The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Alpo]

It isn't going to happen. Besides, the guy who filed this case? The Attorney General of Texas?

He's under a Federal Indictment presently and probably should be concentrating on staying out of Colorado Supermax.

 

[printcraft]

Yeah. I know why you quoted it.

Back to the Single A league again.

I’m here to help!

 

[Ingomike]

It isn't going to happen. Besides, the guy who filed this case? The Attorney General of Texas?

He's under a Federal Indictment presently and probably should be concentrating on staying out of Colorado Supermax.

So he is probably a good guy, because the deep state FBI and DOJ have no interest in the real crimes. Typical, smear the person not the merits. I have more confidence in the Thomas led wing of SCOTUS than you apparently.

Some of you have become so accustomed to the bad guys always winning this stuff you cannot even fathom it going the other way...

 

[Alpo]

I'm straight. I don't go "the other way".

 

[chipbennett]

Legal Scholar Argues that States Which Were Undecided on the Winner of the Presidential Race at Midnight Election Day Acted Outside the Constitution and Their Results Are Therefore Void

When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-outside-constitution-results-therefore-void/

Ff

Headline: Constitution
Lede: federal statutes

Those are meaningfully different. IANAL, but I don't see this approach going anywhere. Frankly, based on the lede, the argument is fairly absurd.

(Granted; not being able to tally ballots in a matter of hours is likewise absurd in the most technologically advanced country in the history of the world. But such absurdity isn't inherently violating the constitution.)

 

[Ingomike]

Headline: Constitution
Lede: federal statutes

Those are meaningfully different. IANAL, but I don't see this approach going anywhere. Frankly, based on the lede, the argument is fairly absurd.

(Granted; not being able to tally ballots in a matter of hours is likewise absurd in the most technologically advanced country in the history of the world. But such absurdity isn't inherently violating the constitution.)

I never really expected this to be the Trump card, if you will. There are far more compelling issues coming. And everyday there are more.

 

[Ingomike]

I have asked this before but this group seems not to have even an opinion on this big topic.


So Philadelphia mixed disputed ballots with other ballots and want to claim that they cannot be separated out and if they are set aside the non-disputed ballots will be disenfranchised, assuming the disputed ballots are determined to be disallowed. On the other hand the disputed ballots disenfranchise legitimate votes properly cast. It seems to me Philadelphia is playing chicken with the courts daring them to set aside the disputed ballot set. If they do not there is no penalty for not following the law and or court orders.

I belive the the citizens that properly cast their ballots should not be disenfranchised by adding any of the disputed ballots. The citizens that should be disenfranchised are those that elected those that oversee their election and did it wrong. I am over the courts disenfranchising the citizens that do it right, and not the corrupt governments of democrat cities.

 

[KG1]

I have asked this before but this group seems not to have even an opinion on this big topic.


So Philadelphia mixed disputed ballots with other ballots and want to claim that they cannot be separated out and if they are set aside the non-disputed ballots will be disenfranchised, assuming the disputed ballots are determined to be disallowed. On the other hand the disputed ballots disenfranchise legitimate votes properly cast. It seems to me Philadelphia is playing chicken with the courts daring them to set aside the disputed ballot set. If they do not there is no penalty for not following the law and or court orders.

I belive the the citizens that properly cast their ballots should not be disenfranchised by adding any of the disputed ballots. The citizens that should be disenfranchised are those that elected those that oversee their election and did it wrong. I am over the courts disenfranchising the citizens that do it right, and not the corrupt governments of democrat cities.

Seems to me that election officials were the ones to potentially compromise the ballots if they knowingly mixed disputed ballots with other ballots. If the courts won't enforce anything then what's the remedy?

 

[jamil]

SCOTUS rejected PA injunctive relief unanimously.

 

[Kutnupe14]

SCOTUS rejected PA injunctive relief unanimously.

Can we finally call the ball game? Regardless if anyone believes there is fraud or not, this has been (and always been) an exercise in futility.

 

[HoughMade]

Can we finally call the ball game? Regardless if anyone believes there is fraud or not, this has been (and always been) an exercise in futility.

Changing the results? I agree.

However, these allegations need to be investigated and, yes, litigated if a whole lot of people are ever going to think about "believing in" the system again. No one should be afraid of giving all of this a close look.

Now, unfortunately, I believe that there are probably some instances that the Biden people don't want looked at and, yes, some where the Trump people never had the evidence they claimed. Which side should be more embarrassed with whatever is found out? I have no idea.

Both sides have done a near masterful job of convincing their respective supporters that they are correct and if something else happens, it MUST be the result of corruption.

...and the country is not better off for it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Changing the results? I agree.

