Discreet Dolls
Asian Sexy Babe

Protest Rallies Begin

Valcazar said:
You're right. We should investigate the Republicans to see how much voter fraud they did. Just because they failed doesn't mean it isn't serious
Click to expand...

Too silly to respond to. How much time and money would you spend litigating election anomalies in an election you won?

Valcazar said:
Why? The lower courts are heavily packed by Trump appointees. He has bragged about this repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Not true, especially in states that lean Democrat. He brags about Federal appointments, but of course the turnover represents a small fraction of the total of sitting federal judges, nevermind State appointed and elected judges.

Valcazar said:
We agree that SCOTUS is explicitly political and no one expects them to decide things based on legal merit. Interesting. That isn't something I thought you would admit.
Click to expand...

Your post just proves you are lumping posters together without regard for what they have posted. I have said a number of times that law itself is just another manifestation of politics, and rightfully so. That doesn't mean the legal system doesn't operate differently and independently of the other branches of government, or that it operates without ANY integrity. If that statement isn't clear enough, then the concept is too subtle for elaboration here on an internet forum.
 
Dutch Oven said:
Yes, of course Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision. They've been told that the membership of that court is actually capable of being fair to conservatives.
The Dems don't trust SCOTUS for the same reasons I say Trump voters do trust them.
Click to expand...
trump voters only trust scotus until it throws bogus claims out. Then it'll be good old conspiracy theories again.
 
Fun For All said:
Trump was claiming fraud in February...he’s had this planned for awhile.
Click to expand...
I'm having some concerns about my mail-in ballot and my vote. When filling out my ballot I accidentally spilled a little pasta sauce on it.
Today I was notified that I ended up voting for Salvatore "Sally Pickles" Picillini owner of 'Fat Sally's Pasta and Pizza Palace' in Secaucus, New Jersey. Turns out he was of questionable character and now, on top of if all, I'm concerned about being investigated for consorting with individuals of ill repute.
I make this information available to the promulgators of 'election fraud', 'vote miscount', 'election stealing' or any other extremist speculation.
Feel free to add my experience to your volumes if evidence. Use it as you see fit.
 
Dutch Oven said:
I wouldn't describe the litigation in the terms that you do.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not a Trump insider, so I have no idea just how much good faith or bad faith there is in the legitimacy of the complaints.
Click to expand...

Just common sense.
When a bunch of liars claim something you should assume they are lying.
Especially when they are fundraising off of it but spending the money elsewhere.

Some of these hearings are also public, so you can see them fail in real time.

My comment about protesting being good politics is independent of whether the legal claims will succeed or have merit.
Click to expand...

Fair.

Of course, no one has barred him from pursuing his complaints. I was commenting about the politics of discouraging or trying to intimidate him out of pursuing his complaints, which many media outlets and some politicians have been trying to do.
Click to expand...

The Republican position is very clearly "anything that is technically legal is fair if we do it and unfair if you do it", yes.
I understand that criticism of their bad faith and dishonesty is considered unfair by the GOP and particularly by the President but he should grow a thicker skin and stop being such a snowflake.

Dutch Oven said:
Too silly to respond to. How much time and money would you spend litigating election anomalies in an election you won?
Click to expand...

And the failure to do that encouraged the Republicans to just try harder to steal things. I agree. We should really spend more on election integrity protection.

Not true, especially in states that lean Democrat. He brags about Federal appointments, but of course the turnover represents a small fraction of the total of sitting federal judges, nevermind State appointed and elected judges.
Click to expand...

I will give you that some of these may be in state court, and not in Federal court. That you don't care and have expressly stated the idea is to get to the court you feel most completely rigged in your favor stands.

