Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

I have never been arguing the particular, my beef is with the general - that an Ivy League law degree in some way is indicative in and of itself of ability and gravitas. That is what is at the heart of credentialism

Turley, who the harpies in this discussion do regard as a constitutional expert, got his JD at Northwestern BTW. Oops

I thought credentialism is bad. Are we not agreed on that? I thought we agreed.

Anyway, if your “oops” is that Nortwestern isn’t an “elite” law school, maybe you should have consulted the US News and World Report rankings of law schools. 10th I think would be considered elite. They underperformed their overall ranking in constitutional law, 15th is not gonna make the point if you’re trying to say Turley graduated from a substandard law school.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/northwestern-university-03050#:~:text=Northwestern%20University%20(Pritzker)%202023%2D,tie)%20in%20Best%20Law%20Schools.

 

[foszoe]

I thought credentialism is bad. Are we not agreed on that. I thought we agreed.

Anyway, if your “oops” is that Nortwestern isn’t an “elite” law school, maybe you should have consulted the US News and World Report rankings of law schools.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/northwestern-university-03050#:~:text=Northwestern%20University%20(Pritzker)%202023%2D,tie)%20in%20Best%20Law%20Schools.

Well, Bug, being from OH, is not used to other Big 10 schools being good at stuff.

 

[KG1]

I thought credentialism is bad. Are we not agreed on that? I thought we agreed.

Anyway, if your “oops” is that Nortwestern isn’t an “elite” law school, maybe you should have consulted the US News and World Report rankings of law schools. 10th I think would be considered elite. They underperformed their overall ranking in constitutional law, 15th is not gonna make the point if you’re trying to say Turley graduated from a substandard law school.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/northwestern-university-03050#:~:text=Northwestern%20University%20(Pritzker)%202023%2D,tie)%20in%20Best%20Law%20Schools.

My part in this whole credential issue as it relates to them choosing Eastman to go along with their plan is that he doesn't appear to have expertise in practicing election law. I'm sure he's fine in the law that he does practice. Or used to anyway before the J6 debacle.

 

[jamil]

Well, Bug, being from OH, is not used to other Big 10 schools being good at stuff.

Well. Maybe other than football. OSU has lost to UM 3 years in a row. Bug doesn’t care about that tho. It’s sportsball.

 

[foszoe]

My part in this whole credential issue as it relates to them choosing Eastman to go along with their plan is that he doesn't appear to have expertise in practicing election law. I'm sure he's fine in the law that he does practice. Or used to anyway before the J6 debacle.

Best thing Eastman ever did was divorce Kodak.

 

[KG1]

Best thing Eastman ever did was divorce Kodak.

I see what you did there.

 

[KG1]

No, Mike. I think what they actually are trying to say is that a challenge to the appointed or approved slate of electors has to come from inside that state. If power centers in any given state were in disagreement with the slate of appointed electors, Pence would have been able to act - but only to refer the issue to both chambers for resolution. Without an authority in any given state taking up a challenge to the slate of electors, there is no provision for Trump being able to impose his own slate. The clause giving the state legislatures what seems to be sole authority to determine the manner of choosing the electors means the legal challenge must come from them, not the candidate

I go along with this assessment.

Trump and his advisors were feverishly trying to lobby State legislatures to consider changing their elector slates before they were submitted to congress to no avail. I'm not aware of any that agreed to go along with it.

So once they were officially certified and submitted before the due date Trump and his advisors cooked up a false elector scheme to work around State legislatures when they couldn't get them to change their slates and tried to get their own slate submitted to Congress.

When that didn't work they tried to convince Pence that he had the unilateral authority to delay the count and kick it back to the legislatures for 10 days to reconsider. Again, to no avail.

 

[BugI02]

What I'm saying is you don't bother to think about it. You just say **** that you want me to have said. What have I written on INGO that is remotely bipartisan?

I just get the impression you want to be INGO Trek's Mr Spork

 

[BugI02]

What I'm saying is you don't bother to think about it. You just say **** that you want me to have said. What have I written on INGO that is remotely bipartisan?

I don't have eidetic memory. What persists is not specifics but the sense of how you try to present yourself

IMO you wish jamil to be a credential, that what you say should always be considered logical and rational BECAUSE it is you that said it

 

[BugI02]

I thought credentialism is bad. Are we not agreed on that? I thought we agreed.

Anyway, if your “oops” is that Nortwestern isn’t an “elite” law school, maybe you should have consulted the US News and World Report rankings of law schools. 10th I think would be considered elite. They underperformed their overall ranking in constitutional law, 15th is not gonna make the point if you’re trying to say Turley graduated from a substandard law school.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/northwestern-university-03050#:~:text=Northwestern%20University%20(Pritzker)%202023%2D,tie)%20in%20Best%20Law%20Schools.

You mean like Trump being a Wharton graduate (#3 B-school according to USN&WR) but people say he's a buffoon and only was successful (increased the value 20x to 40x depending on the highest adversarial valuations for the company he inherited) because he inherited the firm

Why is it that The Facts™s only seem to matter to you when they support the narrative you wish to tell

And I'm stealing this one from you - You'll want to say you never said exactly that and I want to head off that dodge a little sooner, like now. Notice there are no quotations around my summation of the gist

 

[BugI02]

I go along with this assessment.

Trump and his advisors were feverishly trying to lobby State legislatures to consider changing their elector slates before they were submitted to congress to no avail. I'm not aware of any that did.

