

And the problem with Donald Trump - policy and general politics aside - is that those norms have been obliterated.  And we argue and debate now from a point lesser and lower than what the norms and standards were for the collective faith in our systems.  Now, I understand - and have even joined in some - the argument that the "system" was corrupt and needed to be broken up anyway.  I sympathize with that and even agree with it depending on the subject.  But not as a whole.  The system as a whole works.  It works well.  And while it is messy, sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast, sometimes hyper partisan, sometimes not partisan enough, and sometimes gets "it" "wrong" - it works.  And I would still argue that for the most part it works the way it was intended in a 30,000 foot view sense.  Trump laid a flamethrower to all of it.  Whether it was good and just or not.  And for those of us that oppose him, we believe he did it for his own personal benefit.  

Again, though, beyond the policy outcomes and election outcomes - words have to mean things.  Especially certain words when it comes to law, policy and government.  And frankly, the Trump side of this would agree - in fact, that is on some level the argument in the Texas filing - words mean things - the words written by the Defendant states promising to take certain actions in certain ways were not followed.  That is their argument broken down as simply as you can break it down.

And this is where, for many arguments, everything breaks down.  Because I want and need my words to mean things and matter and you (the collective you) want your words to mean things and matter.  This is where @Joe Bryant is trying to shoehorn grace into everything that happens, and rightly so.  And we will continue to debate, argue and keep going at American politics and government the way we have for over 250 years.  

We can argue if Texas has a case and is making good legal arguments.  I don't think they are.  I have the benefit of understanding how all of these systems work together for the most part and understand that others don't.  Not because I'm better than them, it just happens to be my professional field.  Similarly, I don't argue DNA sequencing with any scientists, because once you get past words like helix, RNA and the letters A C G and T, I have no knowledge base to get very far.  I would still like my opinion to matter.

I also must accept that my opinion might be wrong based on my own ignorance.  We should pay attention to the frontiers of our ignorance.  That is where you find knowledge.  So in this arena, where I know what I'm talking about - and just because someone is an elected official in a hyper partisan environment does not grant them knowledge of something, I would encourage you to at least consider this one salient fact - they were not hearings.  "Hearings" mean something.  And for the good of our government, at every level, you may want to seriously consider how bad it will be for everyone if they were "hearings."  Because the next "hearings," held in such a manner that are then used to challenge the bedrock integrity of our governmental structure may not be held by anyone you would want to have that authority.

Words mean things.  They weren't hearings.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kilgore Trout said:

Furthermore, he was making all these declarations that the election was going to be wrought with fraud months before the election even happened. He sowed the doubt beforehand so his followers would believe it in the case he lost the election.

He also sowed doubt because he hoped it would cause Democrats to not vote. That plan backfired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Here's the problem with that position (from my point of view, and I venture to guess the point of view of everyone that is not a supporter of Donald Trump and/or the GOP currently) (and I truly don't mean this as an attack or gotcha at all, I'm just using the post as a starting point):

Words mean things.  They always have and they always will.  No one, no party, no group, no religion, no country, no government, ever uses them perfectly every time.  However, clinging to the overriding cultural norms of the use of words - especially in politics, law and government - matters a great deal.  As a small aside, in a courtroom - every courtroom - words, phrases and even written format, matter greatly.  They are, in essence, the bedrock of how the system works.

Regardless of whether or not a partisan, hyper-partisan, moderate just going to listen and hear, and/or agnostic towards to the information provided attended those ballroom meetings who also happened to be an elected representative of a particular state, chooses to call them "hearings," are immaterial.  And you need to think this through logically.  If those things were "hearings" then the formal meeting of every single town council, county freeholder, parish committee, state legislature and United States Congress, is no longer necessary to govern our towns, counties, states and national governments.  Simply put, whatever smaller-than-the-whole group of those elected leaders decides to meet together and hold "hearings" can do it in any locale, at any time, with - and this is important - any structure they deem fit without a single rule in place to protect things like, substantive rights, due process rights, or anything else.  

And the problem with Donald Trump - policy and general politics aside - is that those norms have been obliterated.  And we argue and debate now from a point lesser and lower than what the norms and standards were for the collective faith in our systems.  Now, I understand - and have even joined in some - the argument that the "system" was corrupt and needed to be broken up anyway.  I sympathize with that and even agree with it depending on the subject.  But not as a whole.  The system as a whole works.  It works well.  And while it is messy, sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast, sometimes hyper partisan, sometimes not partisan enough, and sometimes gets "it" "wrong" - it works.  And I would still argue that for the most part it works the way it was intended in a 30,000 foot view sense.  Trump laid a flamethrower to all of it.  Whether it was good and just or not.  And for those of us that oppose him, we believe he did it for his own personal benefit.  

