Continuation 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

All they have to do is get a single case into the Scotus and every vote counted after (whenever Trump last had a lead) will be thrown out. Votes mean nothing, except in the SOTUS.

You think?

[dirtywick]

SC justice is a lifelong appointment. They don’t need to worry about being primaried, ergo no need to hang off Trumps donger

[alfaniner]

Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

SC justice is a lifelong appointment. They don’t need to worry about being primaried, ergo no need to hang off Trumps donger

Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.

Kavanaugh already said, in an official opinion, that no votes should be counted after election night. That's the level of "thinking" in the current SCROTUS.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.

1. As much as they might believe that I don't think any SCOTUS Judge believes that Trump is right wing.

2. Their power diminishes even more if they give into Trump. Trump has been ignoring court orders. You think he's going to heel during a second term?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Kavanaugh already said, in an official opinion, that no votes should be counted after election night. That's the level of "thinking" in the current SCROTUS.

What official opinion?

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.

Maybe, but how much power does a SC have after overturning a democracy?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Garrison

By the time Trump is removed from office it may be a Pyrrhic victory, the damage done to faith in the system will mean that there is no hope of healing the divide in the US and having convinced themselves that the Democratic party shamelessly cheated the Trumpistas will see no reason not to 'retaliate' next time.

“Everything Trump touches.. “

[bonzombiekitty]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What official opinion?

It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Trump tweets

Many of the court cases being filed all over the Country are not ours, but rather those of people that have seen horrible abuses. Our big cases showing the unconstitutionality of the 2020 Election, & the outrage of things that were done to change the outcome, will soon be filed!

We won’t let a RIGGED ELECTION steal our Country!

Who the hell is he kidding? Oh wait....

He seems to think his lawyers trying to present less than credible eye witness evidence means those weren't 'his' cases. As if voters are just coming forward to file multiple cases.

"Our big cases"

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.

I think this is a big influence on the news we are getting. It wouldn't even have to be sweeps month.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Kavanaugh already said, in an official opinion, that no votes should be counted after election night. That's the level of "thinking" in the current SCROTUS.

The ignorant statement by Kavanaugh that mailed ballots arriving after Nov 3rd shouldn't be counted contradicts this

Quote:

“[u]nder the U.S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections,” Kavanaugh wrote, adding that a state court “may not depart from the state election code enacted by the legislature.”

In a separate concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, also affirmed his support for this doctrine: “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

None of these cases involve ballots counted outside of the states' election laws.

I think Drunky McDrunkface was drunk when he wrote an opinion that contradicted itself.

Regardless, the ballots that put Biden over the top did not arrive after Nov 3rd. They just didn't get counted/reported by that night.

Trumpy saw his numbers leading and wanted to freeze that result before all the votes were counted. He conflates mailed ballots with late arriving ballots.


Bottom line, there is no SCOTUS case except in Trump's fantasy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What official opinion?

There was a case before the SCOTUS where the petitioner wanted a couple extra days for mail in ballots and the state court agreed. Upon an appeal to the SCOTUS they struck the ruling down because it would have changed the state election law.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Maybe, but how much power does a SC have after overturning a democracy?

touché

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.

Which would invalidate every presenditla election since the first, probably.
They were counting votes for days in 1916, the was not decided until California was decided for Wilson after three or four days. There have never been enogh t ime to count every vote by Midnight of election day.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I would like to think that the more rational Republicans would gain a greater voice with Trump out of office but it doesn't look like he is going to drop out of politics.

The last four years have made it abundantly clear that this is an oxymoron.

Those Repugnicans with any remaining vestiges of rationality have been (or are being) hounded out of their party or left behind by it.

The party is nothing but a shell, filled with greed, corruption, and unrestrained bigotry. No one who continues to align themselves with it can be trusted to do anything which benefits anyone but themselves. (Unless it happens to be an unintended consequence.)

Sorry. The facts are plain and unambiguous. The basket is full now. If not overflowing.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.

Thanks,

Out of curiosity though, did he just say this or is it written in an actual court opinion? There is a difference.

Never mind, Ginger answered this.

He would be reversing 150 years of precedence as well as election laws in the various States.

There are more than a few states that allow ballots to be counted that are received after election day as long as they are postmarked on or before election. You know like military ballots?

Ninja'd by dudalb

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.

Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Thanks,

Out of curiosity though, did he just say this or is it written in an actual court opinion? There is a difference.

He would be reversing 150 years of precedence as well as election laws in the various States.

There are more than a few states that allow ballots to be counted that are received after election day as long as they are postmarked on or before election. You know like military ballots?

Ninja'd by dudalb

"It is written" in a court opinion on another state case.

I just had an epiphany. Trump's lawyers have quit the case and Trumpy moved Giuliani into the job. It is possible Giuliani is feeding Trump these ideas.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.

Pretty much. Kavanaugh is proving to have a poor legal mind.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Pretty much. Kavanaugh is proving to have a poor legal mind.

Shhh! If he hears criticism he might angry cry like a toddler again.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Counties don't matter, just the statewide totals. If they are R counties with corrupt officials who will change enough votes he can shift the statewide total.

Ah. That makes a little more sense.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

"It is written" in a court opinion on another state case.

I just had an epiphany. Trump's lawyers have quit the case and Trumpy moved Giuliani into the job. It is possible Giuliani is feeding Trump these ideas.

Absolutely. Trump is ignorant and can't look past his own ego. Giuliani wants to be relevant and he's nuttier than Trump these days. He's pompous and really has lost it. I've seen attorneys I respect say that at one time Rudy was a good lawyer, but not any more.

Giuliani was and is so much like Trump it's tragic. Both always have been above everything, publicity hounds. But these days, Giuliani is a poor lawyer. He has the legal mind of a failing first year law student.

