the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

['stache 21743]

52 minutes ago, Js1 said:

He’s def running. And he’s a massive piece of shit 

 

Can anyone fill me in on what Democrats did in 2004 and 2016? Based on how this shit has gone, it's almost certain that what they did was completely different or non-existent. My guess is that it was something procedural and not substantive like this seeking to have the election overturned. Otherwise, if this jackass wants to do something procedural that democrats have done in the past, who gives a shit, it just goes to show it's all theater and Biden's victory will be recognized.

[aggie08 21379]

Georgia election fraud hearing this morning has the Trumpers all lathered up again. They've got us red-handed this time. Rudy's back, baby!

[Js1 85056]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can anyone fill me in on what Democrats did in 2004 and 2016? Based on how this shit has gone, it's almost certain that what they did was completely different or non-existent. My guess is that it was something procedural and not substantive like this seeking to have the election overturned. Otherwise, if this jackass wants to do something procedural that democrats have done in the past, who gives a shit, it just goes to show it's all theater and Biden's victory will be recognized.

2004 - Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and CA Senator Barbara Boxer objected to Ohio's 20 votes due to "irregularities"- Kerry publicly came out and said he would not support the challenge.   The Senate voted it down 74-1 (25 did not vote) and the House voted it down 267-31 (132 did not vote)

2016 - Despite Republican' saying Democrats were sore losers, nothing happened.  No Senator signed on to a House challenger and there was no delay in the counting. 

FTR, basically some nutjob from the losing party has raised an objection every time since 2000 - only once did it actually go to debate and vote (2004).  No Senator even signed on to a House Dem challenge of Florida in 2000. 

[wildcat09 29187]

Yeah, it should also be noted that there were actually a lot of issues with the vote in Ohio in 2004, similar to the issues in Florida in 2000 (fucked up ballots, machines that didn't record votes correctly, ambiguous standards for counting and rejecting provisional ballots, etc.).

Here they're just completely lying about there being anything wrong. 

[Js1 85056]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, it should also be noted that there were actually a lot of issues with the vote in Ohio in 2004, similar to the issues in Florida in 2000 (fucked up ballots, machines that didn't record votes correctly, ambiguous standards for counting and rejecting provisional ballots, etc.).

Here they're just completely lying about there being anything wrong. 

Right.

Hawley did say he was going to object to PA's vote for "not following their own Constitution."  So maybe (hopefully?), like 2004, it's just one state being challenged and not going to be multiple challenges and 2 hour debates and pointless votes for Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada. 

This MIGHT be Mitch throwing the base a bone - we will challenge, but only one state.  Let Senator SEC and Hawley have their one. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Js1

[G650 13989]

57 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fuck Hawley.

Where’s all my “reasonable Republicans” who think Hawley is the best post-Trump option to “return the GOP to normal” at?

He’s Trump with a socially acceptable veneer.

I don't think anyone thinks this. He is extreme AF

[BrickHorn 18176]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Hawley did say he was going to object to PA's vote for "not following their own Constitution."

The Pennsylvania Constitution is the new World Trade Center. Suddenly, it’s the most sacred thing in the world to Midwestern rubes.

[Underdog 28437]

Let him object in front of PA Lt. Gov Fetterman. 

[Js1 85056]

7 minutes ago, G650 said:

I don't think anyone thinks this. He is extreme AF

Wulaw likes him. Which says a lot about both. 

[Js1 85056]

3 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Let him object in front of PA Lt. Gov Fetterman. 

Literal definition of fuck around and find out. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The Pennsylvania Constitution is the new World Trade Center. Suddenly, it’s the most sacred thing in the world to Midwestern rubes.

There are a couple of interesting issues raised, neither of which should affect the outcome of the vote.

First is to what extent can the PA Supreme Court rewrite the election code prior to an election and the second is what difference does it make if the Election Code was unconstitutional pending an amendment that had passed 1/3 of the required votes.