So once they were officially certified and submitted before the due date Trump and his advisors cooked up a false elector scheme to work around State legislatures when they couldn't get them to change their slates and tried to get their own slate submitted to Congress. [One quibble, I think Trump was actually trying to create a disagreement on competing slates of electors from several states, in which case Pence actually would have had the authority to refer the matter to the legislature. It is possible Trump was trying to lay the groundwork and then convince the legislatures in those states to raise an objection on the grounds of election irregularities after the fact. I will now be taken to task for daring to suggest Trump might have had rational reasons for doing the things he did. The narrative has to remain that Trump is an idiot and suggesting anything else might be in play is cult-like loyalty and alibiing]

When that didn't work they tried to convince Pence that he had the unilateral authority to delay the count and kick it back to the legislatures for 10 days to reconsider. Again, to no avail.

 

[jamil]

I don't have eidetic memory. What persists is not specifics but the sense of how you try to present yourself

IMO you wish jamil to be a credential, that what you say should always be considered logical and rational BECAUSE it is you that said it

Oh. Heck. I think I can help you through this one. What I say, I hope is either funny, or logical and rational because 1) I would rather joke around than be serious because joking around is more fun. And 2) if I have to be serious I hope what I say is logical and rational, because I don’t want to just make **** up. And when I’m wrong about something, INGO is happy to inform. Does that help?

 

[KG1]

@BugI02 I can't quote your post apparently because you repled to my post in the quote. So I copied and pasted.

[One quibble, I think Trump was actually trying to create a disagreement on competing slates of electors from several states, in which case Pence actually would have had the authority to refer the matter to the legislature. It is possible Trump was trying to lay the groundwork and then convince the legislatures in those states to raise an objection on the grounds of election irregularities after the fact. I will now be taken to task for daring to suggest Trump might have had rational reasons for doing the things he did. The narrative has to remain that Trump is an idiot and suggesting anything else might be in play is cult-like loyalty and alibiing

One counter quibble,

How can Trump try to create a disagreement after the State legislatures had already agreed upon their slate counts in their legislative session which were then officially certified and sent to congress? Once it was at that point it should have been a done deal.

There were no official competing slates submitted to Congress. key word: (Official) The official certified slate counts trump Trumps false elector slates that they tried to submit to congress and were rejected. Thier slate counts don't mean a hill of beans. Only certified slates are to be recognized in the Congressional vote count.

 

[jamil]

@BugI02 I can't quote your post apparently because you repled to my post in the quote. So I copied and pasted.

[One quibble, I think Trump was actually trying to create a disagreement on competing slates of electors from several states, in which case Pence actually would have had the authority to refer the matter to the legislature. It is possible Trump was trying to lay the groundwork and then convince the legislatures in those states to raise an objection on the grounds of election irregularities after the fact. I will now be taken to task for daring to suggest Trump might have had rational reasons for doing the things he did. The narrative has to remain that Trump is an idiot and suggesting anything else might be in play is cult-like loyalty and alibiing

One quibble,

How can Trump try to create a disagreement after the State legislatures had already agreed upon their slate counts which were officially certified and sent to congress? Once it was at that point it should have been a done deal.

The official certified slate counts Trump Trumps false elector slates that they tried to submit to congress and were rejected. Thier slate counts don't mean a hill of beans. Only certified slates are to be recognized in the Congressional vote count which they were.

Wrong color. That’s not teal! I’ll come back and read it after you correct.

 

[KG1]

Wrong color. That’s not teal! I’ll come back and read it after you correct.

Apparently, Bug's teal is a custom mix, and I don't have the code for that color scheme.

 

[KG1]

Oh. Heck. I think I can help you through this one. What I say, I hope is either funny, or logical and rational because 1) I would rather joke around than be serious because joking around is more fun. And 2) if I have to be serious I hope what I say is logical and rational, because I don’t want to just make **** up. And when I’m wrong about something, INGO is happy to inform. Does that help?

You're wrong.

 

[jamil]

You're wrong.

Well crap. Win some. Lose some.

 

[jamil]

Apparently, Bug's teal is a custom mix, and I don't have the code for that color scheme.

#008080.

 

[KG1]

#008080.

Tried it. Couldn't get it to work.

 

[BugI02]

@BugI02 I can't quote your post apparently because you repled to my post in the quote. So I copied and pasted.

[One quibble, I think Trump was actually trying to create a disagreement on competing slates of electors from several states, in which case Pence actually would have had the authority to refer the matter to the legislature. It is possible Trump was trying to lay the groundwork and then convince the legislatures in those states to raise an objection on the grounds of election irregularities after the fact. I will now be taken to task for daring to suggest Trump might have had rational reasons for doing the things he did. The narrative has to remain that Trump is an idiot and suggesting anything else might be in play is cult-like loyalty and alibiing

One counter quibble,

How can Trump try to create a disagreement after the State legislatures had already agreed upon their slate counts in their legislative session which were then officially certified and sent to congress? Once it was at that point it should have been a done deal.

There were no official competing slates submitted to Congress. key word: (Official) The official certified slate counts trump Trumps false elector slates that they tried to submit to congress and were rejected. Thier slate counts don't mean a hill of beans. Only certified slates are to be recognized in the Congressional vote count.

One way Trump could create a disagreement would be if it was a Secretary of State who certified the electors and not the legislature and trump could get the legislature to raise an objection, possibly in light of any evidence of shenanigans he or others might produce. The legislature may have delegated such authority to the SoS (but could reclaim it) or perhaps the SoS had been doing so in the past without the express delegated authority from the legislature (the situation in PA, I believe although there it would be secretary of the commonwealth)

And is everyone clear on the fact that each candidate picks his own slate of electors before the election? The idea of 'false electors' is a bit misleading, as if Trump came up with them after the election. The two slates of electors exist early on and then the winning candidate submits his list to the controlling authority to be certified. Trump would have had an existing slate of electors and was just trying to create the right circumstances whereby there could be a dispute about which slate was legitimate - sort of like getting opposing verdicts on the same issue from different appellate courts is a short cut to review by SCOTUS