GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win

[toguy5252]

Political issues don't disappear just because courts won't address them. Politicians created the courts, not the other way around. The courts may actually be wise and/or correct to stay out of politics. However, that means the responsibility for democracy rests with politicians. Let's see them do their job for a change.

LOL. It is a political issue only because the soon to be former sorest loser on earth in chief want to overturn and steal an election. I hope you are kidding when you are suggesting that the sedition caucus is protecting democracy. Your fearless leader has laid waste to it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Interesting choice of music, but not for the reasons you intended.

I surmise that "ST" actually has a specific meaning in this instance, given the extremely repetitive and prevalent snare-tom drum pattern of the song. Just as S has a specific meaning in my responses to Frank.

Also, electronic music, as a genre, is akin to the horror genre of film. It demostrates the vacuous nature of culture and society if you remove the human element. It's also a demonstration of the sterile cause/effect relationship that is achieved by manipulating machinery. It is music for nihilists. Artistically, using electronic music in film can be effective if the point of the film to show a society that has lost touch with its humanity (Clockwork Orange, Blade Runner). Dominion should use this music as a bed track for its promotional sales videos!

You, Beaver, are not input into this machine. You are output.

Interesting but typically wrong headed ideas on electronic music.
EDM is closer to a tribal experience than techno, where people can dance and get past their default mode network to attain a form of group ecstasy.

Meanwhile....

 

[Dutch Oven]

You are wrong again. Just because something is alleged in an affidavit does not make the contents necessarily admissible or probative. If I say in an affidavit that someone told me that they saw dutch changing ballots what is that evidence of? That is of course a rhetorical question because it is evidence of nothing at all other than what someone told you. that is not how courts or the justice system works. Everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked. Just listen to the Rafensperger or read the transcript.

Again, without getting into the specific reasoning of specific decisions, you are focusing on a few ants and ignoring the enormous anthill. We both understand what hearsay is (which, by the way, IS admissible in many instances according to modern application of the rules of evidence). However, claiming "everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked" is just plain incorrect, but since the only way to demonstrate that to you is to write you a thousand page memorandum, I will leave you to your own devices.

 

[danmand]

Political issues don't disappear just because courts won't address them. Politicians created the courts, not the other way around. The courts may actually be wise and/or correct to stay out of politics. However, that means the responsibility for democracy rests with politicians. Let's see them do their job for a change.

The mechanics and the integrity of the voting system is not a political issue.

Politicians must not be allowed to make it so, just because they lose an election.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Interesting but typically wrong headed ideas on electronic music.
EDM is closer to a tribal experience than techno, where people can dance and get past their default mode network to attain a form of group ecstasy.

Meanwhile....

Frank, you are an illustration of my point about mechanical systems, whether musical or otherwise. S.

 

[Fun For All]

Political issues don't disappear just because courts won't address them. Politicians created the courts, not the other way around. The courts may actually be wise and/or correct to stay out of politics. However, that means the responsibility for democracy rests with politicians. Let's see them do their job for a change.

The courts decide the issues.

 

[toguy5252]

Again, without getting into the specific reasoning of specific decisions, you are focusing on a few ants and ignoring the enormous anthill. We both understand what hearsay is (which, by the way, IS admissible in many instances according to modern application of the rules of evidence). However, claiming "everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked" is just plain incorrect, but since the only way to demonstrate that to you is to write you a thousand page memorandum, I will leave you to your own devices.

I have no idea how the hearsay rule and its exceptions are applied in the US but in each case the court, comprised of both Dem and GOP and trump appointees rejected the evidence. Not sure if you are a lawyer but in what court have you ever been in which the court rejects the plaintiff or applicants evidence and finds for the plaintiff nonetheless

 

[Fun For All]

Again, without getting into the specific reasoning of specific decisions, you are focusing on a few ants and ignoring the enormous anthill. We both understand what hearsay is (which, by the way, IS admissible in many instances according to modern application of the rules of evidence). However, claiming "everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked" is just plain incorrect, but since the only way to demonstrate that to you is to write you a thousand page memorandum, I will leave you to your own devices.

Wrong...'hearsay' is inadmissible.

"Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein."

​

 

[kherg007]

Again, without getting into the specific reasoning of specific decisions, you are focusing on a few ants and ignoring the enormous anthill. We both understand what hearsay is (which, by the way, IS admissible in many instances according to modern application of the rules of evidence). However, claiming "everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked" is just plain incorrect, but since the only way to demonstrate that to you is to write you a thousand page memorandum, I will leave you to your own devices.