As to the latter, I am somewhat flabbergasted as to why Pennsylvania officials thought it was a good idea to employ Act 77 when it was facially unconstitutional (PA constitution).

[elfenix 34167]

Shouldn't laws be presumed constitutional?

[TwiceHorn 31184]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Shouldn't laws be presumed constitutional?

Possibly.  I don't know if you followed it, but PA enacted Act 77 to broaden mail-in voting, it passed both houses with bipartisan majorities.  The PA Constitution, however, appears not to permit mail-in voting except for the truly absent.  So, contemporaneously, they initiated an amendment to the constitution commensurate with Act 77.    The problem is that the PA amendment process requires two votes in separate sessions of their lege, followed by a popular vote.  Only the first vote took place.

So, it would seem that everyone in PA government concerned with the Election Code there should have known that it was on shaky constitutional footing.  Granted, neither Act 77 nor the constitutional amendment were seriously contested, but still.

[South Austin 52037]

So give Pennsylvania to that fat fuck. He still lost. Happy New Year.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

So give Pennsylvania to that fat fuck. He still lost. Happy New Year.

I don't think the remedy should even affect PA's vote.  I'm just interested how PA justifies relying on a law that, although passed with bipartisan majorities, also seemed to be implicitly at least unconstitutional.  A prospective judgment, only, perhaps. Maybe there's some way to tapdance around it, I don't know.

I'm also intrigued by the resolution of the PA Supreme Court's rewriting of Act 77 to include a three-day grace period.  Perhaps as long as it is pre-election and doesn't operate to disenfranchise, the PA Supreme Court gets the last word, even it it is black is now white and up is now down.

[hobbes2702 12771]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Possibly.  I don't know if you followed it, but PA enacted Act 77 to broaden mail-in voting, it passed both houses with bipartisan majorities.  The PA Constitution, however, appears not to permit mail-in voting except for the truly absent.  So, contemporaneously, they initiated an amendment to the constitution commensurate with Act 77.    The problem is that the PA amendment process requires two votes in separate sessions of their lege, followed by a popular vote.  Only the first vote took place.

So, it would seem that everyone in PA government concerned with the Election Code there should have known that it was on shaky constitutional footing.  Granted, neither Act 77 nor the constitutional amendment were seriously contested, but still.

Question I’ve always had about mail in. If mail in voting is allowed for certain groups (elderly, disabled, etc.) is that not an equal protection violation? I’m obviously not a lawyer

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

100%

A young, attractive, educated Trump.  The most dangerous thing for this country. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Question I’ve always had about mail in. If mail in voting is allowed for certain groups (elderly, disabled, etc.) is that not an equal protection violation? I’m obviously not a lawyer

Probably not.  Although that would seem to require strict scrutiny because voting is a fundamental right and such a law would discriminate between young and old, able and disabled, there are sound governmental reasons for it and I'm not sure how you could tailor it any more narrowly.

Not everything that discriminates is unlawful.

Also, the "portion" of the Equal Protection Clause that is most often in play in elections is not "no discrimination," but the guarantee of "one man, one vote" that is embodied therein.  That gets a sort of different analysis.  

Edited December 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[aggie08 21379]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

I mean, it's nice that Democrats and anti-Trump voters temporarily have the SoS's back for showing integrity in standing up to the President...but most still won't vote for him with an (R) next to his name in two years.

Kemp not getting a similar push from the other side of the aisle for also telling the President to fuck off is pretty funny though. Sort of a, "That's great, but you still suck shit through a straw."

[RDCanecutter 26239]

17 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

But boat parades...

And flags on trucks! From George Washington on, the candidate with the most flags on trucks is the winner!

[Horndog 2216]

18 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Just so I understand the pence suit correctly:

Trump has asked pence to flip the country the bird and accept the fake electors that were fraudulently selected in some states. 
 

Pence says he can’t. 
 

this suit isn’t trying to make him do so, it’s trying to make the court tell him he has the ability?

so that they can then lean hard on him and make him choose. 