Again, though, beyond the policy outcomes and election outcomes - words have to mean things.  Especially certain words when it comes to law, policy and government.  And frankly, the Trump side of this would agree - in fact, that is on some level the argument in the Texas filing - words mean things - the words written by the Defendant states promising to take certain actions in certain ways were not followed.  That is their argument broken down as simply as you can break it down.

And this is where, for many arguments, everything breaks down.  Because I want and need my words to mean things and matter and you (the collective you) want your words to mean things and matter.  This is where @Joe Bryant is trying to shoehorn grace into everything that happens, and rightly so.  And we will continue to debate, argue and keep going at American politics and government the way we have for over 250 years.  

We can argue if Texas has a case and is making good legal arguments.  I don't think they are.  I have the benefit of understanding how all of these systems work together for the most part and understand that others don't.  Not because I'm better than them, it just happens to be my professional field.  Similarly, I don't argue DNA sequencing with any scientists, because once you get past words like helix, RNA and the letters A C G and T, I have no knowledge base to get very far.  I would still like my opinion to matter.

I also must accept that my opinion might be wrong based on my own ignorance.  We should pay attention to the frontiers of our ignorance.  That is where you find knowledge.  So in this arena, where I know what I'm talking about - and just because someone is an elected official in a hyper partisan environment does not grant them knowledge of something, I would encourage you to at least consider this one salient fact - they were not hearings.  "Hearings" mean something.  And for the good of our government, at every level, you may want to seriously consider how bad it will be for everyone if they were "hearings."  Because the next "hearings," held in such a manner that are then used to challenge the bedrock integrity of our governmental structure may not be held by anyone you would want to have that authority.

Words mean things.  They weren't hearings.

I wish you'd post more.  Seriously.  Great stuff and I will gladly stand corrected on the use of the word hearings, but seriously I really appreciate the honesty, grace and respect you show in your responses, even when it's obvious you don't agree.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:
20 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm not sure whether it matters, but at least in the case of Wisconsin our election laws have been significantly re-written over the past 5 years or so by a legislature that is controlled by Republicans.  Our Supreme Court has had a conservative majority throughout this time and has ruled on many election law challenges and almost always (other than the very recent post-election lawsuits) favored the Republican position.  Our governor was Republican until 2018.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have been very aggressive on election procedures, putting in place a voter ID law, severely restricting early voting, and completely eliminating the election oversight board we had in place, and replacing it with a more politicized body.  Election procedures in our state are completely designed by by Republicans and are unashamedly engineered to favor their perceived interests.

Also: didn't the Wisconsin legislature or Supreme Court shoot down any executive attempts to change election procedures? Wouldn't that completely contradict Paxton's entire case?

At the request of our legislature, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the governor's attempt to delay our Spring election to put some Covid-related protections in place.  That's the election where I waited in line 4 hours and it made national news.  But there have been a ton of election-related lawsuits, legislation and various maneuvers over the past several years.  We had a massive gerrymandering fight (not relevant to a presidential election), multiple lawsuits going up and down the court system over voter ID, early voting, access to polling places, mail voting.  Legislation completely changing the administrative body that oversees elections.  The one constant is that the Republican party is always seeking to restrict voting access in the interests of election integrity while the Democrat party is seeking to expand voting in the interests of greater participation in the democracy process.

I'm sure the state's written response will point this out, but I'm not sure it matters in the context of the lawsuit.  The procedures we followed are either an appropriate subject for an original petition in the Supreme Court by one state against another, or they aren't.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

SHARE SHARE SHARE

It involves this executive order, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

It involves the firings of Krebs right after the election

It involves the "hearings" and his 45 minute speech he made last week that he called "the most important speech he's ever given".

I just think it's quite possible that upon exhausting all "legal" ways of challenging the election, he attempts to use his executive power to take action that is completely unprecedented, and use the "hearings" and his speeches as justification for doing so. I believe I posted along these lines a week or two ago when some of these were taking place.  They seem like ridiculous and absurd events, but if Trump pulls some crazy stuff over the next week or two, they will go down (historically) as incredibly important events that gave a man the justification to change the whole system.

 

But again, that's probably a crazy conspiracy theory fueled by a guy who has read too many spy novels and probably surfed right-wing twitter for fun, way too many times..  Even if he wanted to take executive action, I just don't see how he'd have the power or the support to do so.  If I were a betting man, I'd bet that he'll concede to Biden within 24 hour of the Supreme Court rejecting the current lawsuit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

I don’t think he even formally concedes. Even once Biden is sworn in, I think he’s always insist he won the election and he’s the rightful President. 

