IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 10th November 2020, 10:38 AM   #601
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The police should only investigate if you or somebody else makes that claim. I would even go as far as saying you have duty to report what you know about me or anybody else being a pedophile. If you swear on your testimony that would lend even more validity to your claim. The police don't randomly think up possible crimes and investigate. Something or somebody prompts them to investigate. That is why these claims of investigating invisible dragons and such are disingenuous attempts at mockery. Police investigate on hearsay all the time.
Should hearsay be treated as valid a form of evidence as something that is actually substantiated?

If someone merely accused you of pedophilia with no supporting evidence, is that the same as a video tape of you engaging in pedophilia, and should the police treat both forms of evidence with equal seriousness?
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:38 AM   #602
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,865
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
This thread has been focused on the lame attempts of accusations in the media, but is there a good list of the actual court cases in the works?
Here is a blog that has been tracking significant election-related cases.

https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:40 AM   #603
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?
I believe the claim is that it is a group of ballots that were counted while Republican poll watchers were prevented from observing them. Giuliani says that election law was broken in keeping the poll watchers back so they couldn't see the ballot, a court order was then broken in continuing to do this, envelopes were thrown out which supposedly are important in validating the ballots and supposedly this means that the ballots are invalid according to Pennsylvania law. We shall see. He is talking about 450,000 ballots. He claims to have 70 witnesses to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck2SOy7PJZE
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:41 AM   #604
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.
1) late ballots have not been counted. They were set aside
2) based on the mail in ballots that were received prior to Tuesday and counted, Trump will likely lose ground from the late mail ins, if they are counted
3) So no, according to the 'rules' he still lost PA. BIGLY.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:45 AM   #605
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Here is a blog that has been tracking significant election-related cases.

https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/
also

https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:47 AM   #606
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.
We all know what Trump really argued - that if he lost it could only be due to fraud. But he actually thought he would lose, so he got in early with the accusations.

Quote:
I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won.
Trump's argument is that the rules don't matter, he is the real winner anyway. Trump doesn't believe in democracy, he believes he has been crowned king and nobody (especially voters) can take it away from him.
"We have to win the election. We can’t play games. Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged,” Trump told the group of supporters at the outdoor campaign event. “Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

The only way they’re going to win is that way. And we can’t let that happen” - Donald Trump, president of the United States of America
Trump's not letting 'it' happen, because that would mean he has to give up his crown. It has nothing to with rules, but simply that he believes he is entitled to the presidency whether the democratic process says so or not.

If he manages to get his way it will be the death of democracy in America - and the beginning of the empire's destruction.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:48 AM   #607
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
1) late ballots have not been counted. They were set aside
2) based on the mail in ballots that were received prior to Tuesday and counted, Trump will likely lose ground from the late mail ins, if they are counted
3) So no, according to the 'rules' he still lost PA. BIGLY.
That was an example of a rule that there was disagreement on not the beginning of an argument about late ballots.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:52 AM   #608
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
That was an example of a rule that there was disagreement on not the beginning of an argument about late ballots.
Gotcha, I was reading your point incorrectly.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:53 AM   #609
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
We will not.

The constitution states that the term lasts 4 years. Trump's term ends on Jan 20, 2021. There is no ambiguity. He can "refuse to leave" all he wants, but he won't be President.

Unless, of course, all those "strict constructionist" Constitution supporters claim that the Constitution doesn't count.
unless it's a election coup the Republicans then its going for, then its going to be no easy win for either side. I was wondering about the faithless electors angle and heard conflicting blogs. One said that only about half the states forbid faithless electors and another blog said that the supreme court made faithless electors illegal. I also saw one website that said Ameripac is a democratic pac and another that said it was conservative. I am starting to wonder about the internet.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 10th November 2020 at 10:57 AM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:55 AM   #610
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
We all know what Trump really argued - that if he lost it could only be due to fraud. But he actually thought he would lose, so he got in early with the accusations.
Sure, so did the Democrats. Both sides have been wrestling in the mud for 4 years+, pointing out that Trump is covered in mud doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump's argument is that the rules don't matter, he is the real winner anyway.
No, that is an argument that you think he believes and are attributing to him. It isn't the argument he is actually making.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump doesn't believe in democracy, he believes he has been crowned king and nobody (especially voters) can take it away from him.
This is something you believe, we may yet live long enough for you to be proved wrong if, after all these legal and constitutional avenues have been exhausted, Trump leaves office.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump's not letting 'it' happen, because that would mean he has to give up his crown. It has nothing to with rules, but simply that he believes he is entitled to the presidency whether the democratic process says so or not.
This reads like that weird routine where Clint Eastwood had a conversation with a chair.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If he manages to get his way it will be the death of democracy in America - and the beginning of the empire's destruction.
He'll only manage to get away with it if he manages to prove Democrats broke the rules in some massive way, or there was error on the most stupendous scale. In which case, presumably it is right that he should win... no?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:56 AM   #611
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Gotcha, I was reading your point incorrectly.
No problem.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:58 AM   #612
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,066
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.