However, these allegations need to be investigated and, yes, litigated if a whole lot of people are ever going to think about "believing in" the system again. No one should be afraid of giving all of this a close look.

Now, unfortunately, I believe that there are probably some instances that the Biden people don't want looked at and, yes, some where the Trump people never had the evidence they claimed. Which side should be more embarrassed with whatever is found out? I have no idea.

Both sides have done a near masterful job of convincing their respective supporters that they are correct and if something else happens, it MUST be the result of corruption.

...and the country is not better off for it.

Well said! I've said all along that to just dismiss all the smoke without looking for the source is just plain folly, whether it changes the outcome or not. I'm nearly 100% certain there were shenanigans afoot. Regardless of whether or not it was enough to change the results, it needs to be scrutinized closely.

 

[Twangbanger]

Also, have you spent any time actually reading Milton Friedman's writings?

I ask only because it seems many opine without doing the homework reading... just my personal experience.

Although I read "Free to Choose" during my college Ayn Rand phase, it's irrelevant, because my post didn't opine on his writings.

(It is possible to point out the effect someone had on the world around them, while taking no opinion on their writings).

However, Wikipedia is going around claiming Milton Friedman (at least initially) supported A) paycheck withholding of taxes, and B) negative income tax rates, the economic principle of "refundable tax credits" which gave us people getting tax refunds without paying taxes. I don't remember reading about those in his book, so his estate might want to take issue with Wikimedia, if they are spreading untruths.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Headline: Constitution
Lede: federal statutes

Those are meaningfully different. IANAL, but I don't see this approach going anywhere. Frankly, based on the lede, the argument is fairly absurd.

(Granted; not being able to tally ballots in a matter of hours is likewise absurd in the most technologically advanced country in the history of the world. But such absurdity isn't inherently violating the constitution.)

I agree, I could see this opinion being used to argue against early voting though. The case was about Louisiana primary, their primary for senate was an open primary and if any of the candidates received a majority of the votes there was no general for senate seats. The decision stated that it violated fed law which set the election date.

Changing the results? I agree.

However, these allegations need to be investigated and, yes, litigated if a whole lot of people are ever going to think about "believing in" the system again. No one should be afraid of giving all of this a close look.

Now, unfortunately, I believe that there are probably some instances that the Biden people don't want looked at and, yes, some where the Trump people never had the evidence they claimed. Which side should be more embarrassed with whatever is found out? I have no idea.

Both sides have done a near masterful job of convincing their respective supporters that they are correct and if something else happens, it MUST be the result of corruption.

...and the country is not better off for it.

Agreed with all.


edited to change primary to general

 

[Ingomike]

SCOTUS rejected PA injunctive relief unanimously.

And SCOTUS put the Texas and Louisiana case on the docket. This is far from over.

This is all pretty simple to me, did they change election procedures without legislative approval?

Yes or no?

Does the Constitution say the legislature makes changes in election procedures?

Hint, it does.

So then all the whining will begin, you can't throw out votes...

 

[Ingomike]

Can we finally call the ball game? Regardless if anyone believes there is fraud or not, this has been (and always been) an exercise in futility.

You would love to just "move on". There is so much going on but since there is a media embargo on information about what is going on few even have a clue. A lot more to come.

 

[BigRed]

Well said! I've said all along that to just dismiss all the smoke without looking for the source is just plain folly, whether it changes the outcome or not. I'm nearly 100% certain there were shenanigans afoot. Regardless of whether or not it was enough to change the results, it needs to be scrutinized closely.

Believe in the system?

Hell, any remaining belief I had in the system was snuffed out on June 28, 2012.

The republic is dead. Dissolve the central state and let the States get on their way.

 

[Ingomike]

Biden holds the office of president elect, he earned the office by showing up and the media pronounced him their president elect. Next time he should campaign for the office of President, but it takes a real campaign to win that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Believe in the system?

Hell, any remaining belief I had in the system was snuffed out on June 28, 2012.

The republic is dead. Dissolve the central state and let the States get on their way.

So serious question. Does that mean you no longer expect to vote in any future presidential election? Given your words, it only make sense to do so.
For full transparency, I don’t think either election was rigged; however, I would fully encourage you to boycott future elections, because it is beneficial to many of the ideologies and I support (some, not all). But I would be remiss in not telling you, I think it’s folly. Our elections aren’t rigged, just because Trump lost.

 

[OneBadV8]

Biden holds the office of president elect, he earned the office by showing up and the media pronounced him their president elect. Next time he should campaign for the office of President, but it takes a real campaign to win that.

Technically the Electorate Votes aren’t cast until Dec 14th