Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
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.
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'."
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.
I haven’t paid the closest attention, but I don’t think the allegations are that Biden committed fraud
Let's be fair for the purposes of discussion and debate:
Do you consider repeated judge admonishment re: lack of admissible evidence of allegations under the various court decisions 'talking points'?
Also important: if Trump had committed election fraud to win the election, then it would be perfectly reasonable to argue for overturning the result.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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):
He also sowed doubt because he hoped it would cause Democrats to not vote. That plan backfired.
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.Sea Duck said:
It involves this executive order, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/The Z Machine 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.
You don't have to be forcibly evicted to insist that you won the election and that you're the rightful President.
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 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.
Audio only is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKcxHTr_Xwo
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.
He's going to campaign.
Yes the Defendant states will be ordered / allowed to file their responses and then there will likely be an argument.
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 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.
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.
And the Christian Family Coalition filed a brief in support of Texas.
But you should read the reaction to this on pro Trump forums. “Globalist RINO” is the kindest phrase used for Andrew McCarthy (the writer.) “Traitor” is thrown around a lot.Doug B said:
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.
