The 2020 General Election Thread II

[DoggyDaddy]

The harm is what it is doing to the reputation of the process whereby we elect people to represent us in government. It is an attack on one of the foundations of our country. That's why.

Would you mind if someone attempted to sue you continuously for some alleged vice which you don't have, but want a judge to allow them to go into your personal life and depose you and your friends, business associates and acquaintances with no proof that you have such vice or have demonstrated a defect of character associated therewith? Of course not.

Why would we then allow someone to undertake an effort to pull down our country to satisfy an inflated ego? That's where you lose me.

Trump lost. Republicans are afraid to admit it because they fear his wrath. The rest of the world isn't afraid of him.

He lost. Jan 20, if he doesn't leave the White House, he'll be frogmarched out by the Secret Service. Trust me on that one.

There is a world of difference between impugning the reputation of a single person vs. one of the foundations of the country. I think there has been enough smoke to at least allow the investigation of a fire to occur. What I don't understand is just saying, "Nope, nothing to see here. We're not even going to look". These allegations haven't been made up out of whole cloth like the whole Russian collusion thing was, yet we allowed that to tie up the entire legislative branch for 3+ years. I think a few courts could spare the time out of their schedule to allow a trial. Like I said, if it's shot down in the court after a trial, then so be it. But to just dismiss it out of hand is not acceptable. It's too important.

There seems to be a LOT of resistance to allowing subpoenas, etc. to even be entertained, don't you think? Why do you suppose that is? If there is nothing to hide, then it would go a long way with the court of public opinion to be as open and transparent about everything as possible. Why the rush to delete evidence (in the case of MI)? What don't they want to be discovered? Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

 

[foszoe]

There is a world of difference between impugning the reputation of a single person vs. one of the foundations of the country. I think there has been enough smoke to at least allow the investigation of a fire to occur. What I don't understand is just saying, "Nope, nothing to see here. We're not even going to look". These allegations haven't been made up out of whole cloth like the whole Russian collusion thing was, yet we allowed that to tie up the entire legislative branch for 3+ years. I think a few courts could spare the time out of their schedule to allow a trial. Like I said, if it's shot down in the court after a trial, then so be it. But to just dismiss it out of hand is not acceptable. It's too important.

There seems to be a LOT of resistance to allowing subpoenas, etc. to even be entertained, don't you think? Why do you suppose that is? If there is nothing to hide, then it would go a long way with the court of public opinion to be as open and transparent about everything as possible. Why the rush to delete evidence (in the case of MI)? What don't they want to be discovered? Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

Pretty much agree with everything you're saying that this at a national level needs to be thoroughly vetted. I don't believe Trump won but I also want any fraud that's in the system discovered and gotten rid of. The only thing that I would quibble with is I don't ever like to see the phrase if there is nothing to hide.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Pretty much agree with everything you're saying that this at a national level needs to be thoroughly vetted. I don't believe Trump won but I also want any fraud that's in the system discovered and gotten rid of. The only thing that I would quibble with is I don't ever like to see the phrase if there is nothing to hide.

And that's fine, but I do think it applies in this case. But even if you don't like that, how about the poker analogy? If the courts think they're bluffing (because their evidence seems weak), then call their bluff! Let it come out by having both sides put their cards on the table. I can't for the life of me see how that would do anything but 1) Prove that everything was on the up and up or 2) show that there was fraud, whether or not it was enough to change the results. If there was any fraud, those responsible shoud be prosecuted. If the reputation of the system is at stake, I think the American public deserves that much.

 

[Ingomike]

The point of all this maneuvering in court cases is to put many appeals to SCOTUS as possible and likely for the court to combine them into a single ruling.

It is not that unusual for lower courts to punt these cases because they all know they are not making the final decision. This is not a normal situation where the parties have a lot of time...

 

[Alpo]

There is a matter of timing. You don't get to dispute the election forever. Even in Gore v. Bush, SCOTUS decided on Dec 12.

U.S. Code requires that states resolve all election-related disputes six days before electors cast their votes. States are expected to complete recounts, resolve any legal challenges, and certify results by this date, commonly known as the “Safe Harbor” deadline.

There are 3 days remaining.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There is a matter of timing. You don't get to dispute the election forever. Even in Gore v. Bush, SCOTUS decided on Dec 12.



There are 3 days remaining.

You do understand that there is a significant chance of the next election being settled by means other than ballots if the corruption isn't adequately addressed now, don't you?

 

[Alpo]

WHAT corruption?

That's the entire point. Either get a better legal team to look at this over the next period of time, or quietly fold your tent and depart. There hasn't been anything a judge would hear and they are in a better position to know what they've seen and heard and what the law is.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

WHAT corruption?

That's the entire point. Either get a better legal team to look at this over the next period of time, or quietly fold your tent and depart. There hasn't been anything a judge would hear and they are in a better position to know what they've seen and heard and what the law is.

What corruption? If any evidence (good or bad) is not allowed to be presented, and discovery allowed, how would we know? Like I said... ante up and call. Refusing to even get in the game proves or disproves nothing. What are they afraid of?

 

[Tombs]

WHAT corruption?

That's the entire point. Either get a better legal team to look at this over the next period of time, or quietly fold your tent and depart. There hasn't been anything a judge would hear and they are in a better position to know what they've seen and heard and what the law is.

This kind of behavior from democrats is what will force more drastic actions. You can't just continue to ignore evidence and refuse to allow it to be presented while shouting that there's no evidence.

That is legitimately a justification for people to jump to the next box.

 

[KG1]

How many sworn eye witness affidavits did the Democrats produce when they put the country though 3 years of Russia collusion bull****?

 

[ghitch75]

How many sworn eye witness affidavits did the Democrats produce when they put the country though 3 years of Russia collusion bull****?

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;JYoKjbQI7tU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYoKjbQI7tU[/video]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How many sworn eye witness affidavits did the Democrats produce when they put the country though 3 years of Russia collusion bull****?

I don't recall that even going through the courts. Just straight to congressional "investigation" (AKA witch hunt).

 

[Tombs]

I don't recall that even going through the courts. Just straight to congressional "investigation" (AKA witch hunt).

*Coughs* FISA Courts * Coughs*

Funny how they walked away with forging documents for a warrant to spy on a political candidate's campaign, using the most shadowy court in the country.

 

[KG1]

I don't recall that even going through the courts. Just straight to congressional "investigation" (AKA witch hunt).

Yeah the MSM and the left had no problem with that but they have a hissy fit about the Trump team taking their case directly to State legislators.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*Coughs* FISA Courts * Coughs*

Funny how they walked away with forging documents for a warrant to spy on a political candidate's campaign, using the most shadowy court in the country.

I wasn't thinking of the FISA courts.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah the MSM and the left had no problem with that but they have a hissy fit about the Trump team taking their case directly to State legislators.

[video=youtube;rsRjQDrDnY8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8[/video]

And I just realized the coincidental symbolism of the 3 "red" balloons disappearing, leaving only the "blue".

 

[KG1]

There is way more evidence of monkey business going on here than there ever was concerning the 2016 election Russia collusion bull****. As a matter of fact there were more shenanigans exposed on the part of the ones supposedly DOING the investigation back then.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There is way more evidence of monkey business going on here than there ever was concerning the 2016 election Russia collusion bull****. As a matter of fact there were more shenanigans exposed on the part of the ones supposedly DOING the investigation back then.

It certainly seems that way. That's why I keep saying "just investigate". Want "unity"? Both sides should want to be certain of a secure, fair election system. I think enough questions have been raised to justify looking into it instead of just .