[acbytesla]

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,765,697

Donald "Twitter Twit" Trump. 73,159,025

Margin for America: 5,606,298

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Let me guess, he'll file the case in two weeks.

In fact he said it to the Washington Examiner.

Quote:

Whatever the case, Trump is forging ahead. When I asked him how quickly he might turn things around, he said, "I don't know. It's probably two weeks, three weeks."

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...weeks-n1247770

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Let me guess, he'll file the case in two weeks.

Originally Posted by slyjoe

In fact he said it to the Washington Examiner.

Quote:

Whatever the case, Trump is forging ahead. When I asked him how quickly he might turn things around, he said, "I don't know. It's probably two weeks, three weeks."

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...weeks-n1247770

Please Trump, file the case in 3 weeks. That would be after almost every state has certified the election.

[Meadmaker]

I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.

[The Great Zaganza]

Gore 2000.

Arguably, he could have won if he had used way more lawyers in way more counties instead of letting the Bushs narrow him down to just one place.
But then, of course, the SC was going to help Dubya any way it could no matter what.



But that is irrelevant here, since Biden isn't President.

[acbytesla]

Almost every time I check Biden's lead grows. About 1700 votes larger

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,768,891

Donald Trump. 73,160,506

Margin for America: 5,608,385

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.

What she said was a little clumsy, but absolutely correct:

Quote:

She [Hillary Clinton] said this year’s election day results might point to Trump having a narrow advantage. But in that case, Clinton said, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out.”

...

“Eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN25L2FJ

(bolding mine)

Instead of "under any circumstance", she should have said "under these circumstances".

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Quote:

Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....
- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president
- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.

1. As much as they might believe that I don't think any SCOTUS Judge believes that Trump is right wing.

Trump may not follow many of the traditional conservative ideals (such as free trade), but he's still far more right-leaning than Biden. And he does favor tax cuts over social spending, deregulation, and military spending increases (all right-wing concepts).

Quote:

2. Their power diminishes even more if they give into Trump. Trump has been ignoring court orders. You think he's going to heel during a second term?

I am talking about how an individual judge might feel, and the threat to their power, rather than how it affects the court as a whole.

Yes, Trump might ignore various court orders. But its possible that someone like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife won't care, because they probably thought the court should have ruled in favor of Trump anyways.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.

It’s pretty telling the best rationale he could come up with is basically “some people wouldn’t like it”

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.

4 years later, lying about crowd sizes and complaints about Hillary lol

[Bob001]

Another explanation of how we got here:

Quote:

The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term.
......
In 2020, Biden won 477 counties that account for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, while Trump won 2,497 counties amounting to just shy of 30 percent of the economy, according to an analysis by Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, and his team. (A handful of counties are still awaiting final election results.) For Democrats, it was a notable increase from 2016, when Hillary Clinton won counties amounting to 64 percent of the U.S. economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...trump-economy/

It seems downright bizarre that the people who are suffering the most didn't blame the person who's been in charge for the last four years.

[carlosy]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,765,697

Donald "Twitter Twit" Trump. 73,159,025

Margin for America: 5,606,298

Donald "Twitter Twat" Trump

Is more appropriate.

Twat is correct British word for him.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Yes, Trump might ignore various court orders. But its possible that someone like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife won't care, because they probably thought the court should have ruled in favor of Trump anyways.

Alternately, I wouldn't put a simple party over country decision past them, if they thought they could get away with it or actions that they think will benefit the Republican Party's corporate masters who are much of the reason why they're there in the first place.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

4 years later, lying about crowd sizes and complaints about Hillary lol

Yeah, it turns out that Killary has been living in their heads all this time. And better yet, she's been living there "rent-free"!!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahha!!!

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.

Pretty sure the networks are betting on trump being the gift that keeps on giving. Be it his own new media network, legal matters relating to him and his associates, standard rally bombast, teasing a 2024 run or maga cultists doing illegal things... there will be news.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Another explanation of how we got here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...trump-economy/

It seems downright bizarre that the people who are suffering the most didn't blame the person who's been in charge for the last four years.

Poor people in general vote more for the Democrats than rich people. That's true both in Red counties as in Blue counties.

Quote:

The answer is that though the richest counties and states tend to go for Democrats, within those places, the rich are still more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats. It’s just that the places with lots of Democrats tend to be richer.

Take Kentucky and New York: the former is a Republican stronghold and the latter is reliably Democratic. In both states, the rich are more likely to support Republicans than are the poor. But, overall, Kentucky voters tilt toward Republicans and New York voters tilt toward Democrats—poor Kentuckians were less likely to vote for Trump than rich New Yorkers (*). Since New York is richer than Kentucky, it makes it seem like Democrats are the party of the rich.

...

The main reason Democratic states tend to be richer, even though Democratic voters are not, is that the Democrats have become the party of cities. All of the densest counties in the US vote for Democrats, most of them overwhelmingly so, and, on average, city dwellers tend to have higher incomes than rural Americans.

...

It is not the rich in the richest places that make them so Democratic, but the middle class. Working-class teachers, bus drivers, and carpenters are very likely to be Democratic in urban counties, and they make more money than the middle class in rural areas. They are the reason Democrats win in rich places without winning the rich: Democrats are the party of, among other groups, the urban middle class.

...

All of this suggests that to understand American politics you have to start with both urbanization and race. The US economy is powered by incredibly productive cities and its politics are increasingly oriented around a divide between those who live in them and those who don’t. Few divisions in America are large enough to supersede that one, and the exception is the country’s long and shameful history of racial discrimination.

Why Joe Biden will win rich places but not rich people

(*) I'm not sure that specific statement, "poor Kentuckians were less likely to vote for Trump than rich New Yorkers" is actually correct based on the CNN exit polls they link to.