Does anyone know if the circus on January 6 will be televised? 

[RDCanecutter 26239]

3 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Of course the relation would be George & Bill.  Hillary only by marriage.

 

Bill married his sister Hillary to get her into the US. Chelsea is her own 1st cousin.

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

6 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Does anyone know if the circus on January 6 will be televised? 

CSpan exists, yes

[Dr. Teeth 5813]

42 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

Hawley and Cotton are the types that Dems don’t take seriously until they win the nomination. Meanwhile, Rs have been attacking AOC since she was in her first primary. Then when she has a huge unfavorability rating and voters say they are tired of her, Dems ask why. They did the same for Hilary and Warren. They get a target and lock on. Dems don’t and we get Trump. 

[kevwun 15595]

Tom Cotton went to the Ted Cruz school of charisma.  He'll never be a serious Presidential challenger.

[Satchel 6908]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Hawley and Cotton are the types that Dems don’t take seriously until they win the nomination. Meanwhile, Rs have been attacking AOC since she was in her first primary. Then when she has a huge unfavorability rating and voters say they are tired of her, Dems ask why. They did the same for Hilary and Warren. They get a target and lock on. Dems don’t and we get Trump. 

Absolutely true.

[Dr. Teeth 5813]

4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Tom Cotton went to the Ted Cruz school of charisma.  He'll never be a serious Presidential challenger.

Ted Cruz who would have likely won the R primary if for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz?

[Js1 85056]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Hawley and Cotton are the types that Dems don’t take seriously until they win the nomination. Meanwhile, Rs have been attacking AOC since she was in her first primary. Then when she has a huge unfavorability rating and voters say they are tired of her, Dems ask why. They did the same for Hilary and Warren. They get a target and lock on. Dems don’t and we get Trump. 

Yup. I will not underestimate any of them. 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5341]

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Stacey gonna whoop that ass in 2022. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by totallynotabuttpirate

[totallynotabuttpirate 5341]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

100%

A young, attractive, educated Trump.  The most dangerous thing for this country. 

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Hawley and Cotton are the types that Dems don’t take seriously until they win the nomination. Meanwhile, Rs have been attacking AOC since she was in her first primary. Then when she has a huge unfavorability rating and voters say they are tired of her, Dems ask why. They did the same for Hilary and Warren. They get a target and lock on. Dems don’t and we get Trump. 

I'd argue that the targeting of the projected Republican frontrunners in 2016 (Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, etc.) was very successful and part of what allowed an "outsider" like Trump to sneak in.  By the time the target shifted, it was too late.

Let's not act like the Republicans are some geniuses at shifting public opinion when Joe fucking Biden just got elected.  (HINT: what do all three people you listed have in common)

Edited December 30, 2020 by Chuckie Finster

[wildcat09 29187]

Hawley concerns me but I think ultimately, no matter how hard he tries, he's not going to be able to sell himself as a "populist" the way Trump did. If the 2024 GOP nominee isn't Trump or Trump Jr., it's going to be some freakshow we barely know right now.

[Jive Turkey 12562]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

Scott Walker 2.0

granted, Walker didn't go to Stanford and Yale.  but he was definitely thought to be a future GOP flag-bearer.  and that went nowhere.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Jive Turkey

[wildcat09 29187]

Just now, Jive Turkey said:

Scott Walker 2.0

Eh, they're both pieces of shit but Hawley is much smarter than Scott Walker.

[Jive Turkey 12562]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Eh, they're both pieces of shit but Hawley is much smarter than Scott Walker.

yeah, i edited that just to make clear i wasn't comparing their intellect.  but Hawley definitely seems like a guy that the GOP wants to promote and hopes does well, but he won't gain any traction.

[Dr. Teeth 5813]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I'd argue that the targeting of the projected Republican frontrunners in 2016 (Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, etc.) was very successful and part of what allowed an "outsider" like Trump to sneak in.  By the time the target shifted, it was too late.

