Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    If the Trumplicans thought they were the only ones with access to dirty tricks, it seems Democrats are nearing the end of their patience.

    Democrat asks Pelosi to refuse to seat lawmakers supporting Trump's election challenges
    The Republican signatories of the letter were exercising their individual rights in supporting lawful due process, not sedition. Their case lacked merit and SCOTUS refused it.

    Pascrell is playing some political showmanship that will get some attention, but won't gain any real traction. (edit: My intended meaning is that Democrats won't act on Pascrell's suggestion, won't block elected Republican Congressmen from taking their seats in the House.)

    Joe Biden will officially win the election on 06 January 2021 when the electoral votes are counted and official determination is made. Biden will be sworn in to the office of POTUS in the early afternoon of 20 January 2021.

    The process is on track and on schedule, and there has been no real constitutional crisis in any of it.
    Last edited by JRT; 12 Dec 20,, 22:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Of course, this won't stop Trumpers spending the next 4-8 years claiming widespread voter fraud. A previous incarnation of the cult didn't need facts to claim Obama was not a legitimate President, so facts aren't going to get in the way now.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Supreme Court denies effort to block election results in 4 key states that sealed Trump's fate

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Friday to let Texas challenge the election results in four battleground states critical to President Donald Trump's defeat at the polls last month, likely sealing his political fate.

    "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in a brief order. It dismissed all other related claims as moot.

    The justices' action clears the way for electors to convene in 50 states and the District of Columbia Monday and all but confirm that President-elect Joe Biden will be the nation's 46th president.

    Texas had made, and Trump had endorsed, an 11th-hour effort to have the nation's highest court block Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from casting their electoral votes for Biden Monday. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed the four states used the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext to change election rules and greatly expand mail voting in violation of the Constitution.

    Within days, the last-ditch challenge had erupted into a war involving nearly every state in the nation. The four battleground states fired back, with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro labeling the effort to negate millions of citizens' ballots a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."

    "Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees," Shapiro told the justices in legal papers. "Its request for this court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy."

    The effort was a long shot for several reasons. States run their own elections, making it a violation of sovereignty for Texas to interfere with other states' procedures. Federal law defers to states in choosing electors, and Congress ultimately counts the votes.

    What's more, voters in the challenged states followed the rules in voting, including by mail, and would have been disenfranchised under Texas' challenge. Lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and allies across the country have not identified verifiable instances of fraud.

    And while disputes between states can go directly to the Supreme Court without first being heard by lower courts, the justices retain discretion to deny such requests. For instance, the court refused in 2016 to hear a dispute between Colorado and two neighboring states over the cross-border impact of marijuana legalization.

    Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said Friday they would have granted Texas' request to make its case, but "would not grant other relief.

    The action was the second time in recent days that the court had turned away efforts to forestall Trump's defeat. On Tuesday, the justices denied an effort by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and others to block the election results in Pennsylvania. Those challengers had claimed that the state legislature's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal.

    Texas had contended that changes in voting procedures made by state officials in the four battleground states abrogated laws passed earlier by their legislatures, which it said have the sole constitutional authority to run elections.

    "Defendant states flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots, ignoring statutory controls as to how they were received, evaluated, and counted," Paxton wrote in igniting the firestorm Monday night. "Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional and unlawful changes had the same uniform effect – they made the 2020 election less secure."

    Trump's request to intervene in the challenge endorsed widely disputed statistics intended to show that Biden's victory in the election was almost an impossibility. Among other things, he incorrectly said no presidential candidate ever lost election after winning Florida and Ohio, as Trump did. Richard Nixon endured the same fate in 1960.

    "These things just don’t normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss," his lawyers said in court papers.

    All four of the challenged states told the justices Thursday that Texas' request should be slapped down.

    Georgia said the justices should not "transfer Georgia’s electoral powers to the federal judiciary." Michigan said Texas "does not have a cognizable interest in how Michigan runs its elections." And Wisconsin said "the harm and public interest factors strongly weigh in favor of denying the extraordinary relief Texas seeks – stripping millions of voters of the choice they made."
    ____________

    Aaaand guess what happens on Monday?

    Leave a comment:


  • Firestorm
    replied
    If the Trumplicans thought they were the only ones with access to dirty tricks, it seems Democrats are nearing the end of their patience.