Do you gotta read this then:

'I screamed in my car': A Georgia election official debunks Trump's 'ridiculous claims' from the president's leaked phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger

"I wanted to scream — well, I did scream at the computer, and I screamed in my car, at the radio," Gabriel Sterling said of Trump's leaked phone call.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Fun For All]

Wrong. Leaving aside whether the judgments were correct, you are referring, against a backdrop of hundreds of sworn affadavits as well as documentary filings, to a handful of comments made by a handful of judges, some of which were completely obiter to their decisions, about specific allegations that were not even core to the complaints before them. The vast majority of any commentary by judges on the substantive evidence (and there truly is very little of it) is merely their evaluation of whether the evidence offered meets the stringent onus the courts applied to claims for emergency pre-trial relief (much higher than the onus would be at trial).

You can call anything speculation that you don't find sufficiently persuasive, and that's what the courts (in a small number of instances) did. However, the legal issue is what standard of proof should be sufficient for all of the relief sought (not just the most intrusive relief). No court properly explored that issue.

There you go again...round and round in circles with no conclusion.

 

[Dutch Oven]

The courts decide the issues.

Your posts are very authoritarian. Don't you know that the role of the courts is to apply the law, but that the legislative branch determines what that law is, including determining the line between matters that are within the purview of the courts and matters within the exclusive purview of the legislative or executive branch? That's the foundation of a democracy. The rules are made by those who are accountable to the people.

 

[Dutch Oven]

There you go again...round and round in circles with no conclusion.

I think your problem is just that you don't understand what you are reading in my posts. You seem to have a strong need for these issues to be crystal clear. That's the authoritarian in you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but life, and in particular democratic politics, is just not that way.

 

[Fun For All]

Your posts are very authoritarian. Don't you know that the role of the courts is to apply the law, but that the legislative branch determines what that law is, including determining the line between matters that are within the purview of the courts and matters within the exclusive purview of the legislative or executive branch? That's the foundation of a democracy. The rules are made by those who are accountable to the people.

Your posts are just plain annoying, it takes a little longer to get thru but when you strip away the window dressing you're just trying to baffle with bullshit.

The rules have been made, the courts decide on the adversarial conflict of the rules...legislative/executive branch are not allowed to change the rules.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Wrong...'hearsay' is inadmissible.

"Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein."

​

You are clearly unfamiliar with the myriad of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are constantly expanding.

 

[Fun For All]

I think your problem is just that you don't understand what you are reading in my posts. You seem to have a strong need for these issues to be crystal clear. That's the authoritarian in you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but life, and in particular democratic politics, is just not that way.

I understand...you're being a pain in the ass in a very arrogant way...

You recognize your posts are not crystal clear because you are making them that way on purpose...

 

[Dutch Oven]

Your posts are just plain annoying, it takes a little longer to get thru but when you strip away the window dressing you're just trying to baffle with bullshit.

The rules have been made, the courts decide on the adversarial conflict of the rules...legislative/executive branch are not allowed to change the rules.

Who do you think made the rules as to what standard of proof would be required to support a request for emergency pre-trial relief? Answer, it was the courts through the development of the common law. If those court made rules conflict with or impede a requirement to ensure free and fair elections under a constitution, doesn't it lie with the legislative branch to address the issue?

 

[Dutch Oven]

I understand...you're being a pain in the ass in a very arrogant way...

You recognize your posts are not crystal clear because you are making them that way on purpose...

You don't recognize that your insistence that your views are correct are no less arrogant than the posts you criticize, but less justifiable.

 

[Fun For All]

You are clearly unfamiliar with the myriad of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are constantly expanding.

You're just making that up ^^^...someone hearing someone else say something with no proof will be deemed inadmissible every time

 

[Dutch Oven]

You're just making that up ^^^...someone hearing someone else say something with no proof will be deemed inadmissible every time

Oh please. Do a nanosecond of research before you post utter tripe. Here's some free legal education:

https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/NSDS_EVIDENCE101_A_PRIMERONEVIDENCELAW_03jun141.pdf

 

[Fun For All]

Who do you think made the rules as to what standard of proof would be required to support a request for emergency pre-trial relief? Answer, it was the courts through the development of the common law. If those court made rules conflict with or impede a requirement to ensure free and fair elections under a constitution, doesn't it lie with the legislative branch to address the issue?

Again...baffle with bullshit.