The 2020 General Election Thread II

[jamil]

So far "standing" has been the favorite point of dismissal, which is generally nothing more than a lame excuse.

So standing shouldn’t be a thing? If I purchase something online, the merchant takes my money but doesn’t ship the product, can my neighbor sue the merchant? Standing is an important concept. The disenfranchisement angle was always dubious. The decision was 7-2, and the dissenting opinion was more about jurisdiction than merit. 7-2 where all three Trump appointees joined the majority. This election won’t be overturned. I’m not saying that with glee.

 

[foszoe]

So all we hear to complaints about boobtube is get your own devoted to free speech. Then they try to get one going, navigate patents, and folks complain.

If people weren't complaining about something, it'd be tumbleweeds in here. I mean we even have people complaining about......people complaining!

 

[jamil]

So all we hear to complaints about boobtube is get your own devoted to free speech. Then they try to get one going, navigate patents, and folks complain.

I get to complain about not being able to watch the videos. A video sharing service should be able to serve the videos. That seems reasonable. I hope they get their **** together. I’d love to have plenty of alternatives to YT.

 

[jamil]

If people weren't complaining about something, it'd be tumbleweeds in here. I mean we even have people complaining about......people complaining!

Not to mention people complaining about people complaining about complaining. Let’s assume at this point we have infinite recursion. It’s complaints all the way down.

 

[BugI02]

Not to mention people complaining about people complaining about complaining. Let’s assume at this point we have infinite recursion. It’s complaints all the way down.

Don't forget people complaining that members are discussing something ... in a thread ... on a discussion site ... but it's not the right discussion (in their view) for the thread it is happening in

I thought it was turtles all the way down

 

[foszoe]

We're so good we have people on a discussion site complaining about a discussion cite. I'm afraid there is no end in sight.

 

[jamil]

We're so good we have people on a discussion site complaining about a discussion cite. I'm afraid there is no end in sight.

That’s why it’s all the way down. We just accept it and move on, complaints and complainers notwithstanding.

 

[indyartisan]

List of nearly 2 million Chinese Communist Party members worldwide leaked, including those in this country in government, defense and sensitive businesses.
Links not included.
Do your own web search to make sure you are safe from Cooties.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So standing shouldn’t be a thing? If I purchase something online, the merchant takes my money but doesn’t ship the product, can my neighbor sue the merchant? Standing is an important concept. The disenfranchisement angle was always dubious. The decision was 7-2, and the dissenting opinion was more about jurisdiction than merit. 7-2 where all three Trump appointees joined the majority. This election won’t be overturned. I’m not saying that with glee.

You offered a perfect example of what standing should address. Adding conditions like being uniquely harmed (i.e., if too many people are harmed you no longer have standing) or claiming that people who ARE harmed lack standing. It has turned into legalese for "go play in traffic because we don't want to deal with you".

 

[jamil]

You offered a perfect example of what standing should address. Adding conditions like being uniquely harmed (i.e., if too many people are harmed you no longer have standing) or claiming that people who ARE harmed lack standing. It has turned into legalese for "go play in traffic because we don't want to deal with you".

I don’t see that this was the case here. Like I said, using the “disenfranchising” angle was always dubious. Affirming that, I think, would have been one of those penumbras. The real people harmed if the claims about election fraud are true, is the candidates. That someone in another state didn’t get the president they wanted isn’t what I would think would meet a legal definition of harm. IANAL, and I’d welcome opinions about that from those who are.

 

[Ingomike]

There is a known conspiracy involving the media, as we have known it for our lifetimes, and social media, they told us what they were doing and are doing it.

And people getting news from independent sources are questioned and called conspiratorial for discussing that news.

If you are not searching for independent news you are being duped...

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don’t see that this was the case here. Like I said, using the “disenfranchising” angle was always dubious. Affirming that, I think, would have been one of those penumbras. The real people harmed if the claims about election fraud are true, is the candidates. That someone in another state didn’t get the president they wanted isn’t what I would think would meet a legal definition of harm. IANAL, and I’d welcome opinions about that from those who are.

I am not harmed by having my vote nullified and a candidate who did not rightfully win spending the next four years ****ing up my life as well as ****ing up the Republic? Does my vote have zero value such as to claim I sustained no harm?

 

[foszoe]

I am not harmed by having my vote nullified and a candidate who did not rightfully win spending the next four years ****ing up my life as well as ****ing up the Republic? Does my vote have zero value such as to claim I sustained no harm?

Your vote had a hand in giving Trump Indiana's electoral votes. Your vote has no effect on the electoral votes in other states. The people harmed would have to live in those states.

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t see that this was the case here. Like I said, using the “disenfranchising” angle was always dubious. Affirming that, I think, would have been one of those penumbras. The real people harmed if the claims about election fraud are true, is the candidates. That someone in another state didn’t get the president they wanted isn’t what I would think would meet a legal definition of harm. IANAL, and I’d welcome opinions about that from those who are.

The constitution is a contract between the states, so a state violates the constitution in federal election, but nobody in the state cares, it advantaged them, are the states that did their election by the constitution not harmed? Appears to me to be plausible.

The leaks out of SCOTUS says they had face to face meeting due to security concerns, there was much physical yelling in the meeting, with Roberts saying that they will burn down the country if we intervene in this and Thomas saying we will not have a democracy if they didn't. Looks to me like that may go both ways.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your vote had a hand in giving Trump Indiana's electoral votes. Your vote has no effect on the electoral votes in other states. The people harmed would have to live in those states.

So I should just accept having a hostile president imposed on me by fraud? If the other states had fair elections, you would be right. If they can't do that and we can't have the matter effectively adjudicated, we need to either seceded else kick them out of the Union.

 

[jamil]

I am not harmed by having my vote nullified and a candidate who did not rightfully win spending the next four years ****ing up my life as well as ****ing up the Republic? Does my vote have zero value such as to claim I sustained no harm?

Your vote doesn’t elect the president. The state elects the president. Your vote goes towards the candidate you want the state’s electors to go to. You’ve done that. Indiana’s electors will go to the person you designated, assuming you voted for Trump. Your vote isn’t canceled. It would be an odd precedent I think. Again, I’m not a lawyer.

 

[jamil]

Your vote had a hand in giving Trump Indiana's electoral votes. Your vote has no effect on the electoral votes in other states. The people harmed would have to live in those states.

I guess I might have read on and wouldn’t have had to reply.

 

[foszoe]

No. Not saying you have to accept it. Thats why we owe it to ourselves and our country to make sure all cases of suspected fraud are thoroughly investigated and we find a way to restore integrity to our voting process.

 

[jamil]

The constitution is a contract between the states, so a state violates the constitution in federal election, but nobody in the state cares, it advantaged them, are the states that did their election by the constitution not harmed? Appears to me to be plausible.

The leaks out of SCOTUS says they had face to face meeting due to security concerns, there was much physical yelling in the meeting, with Roberts saying that they will burn down the country if we intervene in this and Thomas saying we will not have a democracy if they didn't. Looks to me like that may go both ways.

It harms people in the state, sure. It also harms the candidates. Trump has standing to bring court cases.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your vote doesn’t elect the president. The state elects the president. Your vote goes towards the candidate you want the state’s electors to go to. You’ve done that. Indiana’s electors will go to the person you designated, assuming you voted for Trump. Your vote isn’t canceled. It would be an odd precedent I think. Again, I’m not a lawyer.

Regardless of the procedure, my wellbeing is seriously adversely affected by CRIMINAL activity.