Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

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

  • surfgun
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    What do these videos have to do with the Presidential Election?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    What do these videos have to do with the Presidential Election?

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    Advise by Biden.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Supreme Court says no to first and probably last high court appeal of 2020 presidential election

    President Trump had predicted that the Supreme Court would finally decide who won this year's presidential election, but if so, he lost again on Tuesday.

    Without comment or dissent, the high court turned away the first appeal from Trump supporters to reach the high court, a claim by several Pennsylvania Republicans who said the state's election results should not be certified.


    It may be the last appeal as well. Under federal election law, Dec. 8 marks the date when a state's results are deemed to be set and final. President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 81,000 votes in Pennsylvania and will win the state's 20 electoral votes.

    The lawsuit turned away Tuesday did not come from the Trump campaign. Instead, Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from western Pennsylvania, and several others claimed the state legislature violated the Pennsylvania Constitution when it enacted bipartisan legislation last year to allow all of its registered voters to cast ballots by mail.

    Further, Kelly claimed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the state constitution when it refused last week to throw out the election results.

    As Pennsylvania's state lawyers pointed out, the dispute had nothing to do with federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has no general authority to decide on Pennsylvania law or the meaning of its state constitution.

    Earlier this year, the conservative justices wrote approvingly of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's view that the state legislatures had a dominant role in setting the rules for presidential elections. Article II of the Constitution says "each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature may direct" its allotted electors. Pennsylvania, like nearly all the states, had decided to allocate all of its electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes.

    Rehnquist also said in the Bush vs. Gore decision in 2000 that the state courts were not free to change the election laws set by the legislature. If they did so, the Supreme Court could intervene.

    Prior to the November election, it looked las if this theory could give Republicans a legal argument for challenging the election results if the state courts made crucial changes in the rules that affected the outcome.

    But Kelly's appeal made the opposite argument — that it was the state legislature that acted illegally by authorizing balloting by mail. His lawsuit was urging the Supreme Court to intervene to overturn the decision of the Pennsylvania legislature.

    Kelly's suit was filed Nov. 21 and sought an order enjoining the state from certifying the results. The state Supreme Court intervened to take up the suit and dismissed the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs were on notice for a full year that mail balloting would be commonplace, and they failed to file a legal challenge before the election. Suing afterward was too late, the state justices said.

    Last week, Kelly's lawyer filed the appeal with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who oversees emergency claims from Pennsylvania.

    Earlier Tuesday, lawyers for Pennsylvania responded and told the court the appeal was "fundamentally frivolous" and "an affront to constitutional democracy."

    "Petitioners ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: 'Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable'." they said, quoting Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn, a Republican appointee who cast a key vote to reject a similar claim last week.
    __________

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Trump thought courts were key to winning. Judges disagreed.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his allies say their lawsuits aimed at subverting the 2020 election and reversing his loss to Joe Biden would be substantiated, if only judges were allowed to hear the cases.

    There is a central flaw in the argument. Judges have heard the cases and have been among the harshest critics of the legal arguments put forth by Trump's legal team, often dismissing them with scathing language of repudiation.

    This has been true whether the judge has been appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, including those named by Trump himself.

    The judicial rulings that have rejected Trump's unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud have underscored not only the futility of the lame-duck president's brazen attempt to sabotage the people's will but also the role of the courts in checking his unprecedented efforts to stay in power.

    The rebukes have not stopped the litigation. On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, alleging that they violated the Constitution based on a litany of already-dismissed complaints. Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate their 62 Electoral College votes for Biden — a move that would swing the election to Trump and would be unprecedented in American history.

    On Monday, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker threw out a lawsuit challenging Michigan's election results that had been filed two days after the state certified the results for Biden. Parker, appointed by President Barack Obama, said the case embodied the phrase “This ship has sailed."

    "This lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief plaintiffs seek ... and more about the impact of their allegations on people’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.”

    The lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of voters claimed Biden benefited from fraud, alleging, as in much of the other litigation, a massive Democrat-run conspiracy to shift the results. It sought to reverse the certification and impound all voting machines for inspection — “relief that is stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach,” the judge said.

    “Plaintiffs ask this court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters. This, the court cannot, and will not, do,” she said.

    “The people have spoken.”


    Her ruling stands alongside others in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada that have a common thread: They all rejected Trump's claims.

    Even in the face of these losses in court, Trump has contended that, in fact, he won the election. And he's moved out of the courts to directly appeal to lawmakers as his losses mount. He brought Michigan lawmakers to the White House in a failed bid to set aside the vote tally, and phoned Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, asking him to order a special legislative session to overturn the states results. Kemp refused. Trump also called Pennsylvania Republican House Speaker Bryan Cutler, who said state law did not give the legislature the power to overturn the will of voters.

    And Trump tweeted in all caps, “I WON THE ELECTION, BIG.”

    While that is not the case, what is true is that Trump is rapidly running out of legal runway. Out of roughly 50 lawsuits filed, more than 35 have been dropped or dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court was expected to weigh in later this week in a case from Pennsylvania. A great deal of the lawsuits highlight a lack of understanding of how elections actually work.