.
Your evidence for these claims?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 10:58 AM   #613
Armitage72
Philosopher
 
Armitage72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,182
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?

This was apparently the purpose of the laughing stock Four Seasons press conference.


Quote:
Rudy says the problem wasn't only in Philadelphia, but also in Pittsburgh ... where he claims 300,000 ballots went completely unchecked by Republicans who had a court order allowing them to observe the count.

He admits they were given access, but as you've heard for a few days now ... team Trump claims they weren't allowed to get close enough to properly observe.

"We weren't allowed to observe ... well, okay, we were, but not the way we wanted."
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:01 AM   #614
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Your evidence for these claims?
For what claims? That Trump is arguing a different interpretation of the rules to democrats and the issue hasn't been decided?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1196662.html
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:04 AM   #615
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,057
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Here is a blog that has been tracking significant election-related cases.

https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/
Thanks. All but one were ongoing and most were resolved before the election, so are not actually challenges to the election outcome. The only one after the election was one in Michigan to stop counting and it got dismissed.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:05 AM   #616
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
"We weren't allowed to observe ... well, okay, we were, but not the way we wanted."
If they were given access in a way that meant they couldn't check what was going on, then it's not meaningful access. That then comes down to a question of election law.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:09 AM   #617
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,155
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If they were given access in a way that meant they couldn't check what was going on, then it's not meaningful access. That then comes down to a question of election law.
They were given access to check what was going on. They only claimed otherwise when they saw that Trump was losing. You'll note that when Trump appeared to be winning, Republican and Democratic poll observers were both fine with standing 10 feet from ballot counters. And 10 feet away is plenty close enough to catch tens of thousands of instances of election fraud.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:13 AM   #618
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
They were given access to check what was going on. They only claimed otherwise when they saw that Trump was losing. You'll note that when Trump appeared to be winning, Republican and Democratic poll observers were both fine with standing 10 feet from ballot counters. And 10 feet away is plenty close enough to catch tens of thousands of instances of election fraud.
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:15 AM   #619
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,155
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
Election law was not broken.

If you believe it was, please cite the law and explain how. This JAQing off where you ignore the answers you don't like is tiresome.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:17 AM   #620
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,057
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Now this one is useful.

Here are the ONGOING cases listed

Pennsylvania
Quote:
3. To compel Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and all 67 counties to impose an earlier date for voters to show proof of identification if it was not on their initial ballots.
This has to do with people correcting their ID information on their ballot. Apparently they had to have it done by yesterday to be counted. Initial claims were denied, but the judge says set those ballots aside anyway. Won't affect many at all, I'm sure.

Quote:
4. To compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots
Regarding 600 votes in suburban Philadelphia. Won't affect anything.

Quote:
5. To intervene in an already existing dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether ballots the state received after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count.
Haven't been included in the totals anyway, right? Not going to affect the outcome in PA.


That's it. Those are the only cases ongoing. Nothing in Mich, Arizona, Nevada or Georgia.

There have been plenty dismissed in those states. They have tried the "sharpie" claim in Arizona, but gave up.

This is the real Trump case for overturning the election. A few votes in PA.

The rest is bluster.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:18 AM   #621
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,479
Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant View Post
unless it's a election coup the Republicans then its going for, then its going to be no easy win for either side. I was wondering about the faithless electors angle and heard conflicting blogs. One said that only about half the states forbid faithless electors and another blog said that the supreme court made faithless electors illegal. I also saw one website that said Ameripac is a democratic pac and another that said it was conservative. I am starting to wonder about the internet.

Starting?
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:26 AM   #622
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,135
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate

You seem to have overlooked something.

The quandary is not TZG's. It is the conflicting stances of Trump's own people, which flip-flop depending on what is most useful to them at any given moment.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:29 AM   #623
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,544
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Now this one is useful.

Here are the ONGOING cases listed

Pennsylvania


This has to do with people correcting their ID information on their ballot. Apparently they had to have it done by yesterday to be counted. Initial claims were denied, but the judge says set those ballots aside anyway. Won't affect many at all, I'm sure.



Regarding 600 votes in suburban Philadelphia. Won't affect anything.