He's all about his brand, and I can't imagine it's good for the brand to be forcibly evicted from the White House.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohio files an amicus brief and wants in, but differently than the other states.  It appears that they are taking no position on whether the court can offer any relief, but they want the court to decide whether the constitution permits state courts and executives to alter elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, shader said:
26 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I don’t think he even formally concedes. Even once Biden is sworn in, I think he’s always insist he won the election and he’s the rightful President. 

He's all about his brand, and I can't imagine it's good for the brand to be forcibly evicted from the White House.  

You don't have to be forcibly evicted to insist that you won the election and that you're the rightful President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow - just wow 

Adam Klasfeld

@KlasfeldReports

Replying to

@KlasfeldReports

Bock notes that overturning an election on the basis he argued will ignite "howls of protest" but overturning the election will lead to "greater freedom." A ruling overthrowing Wisconsin's election, he says, would rank among Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

2:16 PM · Dec 10, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://mobile.twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337114055786582020

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, shader said:

He's all about his brand, and I can't imagine it's good for the brand to be forcibly evicted from the White House.  

I suspect he would leave peacefully, but never admit defeat.  I said it both before and after the election, and I'm still sticking with it - he will never concede that he lost the election.  He'll leave the White House, and Biden can take over, but Trump will continue - in perpetuity - to rant and rave that this election was stolen from him.

I'll also throw in here that he's not going away anytime soon.  Shortly after January 20, assuming Biden takes over, Trump will either roll out his own news channel or he'll begin campaigning for 2024.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, shader said:

He's all about his brand, and I can't imagine it's good for the brand to be forcibly evicted from the White House.  

I don't think he'll be evicted.  He will leave voluntarily but he will never admit he lost a fair election as that would go against his brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I don't think he'll be evicted.  He will leave voluntarily but he will never admit he lost a fair election as that would go against his brand.

Which is the most frustrating part about this to me.   He's risking permanent damage to democracy and faith in elections just to protect his image. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Witz said:

The proceeding going on in Wisconsin right now is quite something. 
 

https://mobile.twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1337087620875251713

Can start reading from here.

Audio only is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKcxHTr_Xwo

They are on a break now until 2:30 CST.  Trump's lawyer argued for about 2 hours.  The various defendants will argue after the break.

This judge is a very recent Trump appointee.  I think he just took the bench about a month ago.  He is very smart - formerly a bankruptcy judge in Milwaukee (Eastern District Wis) and before that at a large law firm.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shader said:

It involves this executive order, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

It involves the firings of Krebs right after the election

It involves the "hearings" and his 45 minute speech he made last week that he called "the most important speech he's ever given".

I just think it's quite possible that upon exhausting all "legal" ways of challenging the election, he attempts to use his executive power to take action that is completely unprecedented, and use the "hearings" and his speeches as justification for doing so. I believe I posted along these lines a week or two ago when some of these were taking place.  They seem like ridiculous and absurd events, but if Trump pulls some crazy stuff over the next week or two, they will go down (historically) as incredibly important events that gave a man the justification to change the whole system.

 

But again, that's probably a crazy conspiracy theory fueled by a guy who has read too many spy novels and probably surfed right-wing twitter for fun, way too many times..  Even if he wanted to take executive action, I just don't see how he'd have the power or the support to do so.  If I were a betting man, I'd bet that he'll concede to Biden within 24 hour of the Supreme Court rejecting the current lawsuit.

I'll be honest.  Trump is the first President in my lifetime that I would read something like this and not just shrug it off as a fun mental exercise.  I can see him talking to someone about figuring out how to do this.

Having said that, I will admit - and I'm sure my posts over the years here have shown - that I really do respect our political history and love it in a non-platonic sense.  I just can't bring myself to think anything like that is possible here.  I'd like to think that even now there are far too many people, in far too many positions of authority who could make a difference, that would be able and would choose to stand up to this and stop it before it even got off the ground.

But yes, spy novels are fun.  And conspiracy theories - when reading about them well after the fact - are entertaining as all get out.  Living through them on the other hand....

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

I suspect he would leave peacefully, but never admit defeat.  I said it both before and after the election, and I'm still sticking with it - he will never concede that he lost the election.  He'll leave the White House, and Biden can take over, but Trump will continue - in perpetuity - to rant and rave that this election was stolen from him.

I'll also throw in here that he's not going away anytime soon.  Shortly after January 20, assuming Biden takes over, Trump will either roll out his own news channel or he'll begin campaigning for 2024.  

He's going to campaign.

People forget that Trump did something no one else had done before (if I remember my facts correctly).  About a week after being sworn in he began the legal work on the re-election campaign and set up the legal entities to do it whereas prior President's waited I think 2ish years.  This gave him some legal ability to do certain things that he otherwise wouldn't be able to do with campaign finance law (don't ask me specifics at the moment).  Between that legal fundraising process, and the leadership entities he has formed now, he has done a masterful job at being the guy who took campaign finance law and turned it on its head, shook it out, then dropped it and beat it with a fungo bat.  There is no reason for him to stop campaigning given the various legal coverings it provides him.

