The 2020 General Election Thread II

[JettaKnight]

A person who believes they clearly see what needs to be changed about America and finds the system of checks and balances on those desires imposed by the constitution an impediment - an impediment that needs to be overcome by any means necessary because;right side of history or because;arc of justice or any other pretty fiction they ascribe to

Well, he asked for a hilarious answer, and you did not disappoint.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A person who believes they clearly see what needs to be changed about America and finds the system of checks and balances on those desires imposed by the constitution an impediment - an impediment that needs to be overcome by any means necessary because;right side of history or because;arc of justice or any other pretty fiction they ascribe to

This would mean that your typical Democrat is someone doesn't hold the Constitution in high regard. Thank for answering the question sincerely.

 

[Alpo]

Well, he asked for a hilarious answer, and you did not disappoint.

Rush Limbaugh's latest:

“There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs,” he said. “We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way so I know that there is a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that [secession] is where we’re headed whether we want to go there or not.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Rush Limbaugh's latest:

Hence why Rush is an idiot. Secession is never going to happen. States don't have standing armies, and even if they did, they would be starved out by the federal govt. Not that it would ever get to that point. The first governor that suggested such would be swooped up by the feds before he ever stepped off the podium to make such an announcement.

 

[HoughMade]

There's big money tribalism. Rush is only one practitioner on one side of the divide...but he's been at it a long time.

 

[T.Lex]

Hence why Rush is an idiot. Secession is never going to happen. States don't have standing armies, and even if they did, they would be starved out by the federal govt. Not that it would ever get to that point. The first governor that suggested such would be swooped up by the feds before he ever stepped off the podium to make such an announcement.

I read an article that speculated it would be an outgrowth of the constitutional convention movement. Not an official act by a state government, but a group of citizens seeking to establish something new. (So, not exactly secession.)

And, that it would be something more like the localized paramilitary operations seen in Iraq than organized militias facing government forces.

 

[jamil]

Anything post-election is suspect. Why aren't many of the red states who modified their procedures for the pandemic included as well? Do you think only those states with close election results represent a purely legal view, or an opportunistic unprincipled attack on blue voters?

Perhaps we should file against Texas for limiting dropoff locations for mail-in ballots. Texas did all it possibly could to suppress the vote. It shows in the results. (you want to argue that one?)

Why sue if there's no consequence either way? For example, I think it would be hard for Texas to claim they have any standing if they sued California, because regardless, California would have gone hard blue anyway, and thus weren't "harmed" by the unconstitutional act. Characterizing it as "an opportunistic unprincipled attack on blue voters" is every bit as hyperbolic as saying democrats stole the election. Anything post election does not imply "shenanigans". But, of course they are just trying to find a way to win. Nevertheless, if what those states were doing IS unconstitutional, then let's let justice win.

Same about your scenario. Did they limit drop-off locations? Is there standing? Is there a constitutional claim? Prove it in court. Got anything else?

 

[jamil]

Indeed - nothing inherently "bad" about filing a case like that. For good or bad, we'll get an answer to the question about standing and other issues... which leads to my point about unintended consequences.

TX may not intend to cause problems for themselves in the future, but they could be blazing a trail that brings all sorts of things back to their own doorstep.

At a policy level, I think a bunch of states - mostly blue - do need to clean up their election processes and infrastructure. But, I'm very concerned about what group gets to dictate that. Ideally, it would be the citizens of those states.

Well, it would suck if every state started suing every other state because they don't like the way they write building codes regulating toilets.

 

[printcraft]

This would mean that your typical Democrat is someone doesn't hold the Constitution in high regard. Thank for answering the question sincerely.

Yes.

Talk the talk, walk the walk isn't how it's regarded.
It's GREAT until it stands in their way of imposing their will on the rest of us.
That's where we get the "living document" bull****.
Look to that great past voice of the ever worshiped RGB...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don't Use US Constitution As A Model

Seems like it's just bad for "some" people.