Haven't been included in the totals anyway, right? Not going to affect the outcome in PA.


That's it. Those are the only cases ongoing. Nothing in Mich, Arizona, Nevada or Georgia.

There have been plenty dismissed in those states. They have tried the "sharpie" claim in Arizona, but gave up.

This is the real Trump case for overturning the election. A few votes in PA.

The rest is bluster.
There is still one in AZ about over-votes. All 180 of them.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:39 AM   #624
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,135
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Was being rerun - past tense. It was early last year.

Election re-run in North Carolina after voter fraud inquiry
Yes, I have already been corrected on that. It doesn't alter the point though. Fraud does occur that impacts the results of elections.

But that attempt at fraud was stopped. The malefactors were apprehended and exposed. The (Repugnican) candidate who was to have benefited withdrew his candidacy.

It was an example of the system working. I don't see how it bolsters any point you are trying to make.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:40 AM   #625
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
There is still one in AZ about over-votes. All 180 of them.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ts/6229767002/

“There were 155,860 votes voted in person on Election Day (in Maricopa County),” Liddy continued. “Of those, the tabulator only identified 180 potential overvotes on the presidential line … 180, that’s it.”
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:47 AM   #626
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,787
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
That is one question, but it's not a very interesting question.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that election law was broken by not allowing poll watchers within six feet from the beginning, what would happen? Is the remedy to throw out votes by mail? That certainly is not going to happen. is the remedy to throw someone in jail? That is certainly not going to happen without evidence of actual fraud. Is the remedy to re-run the election? I doubt it's possible, but it would only be considered if there was evidence of actual fraud that was enough to put the question in doubt to a reasonable observer.

Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.

And to me, that seems about where this election stands right now. There are lots of allegations, but no specifics. Trump has let loose his AG to look for more dirt, although the AG doesn't seem incredibly enthusiastic about the task, in my opinion. Of all the lawsuits and things that have been talked about publicly so far, the only one that appears to have any sort of basis at all is an argument about whether poll watchers were allowed close enough. (People have been saying they were allowed 10 feet away, but I read it was 25 feet prior to the court order.) It is conceivable that they might get a minor win on that one, but they won't get to change any votes, because they haven't presented any evidence that any votes were changed in Biden's favor.

The fat lady has well and truly sung on this one, but I'm sure she has the ability to return for an encore.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:54 AM   #627
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....
Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.
.....
I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months. They might not ultimately succeed, but they sure could try.

The eventual goal is to throw the election into the House, where the Repubs -- one vote per state -- would select Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...democracy.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...-election.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 11:57 AM   #628
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 7,273
I think the scenario of state legislatures interfering is probably the one to be most worried about right now. Biden's win was large enough with on-time votes on election day that the feared avenues of legal challenge seem like long-shots.

Ginning up propaganda that the vote was rigged might not sway the courts, but it could certainly give political cover to state reps who want to nullify the losing vote.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:00 PM   #629
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,933
Like I've said many times I'm sure there is "some" limit to how far the GOP will let Trump go. I just don't particularly enjoying finding out what that limit is in real time.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:00 PM   #630
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,479
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
You seem to have overlooked something.

The quandary is not TZG's. It is the conflicting stances of Trump's own people, which flip-flop depending on what is most useful to them at any given moment.
Indeed. ServiceSoon seems to have forgotten the Trump Lawyers' stance over Trump's tax affairs, that the President could not even be investigated unless there was first evidence of wrongdoing.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:04 PM   #631
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Like I've said many times I'm sure there is "some" limit to how far the GOP will let Trump go. I just don't particularly enjoying finding out what that limit is in real time.
They're all still scared of him. He will be a loud voice in Repub politics for a long time. They don't want him mad at them. (They gave up their spines years ago.)
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:05 PM   #632
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,787
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months.
By crazy people.

There are an unfortunately large number of such crazy people, but they are crazy.

(Exception: If a state really were too close to call, and there was any credible hint of actual legal violations, I could see it happening in a state, but none of those conditions exist.)
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:06 PM   #633
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,933
I like how "Oh noes they might use the Electoral College as exactly as it was intended to be used" is some crazy, far out conspiracy theory.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:09 PM   #634
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I like how "Oh noes they might use the Electoral College as exactly as it was intended to be used" is some crazy, far out conspiracy theory.
C'mon. It used to be intended to be used that way.

That use case has changed, and the changes have been codified into state law.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:14 PM   #635
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,155
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
C'mon. It used to be intended to be used that way.

That use case has changed, and the changes have been codified into state law.
Some states, and of course many of those have no penalty for a faithless elector.