Frankly, he'd be an idiot at this point to stop campaigning.  What's it going to do, make more people not like him?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shader said:

If the lawsuit is actually ridiculous and seeks to end democracy ( that language wasn't in the lawsuit, so someone would have to take your word for it), than the Supreme Court will likely say so.  Then you're free to think whatever you want about those that filed it.  Until then, the logical thing to do is to wait and see how the Supreme Court feels about it.  

At the risk of Hippling, you don't have to write, "If the lawsuit is actually ridiculous..."

I'm sure you've seen the lawsuit or read the summaries of it. It is ridiculous. No need to qualify.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maik Jeaunz said:

question regarding the process, because I don't know...

if this suit brought forth by Texas does happen to make it to SCOTUS, will there be someone there representing the other side (i.e. opposing the suit)? or will they go strictly based on the merits of what has been provided?

Yes the Defendant states will be ordered / allowed to file their responses and then there will likely be an argument.

Part of the legal mechanisms and "gamesmenship" if you want to call it that, is by the court ordering a briefing schedule Texas would be definition already get some relief which then begs the question - how long to brief and argue?  And if there are active briefs and arguments, shouldn't everything be put on hold until they are resolved?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the evidence discussion, I think we may be talking past each other.

There may be a legal definition that technically fits what has been submitted to the courts so that what had been submitted qualifies as evidence.

But that’s not the same as what I think the common usage of evidence is by most people and not what most people (at least on one side of the aisle) would deem what has been submitted to be.

I mean, I could reference my 18 month old nephew pointing to a dog calling it a pig and say it is evidence that the animal is a dog and not a pig; but I’d wager that most people would say that’s not truly evidence that it’s a pig.

Or I guess we could just all agree that it is in fact all evidence, but that it’s all really bad evidence worth taking as seriously as a toddler calling a dog a pig.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't one of the points the Texas AG is making it harms the voters in Texas? Over 5.8 million voted for Trump but over 5.2 million voted Biden. Don't his actions harm those 5.2 voters or isn't  the AG of  a state supposed to protect the interest of all the  residents?

Edited by Mile High
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Pennsylvania is the first of the 4 defendant states to file its response in the SCOTUS case Texas v PA/WI/GA/MI. 

Also, the District of Colombia and 22 states have asked for leave to file briefs on behalf of the defendants.

docket

You know (just a mental picture that popped into my head when I read this)...... someone is going to call this moment in time, America's Cold Civil War.  And they won't be wrong.  What is is now 20ish states v. 20ish states?  The rest of them will try to join in soon in some fashion.  (Or be Ohio, which is a wholly clever filing).  Who would have thought that lawyers are the new militia's?  I guess injunctions are better than cannons.

I hope I'm alive to talk about this with my grandkids.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shader said:

He's all about his brand, and I can't imagine it's good for the brand to be forcibly evicted from the White House.  

I don’t think will get physically removed. But after he’s left no way he admits defeat. What in anything he’s ever done gives you the idea he will take an L? He’s going to take about this as being the biggest fraud in world history for as long as he’s alive.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maik Jeaunz said:

question regarding the process, because I don't know...

if this suit brought forth by Texas does happen to make it to SCOTUS, will there be someone there representing the other side (i.e. opposing the suit)? or will they go strictly based on the merits of what has been provided?

The Defendant States are filing their responses today.  If the case isn't dismissed, the appearances of each state's attorneys have been entered and they will continue to represent their states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Pennsylvania is the first of the 4 defendant states to file its response in the SCOTUS case Texas v PA/WI/GA/MI. 

Also, the District of Colombia and 22 states have asked for leave to file briefs on behalf of the defendants.

docket

I was wondering if this/was going to be on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Pennsylvania is the first of the 4 defendant states to file its response in the SCOTUS case Texas v PA/WI/GA/MI. 

Also, the District of Colombia and 22 states have asked for leave to file briefs on behalf of the defendants.

docket

And the Christian Family Coalition filed a brief in support of Texas.

I love my tribe, but seriously.....

Oh, and Georgia is filed but not yet posted..... looks like I will be reading a lot tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

Which is the most frustrating part about this to me.   He's risking permanent damage to democracy and faith in elections just to protect his image. 

I think he fully believes the election was a fraud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

And the Christian Family Coalition filed a brief in support of Texas.

I love my tribe, but seriously.....

Oh, and Georgia is filed but not yet posted..... looks like I will be reading a lot tonight.

I decide to take a work call and it looks like 10 new documents have posted.  I imagine this has to be pretty fun for lawyers to read.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...