Your post just proves you are lumping posters together without regard for what they have posted. I have said a number of times that law itself is just another manifestation of politics, and rightfully so. That doesn't mean the legal system doesn't operate differently and independently of the other branches of government, or that it operates without ANY integrity. If that statement isn't clear enough, then the concept is too subtle for elaboration here on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

You are the one who said they need to get to the Supreme Court due to the advantage they have there and all lower courts where you can't control the outcome should be perfunctory.
That said, we agree that while the courts are very political, they are political under a different set of constraints than other branches of government.
 
khufu said:
time.com

Here's Every Trump Campaign Lawsuit Filed Since Election Day

Trump's campaign blitzed U.S. courts with new lawsuits this week. Judges have so far rejected most of them.
time.com time.com

Update on lawsuits filed by Trump so far. So far they have gone 1-6. In their only win, a judge in Philadelphia allowed observers to stand 6 feet away instead of ten feet. The reason they were positioned 10 feet away was because they were not wearing masks lol.
But in the lawsuits, even Trump is not alleging widespread fraud or an election-changing conspiracy. Instead, the focus is on complaints to delay counting or claims that would affect a small fraction of votes. In one case, they want 53 votes disqualified.
Much ado about nothing!
Click to expand...

Not about nothing.
The idea is to create the narrative so that they can fundraise and generally say it was illegitimate.

Think about it, they no longer have a remedy, do they? Is there any one of their cases where they are saying all the ballots cast by mail need to be thrown out?
Do they have any case at all that would affect the election? Any case where they can point to something and have a result that isn't "well, I guess we will never know who won?"

So even if they had a case go to SCOTUS and they won, what happens?
Toss out the entire election?
Trump and McConnel have made it clear that the basic concept is "any votes cast for Democrats aren't legitimate" but how are they going to get that accepted?

There is the indirect remedy of "we can never trust the results so we will have the states just send their own slates of electors" but who would respect that process? (And how well would it work given the actual rules?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: khufu
Dutch Oven said:
This is smart politics. The least it will accomplish is to keep the Georgia runoffs clean and to motivate Georgia GOP voters who will see themselves as the vanguard who can salvage the election.
Click to expand...
Being a whiny bunch of conspiracy obsessed idiots is smart politics?
 
khufu said:
In 2016, Trump won MI, WI, PA by margins of about 10,000, 22,000 and 46,000 respectively. Democrats didn’t cry foul and voting was clean according to Trump and his supporters.
Click to expand...
Not taking either side but they literally blamed the whole election loss on Russia and had a 3 year court case on Trump.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Oven said:
This is smart politics. The least it will accomplish is to keep the Georgia runoffs clean and to motivate Georgia GOP voters who will see themselves as the vanguard who can salvage the election.
Click to expand...

This is fomenting revolution.
 
curr3n_c1000 said:
My point is they didn't just accept the loss. They did cry foul.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. They obviously accepted the loss. The soon to be former super spreader in chief has been living in the WH making executive orders and playing golf on the taxpayer dime for the last 4 years.
 
C’mon guys, this isn’t a Russian thing...everybody knew Trump was going to be a prick if he lost.
 
curr3n_c1000 said:
The loss was never accepted, they just couldn't remove him from office.
Click to expand...

LOL The point is he Hillary conceded, Obama invited him to the WH and assisted with the transition and he the got on with the nations business of improving his golf game and spending a lot of taxpayers money at his properties.
 
toguy5252 said:
You are wrong. They obviously accepted the loss. The soon to be former super spreader in chief has been living in the WH making executive orders and playing golf on the taxpayer dime for the last 4 years.
Click to expand...
Trump doesn't collect a salary and he probably owns the golf course.
 
Dutch Oven said:
It's a tight contest which is more destructive: 1) contesting election results without sufficient cause, or 2) resisting, as a concept, the determination of election disputes by the courts.

If I have to pick one, I'd say 2) is worse. The social disruption of 1) is completely cured by a court decision dismissing the suit. By contrast, 2) leads, without exception, to public unrest.
Click to expand...

No, it should be:
3) letting the voters decide and not whining when you lose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back