    Democrat asks Pelosi to refuse to seat lawmakers supporting Trump's election challenges

    Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) is asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to refuse to seat members of the next Congress who back President Trump’s effort to challenge the election.

    The demand comes as more than 120 House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), have signed an amicus brief supporting Texas’s election lawsuit in the Supreme Court.

    The suit is asking the court to prevent Electors from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    “Stated simply, the men and women who would act to tear the United States Government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress,” Pascrell said in a statement posted to Twitter.

    “These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and the spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend,” he added.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Yet more interference in the election ...



    Congressional Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, claims that the election — the same one in which he was re-elected — was “riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.”

    He's right, except for the “serious” part.
    Lots of allegations, but no evidence.


    The GOPers should “respect the sanctity of the electoral process,” as per Rep Liz Cheney (R, WY).
    We're all pretty “surprised and disappointed,” as per Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, AK); and having a “hard time figuring out the basis” for such nonsense, as per Sen. Lamar Alexander (R, TN).


    In Wisconsin, that nonsense includes hearings alleging interference in the elections caused by Hugo Chavez (1954-2003, i.e., he's been dead for 17 years) and Joseph Stalin (1878-1953).
    Yes, the latter died when The Trumpet was seven years old.

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12...oe-biden-trump


    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Judges striking down and dismissing Trump's election lawsuits keep asking: Why'd you wait so long?
    President Donald Trump and his allies have been on a hot streak trying to overturn the will of more than 81 million voters, losing 29 of the 38 election court cases they've brought so far - and winning zero.

    The judges have struck down the lawsuits for various reasons. Voters, not judges, decide elections, they say, and more voters chose President-elect Joe Biden over Trump. They have said the Constitution does not grant anyone the power to ignore voters and declare voters on their own, that Trump's campaign lawyers incorrectly interpret state election laws, that the lawsuits are based on falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and that the cases bring forth hearsay rather than evidence of misconduct.

    They also keep asking the lawyers representing Trump and other Republicans the same question: What took so long?

    In a ruling in a federal court in Arizona on Wednesday, for example, Judge Diane Humetewa said the plaintiffs seeking to overturn the state's election results included evidence in their lawsuits showing they knew about the supposed misconduct for "weeks, months, and even years" before the election.

    "Plaintiffs also include documents showing that the facts underlying their allegations of ballot counting and verification misconduct occurred weeks before Election Day," she wrote.

    Trump and his allies are fighting voting rules that have been on the books for months - and sometimes years
    It's been more than a month since voting ended. But almost all the lawsuits from Trump and his allies say election rules in particular states are unconstitutional and that the results should therefore be overturned.

    In Wisconsin, the Trump campaign argued that ballots cast by mail because of the coronavirus pandemic (including their top lawyer's ballot) shouldn't have been legal.

    In Pennsylvania, the campaign argued that most of the state's votes should be thrown out because some voters were allowed to fix clerical issues on their ballots.

    In those states - as well as Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia - Republicans sued over what they said was the illegal expansion of mail-in voting in the middle of a pandemic that's killed more than 291,000 people in the US.

    But all those rules - which in most cases were passed by Republican state legislators - have been in place for months and sometimes years. Trump should have challenged them before voting ended, judges have said.

    The voting laws had something of a trial run earlier this year during primaries, with additional laws passed later in the summer after those elections revealed unforeseen problems.

    GOP lawyers have blasted through deadline after deadline: early voting, Election Day, and the Electoral College "safe harbor" deadline, and they're still bringing new lawsuits.

    Before the November election, Republicans did bring numerous challenges to election laws that made it easier to vote. Those were almost all resolved before the election commenced, and the ones that weren't settled in time don't cover enough votes to change the election results.

    But the current wave of lawsuits was brought after the 2020 election was already over and Trump had already lost to Biden. The Trump campaign and other Republicans are filing new lawsuits challenging voting laws this very week, well over a month after voting ended, in hopes of retroactively disenfranchising voters.

    Judges aren't having any of it.

    "Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs' right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote," Judge Matthew Brann wrote in a ruling.

    Brann was dismissing a case the Trump campaign brought in late November to challenge a Pennsylvania voting law passed in October 2019.