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:29 PM   #636
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
 
bignickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,204
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that 'faithless elector' laws are constitutional.

Thus making the EC concept completely useless for any purpose except to make the US election needlessly convoluted.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/88516...m_medium=email
__________________
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
bignickel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:32 PM   #637
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,909
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I wouldn't dismiss that idea so lightly. The notion that Repub legislatures could substitute their own slates of electors for the elected ones has been kicked around for months. They might not ultimately succeed, but they sure could try.

Yes, that's technically a possibility. But using the excuse of a minor violation of election laws that produced no discernible effect on the outcome of the election to go straight to the nuclear option of invalidating the entire election and reversing the outcome of the election would be the death knell for democracy in the United States.

And it wouldn't even change who will be President come January 20th, because even nuking this one state's election results wouldn't be enough.

The legislators would all have be be literally insane to take this stance in reality. I'm sure there are a few who are that insane, but I'm pretty sure there aren't enough.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:34 PM   #638
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
By crazy people.

There are an unfortunately large number of such crazy people, but they are crazy.

(Exception: If a state really were too close to call, and there was any credible hint of actual legal violations, I could see it happening in a state, but none of those conditions exist.)

They don't have to actually exist. They just have to be used as excuses/rationalizations for action. It doesn't appear that there is anything in law or the Constitution that would prevent it.

Mike Pompeo just said he doesn't expect any problems with a transition because the transition will be to Trump's second term. That's the mentality that's in charge.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:36 PM   #639
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That is one question, but it's not a very interesting question.
Given that it's the question that's presumably going to go to court about the poll watchers not being allowed to observe the handling of the ballots, I'd have thought it is the important question on that topic.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that election law was broken by not allowing poll watchers within six feet from the beginning, what would happen? Is the remedy to throw out votes by mail? That certainly is not going to happen. is the remedy to throw someone in jail? That is certainly not going to happen without evidence of actual fraud. Is the remedy to re-run the election? I doubt it's possible, but it would only be considered if there was evidence of actual fraud that was enough to put the question in doubt to a reasonable observer.
I don't disagree with what you say here. The issue is if you can just ignore election law and court orders, but the result stands, then there is no meaningful downside to breaking the rules. Take the rule about correcting the ballots. Republic counties seem to have followed the rule, some Democrat ones didn't... hence the Republican's are disadvantaged. Why on Earth would either side follow the rules if there aren't consequences that matter? A minority of any fraud/rule breaking is likely to be detected, so so long as you don't go hog wild you are off to the races.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Mark Levin and some other crazy people have said that having discovered an irregularity, let's even say a violation, just for the sake of argument, the Pennsylvania legislature, without the consent of the Democratic governor, could nullify the election in Pennsylvania and appoint a new set of electors pledged to Donald Trump. That suggestion is not only not going to happen, but the suggestion that it might happen is a sign that someone is delusional, or simply lying for the benefit of their viewers.
I imagine that that would be a political move just like impeachment. I doubt it is going to happen though.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And to me, that seems about where this election stands right now. There are lots of allegations, but no specifics. Trump has let loose his AG to look for more dirt, although the AG doesn't seem incredibly enthusiastic about the task, in my opinion.
Of course not. There is almost no path out that isn't going to cause him to be hated by somebody.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Of all the lawsuits and things that have been talked about publicly so far, the only one that appears to have any sort of basis at all is an argument about whether poll watchers were allowed close enough. (People have been saying they were allowed 10 feet away, but I read it was 25 feet prior to the court order.) It is conceivable that they might get a minor win on that one, but they won't get to change any votes, because they haven't presented any evidence that any votes were changed in Biden's favor.
We'll have to see what evidence turns up. Again, political realities will probably mean that Trump loses, but I don't like the idea of violating court orders and destroying evidence that would have indicated wrongdoing if it happened having no meaningful downside. Why on Earth would they not continue destroying such evidence and resisting poll watchers in future?

I imagine there are a lot of people (Barr, the Supreme Court etc....) hoping that nothing happens to put other states in doubt so the question becomes moot. Pennsylvania needs to sort out it's elections though.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th November 2020, 12:37 PM   #640
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,909
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Mike Pompeo just said he doesn't expect any problems with a transition because the transition will be to Trump's second term. That's the mentality that's in charge.

That's the mentality that's in charge in the White House.

To pull this off, they'd have to have this mentality in multiple State Legislatures, and a majority of the US Congress.

That's not quite so clear yet. Indeed, with several GOP State level officials themselves pushing back on this nonsense, there's good evidence that they don't have this mentality.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.