Let's not act like the Republicans are some geniuses at shifting public opinion when Joe fucking Biden just got elected.  (HINT: what do all three people you listed have in common)

They do better than they should. They target and they usually have an effect on favorability. Joe Biden was effectively labeled a socialist in parts of the country. It helped that Dems spent the last 4 years doing it to Trump. The problem is that it should have been done before that. 
 

And I would note Rs love to target women and it’s because they know the electorate better. They prop up their own females in their party to offset but rarely give them any power. But they realize that they need to attack smart women on the other side. 

[Jive Turkey 12562]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

Well, that's Brad thinks.  I'm sure that by the end of the week the Trumpkins will have proven that he has a brother, an accountant and a heffalump working for the Chinese intelligence agency that developed smallpox. 

Trump found Brad's brother.

[kevwun 15595]

Scott Walker's best comparison is Rick Perry.  They look the part and make the appropriate noises if you don't listen closely.  Once the spotlight is one them, they have no substance.

Edited December 30, 2020 by kevwun

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34313]

51 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Thus far, this is only normal for a single party.  We can still back off this ledge, but it would require the GOP base to punish their crazies in primaries instead of reward them. And for the big donors to cut off cash to anyone who gets too Trumpy.  That’s a pipe dream though.

The big story about the Trump presidency, despite the constant whining from his corner—- how NORMAL the democrats treated him.  Even as he was leveling an all-out assault on the institutions that support our democracy.

[Js1 85056]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

The amazing part is Republicans skipped the projection part where they scream “the Democrats tried to hand Hillary the presidency in the electoral college in 2016!!!” or “if Kamala is VP, republicans will have every election overturned for the rest of forever!!!”

they just passed go and went straight to “let’s steal the election and set precedent”

[Biff Tannen 45477]

30 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Thus far, this is only normal for a single party.  We can still back off this ledge, but it would require the GOP base to punish their crazies in primaries instead of reward them. And for the big donors to cut off cash to anyone who gets too Trumpy.  That’s a pipe dream though.

The big story about the Trump presidency, despite the constant whining from his corner—- how NORMAL the democrats treated him.  Even as he was leveling an all-out assault on the institutions that support our democracy.

Someone is gonna have to step up big time. Warren, Mayor Pete, Abrams, someone. This isn’t over with Dotard out. The GOP has to die and whatever is allowed to rise from the ashes has to be somewhat sane. This shit can’t continue if we want to be a functioning country. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

The amazing part is Republicans skipped the projection part where they scream “the Democrats tried to hand Hillary the presidency in the electoral college in 2016!!!” or “if Kamala is VP, republicans will have every election overturned for the rest of forever!!!”

they've definitely been pushing the both-sides narrative by saying the dems used russia hoax to delegitimize trump's presidency.  turns out trump didn't need russia's help with that.

[BrickHorn 18176]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Someone is gonna have to step up big time. Warren, Mayor Pete, Abrams, someone. This isn’t over with Dotard out. The GOP has to die and whatever is allowed to rise from the ashes has to be somewhat sane. This shit can’t continue if we want to be a functioning country. 

DO SOMETHING!!!

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

DO SOMETHING!!!

I mean yeah. 

[Gil Bang 25865]

what the fucking fuck?

 

 

 

[Gil Bang 25865]

 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Well that would certainly be something if it weren’t coming from a known conspiracy theorist nut job. 

[Gil Bang 25865]

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Thus far, this is only normal for a single party.  We can still back off this ledge, but it would require the GOP base to punish their crazies in primaries instead of reward them. And for the big donors to cut off cash to anyone who gets too Trumpy.  That’s a pipe dream though.

Not that much of a pipe dream.  Trump cost the BMDs the House and now the White House.  Mitch might cost them the Senate.  Biden and Co. could reverse, and will reverse, a shitload of things that benefits those BMDs.

There's going to be a lot of BMDs who are really pissed off at the current Republican leadership.

But they'll just shift their money to the Dems and still get things they want.