 

[BugI02]

Well, it would suck if every state started suing every other state because they don't like the way they write building codes regulating toilets.

What about suing other states that make your motor vehicle more expensive by making pollution, mileage and EV mandates a condition of market access. Asking for a friend

 

[jamil]

I completely agree, "anything post election is suspect", including finding ballots for weeks if not months after the fact.

If there were red states where procedures were modified by unconstitutional means, they should be invalidated too. The question is was the procedure prescribed by the legislature followed...

No, not *anything* post election is suspect. Certainly the ability to cast a vote ends on election day at the time when the state law says it does. The election is over at that point. The counting, auditing, re-counting, certifying, etcetera, all happen post election, and if they go according to state law, they're not shenanigans. If they don't go accordingly, challenges to that are not shenanigans either.

 

[Slapstick]

Well, it would suck if every state started suing every other state because they don't like the way they write building codes regulating toilets.

I'm old enough to remember toilets before the Government mandated low flush. I think that's an issue WORTH suing over!!

Edit: My motto "Bring back the 3 gal to flush all your troubles away!"

 

[BugI02]

Hence why Rush is an idiot. Secession is never going to happen. States don't have standing armies, and even if they did, they would be starved out by the federal govt. Not that it would ever get to that point. The first governor that suggested such would be swooped up by the feds before he ever stepped off the podium to make such an announcement.

Was CHAZ/CHOP not a secessionist movement? Or do we only condemn such behavior when we judge it to be mainstream. If you take into consideration CHAZ/CHOP in consideration of Rush's point aren't we already there?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Why would a voting system have a feature, that they clearly marketed, that vote shaves, by weighting votes? To the honest they don't even notice this feature and the bad guys know how to use it...

Not sure, although there are different kinds of "weighed voting" including ranked voting. And I like how he still claims to have invented email.... He did write a program named email once, quite a while after email had been in use.

Two things can be true simultaneously, the legislature is the prescribed way for states to appoint electors...

Yep, and in Bush v Gore “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.”

I just thought of an analogy for cognizability in this context.

Let's say I have a new security camera. There's an HOA involved that has parameters about where I can put a security camera. Based on those rules, I can place the security camera in 2 places: 1 would provide security for just me, but the other would provide security for both me and my neighbor.

If I choose to put it where it only protects me, my neighbor can't say anything about it.

The people in my household can vote on where it should go, or complain about how we decide. They get input. They can ask me to change things it if they want, if it doesn't comply with what they want.

The HOA can come in and decide if I put it in a place that is consistent with the rules. If it isn't, they have some things they can do about it.

But the neighbor doesn't really get a vote.

If anyone can't figure out how that applies to the states and federal government: me and my neighbor are the states, my household are the residents of my state, and the HOA is the federal gov't.

How about two neighbors live in a HOA, one sets up a camera that the other neighbor believes to be outside of HOA rules. And let's say just for the sake of discussion that in the HOA rules a disagreement between the two can be settled by a specific third party to determine if HOA rules are violated.

Let's call it probable cause then. A REAL, THOROUGH investigation is all I ask. I don't want "my guy" to win so badly as to subvert the entire process over trumped up charges of fraud. But there is a lot of smoke here, and there seems to be a concerted effort by many to avoid looking for a fire.

Probable cause is when you have evidence, not just suspicion or a hunch. I think an investigation would be a great thing.

But there seems to also be a tendency by some to believe everything they hear. Such as PA had more vote by mail ballots received/counted than were sent out, and same with Detroit. Both of which are false and easily checked. The US raided an office in Germany and seized servers, based all on one tweet by someone in Germany. Which eventually morphed into the Army raided the office and lost men. Which the best source of the truth available, the Army itself states that is false. A retired Col. who I believe was in the reserves for quite some time says his white hat hackers traced data packets to Germany and recovered the data sent. The Col. owns a distillery and a firearm training company. Which one did he get his hackers from?