    Sidney Powell waited years after the Venezuela election she keeps talking about
    For Sidney Powell, the conspiracy theories her lawsuits are based on stretch back years.

    Powell was kicked off Trump's legal team in November and afterward brought and lost four federal lawsuits all on her own.

    In her "Kraken" lawsuits, Powell alleged Dominion Voting Systems, an American company that develops voting machines, had concealed ties to Venezuela and that the same methods used to falsify the results of the 2009 Venezuelan elections were used to switch votes from Trump to Biden.

    She's describing an election that happened in Venezuela more than a decade ago. Dominion, which has emphatically denied her unsupported claims, has been operating in the US for years. But Powell brought lawsuits calling the company's integrity into question only after tens of millions of people already voted in the November election.

    "This case represents well the phrase: 'this ship has sailed,'" Judge Linda Parker wrote in a ruling slaying the Michigan Kraken. "The time has passed to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this matter is moot."

    The judges haven't been receptive to the merits of Powell's lawsuits, either. All of them have been dismissed entirely.

    "Not only have Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims, but they have wholly failed to establish that they have standing for the Court to consider them," Humetewa, the Arizona judge, wrote in her ruling. "Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona's 2020 General Election."
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • Firestorm
    replied
    While you were sleeping, the USA got 2 new states. Time to change the civics textbooks?

    Pseudo states 'New California' and 'New Nevada' back Texas election lawsuit

    Two pseudo states filed an amicus brief Friday backing the Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn the election results in four battleground states won by President-elect Joe Biden.

    In a 13-page brief filed with the Supreme Court, “New California State” and “New Nevada State” argue they are “directly impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures occur with unfortunate regularity in the current States of California and Nevada.”

    New California State and New Nevada State are movements seeking to form new states from rural counties. New California declared its independence in 2018 in an effort to become the 51st state.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Battenberg View Post

    I'm curious, what is Trump's platform? What is GOP's platform?
    Ignore what surfgun says as he has been clueless for some time. The Trump platform is so simple that even a Neanderthal (well except surfgun) can understand it. Since a child his only platform has been Me, myself, and I, interspersed by his crying meltdowns when he doesn't get his way. You know the type a basic three year old.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    Anyone want to ask the obvious questions?

    OK, I will.

    What about the other 9 parts of the Bill of Rights?
    Are the other 26 Constitutional Amendments somehow less important?
    The 2nd protects the rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Anyone want to ask the obvious questions?

    OK, I will.

    What about the other 9 parts of the Bill of Rights?
    Are the other 26 Constitutional Amendments somehow less important?

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post

    To preserve the 2nd Amendment as written. It is what people are willing to die for.
    And Trump? Are you willing to die for Trump?

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Originally posted by Battenberg View Post

    I'm curious, what is Trump's platform? What is GOP's platform?
    To preserve the 2nd Amendment as written. It is what people are willing to die for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Battenberg
    replied
    Originally posted by surfgun View Post

    The platform of Biden.
    The Gore platform discussed by Heston is comparable.
    The conservative position against said platform has gone unchanged for decades if not the founding itself.
    I'm curious, what is Trump's platform? What is GOP's platform?

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    While Trump may rail against NYT and Time magazine he does so to coverup how desperately he wants them to acknowledge his existence. He has wanted to be named Time's Person of the Year for ages just like his desire for a Nobel Prize.

    Time has announced their Person(s) of the year and it isn't Trump but Biden and Harris. Ouch...!

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/media...ear/index.html

    Click image for larger version  Name:	external-content.duckduckgo.com.gif Views:	0 Size:	478.1 KB ID:	1569690

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    How can President Trump pardon himself and his family, before any charges are brought against them? How can a pardon be offered for a future crime? I learn strange things about America everyday.
    Trump can pardon anyone (almost) that he so chooses, of federal charges. State charges can only be pardoned by the governor of the state the crimes were committed in.

    He cannot offer a pardon for a future crime, period.

    The "blanket pardon" offered to and accepted by Richard Nixon by President Gerald Ford covered any federal crimes that Nixon may have committed while President. It's a somewhat "grey" area, but it hasn't been challenged in court.

    As for Trump pardoning himself, that will be challenged in court.

    In any case, a pardon is not without its drawbacks. For starters, you effectively lose your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent about the crimes you've committed (and accepted a pardon for)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X