My comment to Toxicop was that you and your rightie friends have already got a massive head start in the intolerance department. I can't imagine a left of centre junior accountant being welcome in your firm.
GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
I think most of the "Karen's" that were outed this past year would have a different opinion.
Go to Germany. See how "tolerant" they are of Nazi sympathizers, revisionism and iconography.
Then get back to me.
As somebody who has worked as an executive large US companies, I am not surprised. It is caused by the US "win at all cost and by any means". You see that every day in the frivolous law suits the US is famous for.
Winning is everything.
Hucksters all. They know too many right wingers are big on blind obedience thus they can be fleeced repeatedly by preachers and politicians, particularly if it is racial. Former U.S. President Johnson said it best: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Trump is their guy. Hawley wants to be their guy. Steve Bannon was smart enough to realise these folks are easy marks and fleeced them too. Alex Jones knows this. Ann Coulter knows this. Lots of money in being a right wing pundit. Just tell them what they want to hear, scare their lily white arses about the coloured folk, and watch the money roll in.
Hawley clerked for a supreme court justice he knows better. A Dem senator - or a repub like Romney - ought to also "dispute", but use his time to tear Hawley a new one. Show him to be the clown he is.
Trump is their guy. Hawley wants to be their guy. Steve Bannon was smart enough to realise these folks are easy marks and fleeced them too. Alex Jones knows this. Ann Coulter knows this. Lots of money in being a right wing pundit. Just tell them what they want to hear, scare their lily white arses about the coloured folk, and watch the money roll in.
Hawley clerked for a supreme court justice he knows better. A Dem senator - or a repub like Romney - ought to also "dispute", but use his time to tear Hawley a new one. Show him to be the clown he is.
This is good for democracy. Not sure when Congress has ever taken this responsiblity seriously before, but better late than never. Also, I think the vote requires some debate. The debate will be much more important than the vote.
It's just a throw-in because I thought the Parler-takes comments were funny. Trump is holding a rally in DC on Jan 6 to support the horseshit in Congress.
Sure make sure voter suppression is discussed. Theres a general issue to discuss, but the fraud so far has been a Trump voter and the president himself. His commission of a crime in the phone call to Georgia should be described.
The fact that they've screamed about all their evidence of fraud in the right wing media, all of it rejected with prejudice by the appropriate courts, then they go on about people angry about the fraud...that these same people lied to their public about - is particularly rich.
It is the arsonist setting fires and saying we need to discuss what to do about all these fires. They caused the problem. Stop lying and that problem goes away.
This is just plain wrong as a matter of fact, and it is a deception carefully perpetuated by most media sources. Hardly any of the evidence put forward in support of requests for emergency relief was considered by the court on merit. The vast majority of these preliminary claims failed on technical grounds such as standing or laches, and remainder failed on the very high standard applicable to obtaining this extraordinary type of pre-trial relief.
All of the evidence could still be introduced at a trial on the merits of the claims, unless the courts decide to play their "mootness" card to complete their perfect Catch 22.
Now, by contrast, there is nothing to prevent Congress from considering all of this evidence, either in full session or subcommittee hearings. What they would be prepared to do about proven election fraud is quite another matter.
In many cases they were forced to specifically state that they were not putting forth a fraud case because they were under oath. They tried to put hearsay evidence in as their justification to move forward.
Your guy Trump litigated this shit hopelessly 60 times and got tossed out 60 times. Even if there were "merits" - and everybody but you and some of your Bitchute / Parler playmates knows there are no merits whatsoever, because none were ever alleged in the lawsuits - then the evidence was not legally actionable due to laches - prejudicial delay - and the fact that the wrong people were consistently sued and it was never fixed up.
So the "remedy" is NOT to have a highly partisan vote in Congress. Because the first time one party owned both the House and the Senate, it would block the other party ever electing a president or any Reps or Senators. It would produce a 3rd World dictatorship right away.
The remedy is to have the courts determine the challenges to the election in a timely proper fashion. And they have. Sixty-fucking-times they have.
So it's bullshit. It was always bullshit. And it remains bullshit.
So the "remedy" is NOT to have a highly partisan vote in Congress. Because the first time one party owned both the House and the Senate, it would block the other party ever electing a president or any Reps or Senators. It would produce a 3rd World dictatorship right away.
The remedy is to have the courts determine the challenges to the election in a timely proper fashion. And they have. Sixty-fucking-times they have.
So it's bullshit. It was always bullshit. And it remains bullshit.
Another deception carefully perpetuated in the media. Not all relevant election irregularities are tantamount to fraud, but that doesn't make them any less significant or meaningful.
A simple example. If a ballot tabulator were operated incorrectly, albeit innocently, such that ballots were double counted, that would not constitute election fraud but would justify a decision not to certify the count and to recount all ballots by hand. Most of the irregularities that have been alleged fall in this category. All of the signature verification issues fall into this category. Depending on the state, election workers were either instructed that signature verification on mail-in ballots was not required, or could be cured, or in some cases it may have been omitted innocently.
There are also allegations of fraudulent conduct, but the media is deceiving the public to believe that only fraudulent conduct matters. In the vast majority of cases where fraudulent conduct has been alleged, Trump (or allied) counsel have not retreated from those allegations. Rather, in most (if not all) of those cases, the courts have said that the evidence of fraud offered did not meet the very high standards required for emergency pre-trial relief, or have dismissed the claims on technical grounds (laches, standing, etc.)
WARNING-This ^^^ contains misleading and false information.
Dutch, the onus in on the plaintiff to prove its case. Trump had 60 fucking shots. As we speak, he is taking shot #61. This isn't a case of someone who had one try, fucked it up procedurally and then ran out of cash.
The president of the USA with unlimited financial and legal resources took 60 shots. In none of those cases was he successful. Where he attacked basic arrangements for vote tabulation that had been in place for YEARS, the courts said "Laches - You waited too long!"
Where he had random assholes volunteering to be litigants because the appropriate people refused to join groundless lawsuits, the courts said "no standing".
In NONE of the suits was there a compelling case on the evidence. Indeed, the whole escapade was marked by bad faith wherein Trump and his lawyers LIED during press conferences to raise $$$$$$$$$$$ from idiots and the presented different and far weaker allegations in court.
Now you don't get to fuck up 60 times in court and say "We fucked up so badly that they never actually heard ALL the total horseshit we wanted to tell them in each of our tedious, bogus, dishonest, nuisance-horseshit cases, so now we get to do exactly what we want and overturn the election anyway."
Why?!..... Because that's the sort of shit they pull in Kazakhstan and Somalia. Not a respectable country like the USA.
No. In some cases, counsel were asked to specify whether a specific claim was a claim of fraud because a different standard of proof applies to these types of legal claims. In other cases, depending upon the State, some courts were of the view that the election statute of that particular state only permitted challenges to election results if they were based on fraud. Therefore, those courts needed to determine if the particular claim was a challenge pursuant to the statute, or rather, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute itself.
Dutch, you miss the point. In developed world democracies, there's a court system. You get legal rulings - like electoral fraud - by getting the judge to agree with you. You don't fuck up 60 times and then get to say: "The judges never agreed with us, so we get to make our own rules." Because, no.
It's almost lunch time, Dutch. Go eat. Take a walk. Get away from TERB for while. You'll feel better.
It's almost lunch time, Dutch. Go eat. Take a walk. Get away from TERB for while. You'll feel better.