When a good portion of the smoke is claims like the above, or affidavits such as catering vans must have been bringing in ballots because I didn't see them take any food out of them... Or the "suitcases of ballots" pulled out from under the table, which the video shows them being loaded and sealed and put under the table while everyone was walking around including Repub watchers. It's kinda hard to take the smoke seriously.

 

[buckwacker]

There's big money tribalism. Rush is only one practitioner on one side of the divide...but he's been at it a long time.

Based solely on the quote, I don't think Rush is being an advocate for what he is describing, just making an observation and a prediction about where we are headed. I am afraid he is correct.

 

[jamil]

I wouldn't call it shenanigans but when case after case fails on merits at some point one becomes numb.

I was on board for tort reform in that it would eliminate frivolous lawsuits and so far that seems to be the case. It has the same feel as the Russian dossier and the impeachment trial. Just keep throwing up 3/4 court shots in the hopes that one goes through.

At this point, I am on board with investigations of alleged wrong doing because until the evidence persuades a judge that is all it is right? Alleged.

Perhaps the Red States prevail, but if they lose, how many more cases can be tossed up until anyone but the most hard core Trump supporter labels it shenanigans? At what point will you? Are you willing to just give everything its day in court? I will call shenanigans in the sense the result of the election will not change when SCOTUS takes action on this case, which is the 2nd case to come before SCOtUS on this issue. The first one was a loss for the plaintiff.

I'm not of the opinion that the case Texas has brought has merit. I don't know. I don't mind it playing out though. There is value in every hole being filled. I don't expect that it will go anywhere.

 

[Alpo]

Was CHAZ/CHOP not a secessionist movement? Or do we only condemn such behavior when we judge it to be mainstream. If you take into consideration CHAZ/CHOP in consideration of Rush's point aren't we already there?

I think Rush occasionally hits the nail squarely on the head, and this happens to be one of those times.

There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs

For most of our history it WAS possible to coexist. The comity of our fellow man and the recognition of the rights of others is inherent in our founding (barring one abhorrent example). Whether that is still possible is growing less certain.

Trump galvanized those feelings of dichotomy, and for good or ill, the people chose a boring centrist to attempt to heal those ideologic contradictions. Whether he is too far left to accomplish that task remains to be seen.

 

[jamil]

This is case has little to do with the fraud that has been exposed and continues to be exposed daily. That most folks get their news from propaganda sources and have no idea what is going on is not surprising. If this case goes down why do the fraud cases have to stop? This is a constitutional case, not a fraud case.

I have heard that the reason Georgia legislature has not been called up is because they have been threatened to destroy the city of Atlanta, and the governor is comprised by China. There is so much happening beyond what we know...

Propaganda sources. Like OANN, GWP, Newsmax, Rush, etcetera.

So the governor of GA is compromised by China?

 

[T.Lex]

I think Rush occasionally hits the nail squarely on the head, and this happens to be one of those times.

For most of our history it WAS possible to coexist. The comity of our fellow man and the recognition of the rights of others is inherent in our founding (barring one abhorrent example). Whether that is still possible is growing less certain.

Trump galvanized those feelings of dichotomy, and for good or ill, the people chose a boring centrist to attempt to heal those ideologic contradictions. Whether he is too far left to accomplish that task remains to be seen.

I think the "two completely different theories" thing pre-dates Trump and lies in large part at Rush's feet. I stopped listening to him in the mid-90s because that was his only schtick. It was all about how Dems are evil and want to undo everything that makes the US exceptional.

That quote attributed to Rush isn't exactly the first time he's cried "wolf" although it might be its more likely now to be true.

 

[Alpo]

I'm not of the opinion that the case Texas has brought has merit. I don't know. I don't mind it playing out though. There is value in every hole being filled. I don't expect that it will go anywhere.

In your second life, come back as an engineer. You've got the makings.