    In Georgia, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten, appointed by President George W. Bush, dismissed a lawsuit filed by attorney Sidney Powell, who was dropped from the Trump legal team a few weeks ago but has still continued to spread faulty election claims.

    The lawsuit claimed widespread fraud meant to illegally manipulate the vote count in favor of Biden. The suit said the scheme was carried out in different ways, including ballot stuffing, votes flipped by the election system from Trump to Biden and problems with absentee ballots. The judge summarily rejected those claims.

    Batten said the lawsuit sought “perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election.”

    He said the lawsuit sought to ignore the will of voters in Georgia, which certified the state for Biden again Monday after three vote counts.

    “They want this court to substitute its judgment for that of two-and-a-half million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden and this I am unwilling to do,” Batten said.

    Trump has appointed more than 150 federal court judges who have been confirmed by the Senate and pushed through three Supreme Court justices.

    Much like Trump, his lawyers try to blame the political leanings of the judge after their legal arguments are flayed.

    When a federal appeals panel in Philadelphia rejected Trump’s election challenge just five days after it reached the court, Trump legal advisor Jenna Ellis called their work a product of “the activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania.”

    But Trump appointed the judge who wrote the Nov. 27 opinion.

    “Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote as the 3rd U.S. Circuit panel refused to stop the state from certifying its results for Democrat Joe Biden, a demand he called “breathtaking.”

    All three of the panel members were appointed by Republican presidents.

    And they were upholding the decision of a fourth Republican, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, a conservative jurist and Federalist Society member. Brann had called the campaign’s legal case, which was argued in court by Rudy Giuliani, a “haphazard” jumble that resembled “Frankenstein’s monster.”

    In state courts, too, the lawsuits have failed. In Arizona on Friday, Judge Randall Warner, an independent appointed in 2007 by Democratic former Gov. Janet Napolitano, threw out a bid to undo Biden's victory.

    Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward challenged of ballots in metro Phoenix that were duplicated because voters’ earlier ballots were damaged or could not be run through tabulators.

    Warner wrote: “There is no evidence that the inaccuracies were intentional or part of a fraudulent scheme. They were mistakes. And given both the small number of duplicate ballots and the low error rate, the evidence does not show any impact on the outcome.”

    In Nevada on Friday, Judge James Todd Russell in Carson City ruled that attorneys for Republican electors failed to provide clear or convincing evidence of fraud or illegality.

    Nevada judges are nonpartisan. But Russell's father was a Republican governor of the state from 1951-59.

    ___
    Trump has always used the courts to bludgeon his opponents into submission or surrender. I can only imagine the narcissistic rage that billowing out from his bloated ego now that the courts are telling him to take a hike.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Arizona's Republican Party asks followers if they're willing to die to 'Stop the Steal'

    Arizona's Republican Party has a disturbing call to action for its followers.

    Ever since the typically red state flipped for President-elect Joe Biden, some supporters of President Trump, including a legal team for his campaign, have been spreading baseless claims that voter fraud cost Trump the election. Those "Stop the Steal" backers got a big boost Tuesday, as Arizona's Republican Party retweeted a call for followers to be ready to "give [their] life for this fight."

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	38
Size:	33.6 KB
ID:	1569597

    Shortly after, the Arizona GOP Twitter shared a clip of the fourth Rambo movie, where Sylvester Stallone's character tells his posse to "live for nothing, or die for something."
    “This is what we do, who we are. Live for nothing, or die for something.” pic.twitter.com/U830SiXf4N

    — Arizona Republican Party (@AZGOP) December 8, 2020

    Despite all the "Stop the Steal" campaign's memes and press conferences, Trump's backers have failed to win any meaningful court cases aimed at throwing out votes they claimed were fraudulent. Most states have certified their election results to give Biden the win, and the Electoral College will confirm it next week.
    ______________

    Here's another one that probably belongs in @surfgun's batshit "TDS" thread....

    tl;dr "JUST DRINK THE KOOL-AID"

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

    I googled that this early morning when I read it as I also had no idea. I think AR is a hell of lot younger than he is letting on since none of us old guys knew like my 11 year old son did.
    Havin been a Scoutmaster not too long ago.....

    Leave a comment:


  • JAD_333
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    Shaking My Head
    I think you got it!!

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post

    Okay, I give. What does "smh" stand for?
    I googled that this early morning when I read it as I also had no idea. I think AR is a hell of lot younger than he is letting on since none of us old guys knew like my 11 year old son did.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    Shaking My Head
    Not Sydney Morning Herald?

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post

    Okay, I give. What does "smh" stand for?
    Shaking My Head

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post

    Okay, I give. What does "smh" stand for?
    You might need to buy a jar of Ovaltine to find out.



    Leave a comment:


  • JAD_333
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    smh
    Okay, I give. What does "smh" stand for?

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    trump administration just made the citizen test harder. Really no reason to unless you want to prevent immigrants from passing, becoming citizens, and then voting. Ironically i'd bet many of trumps base supporters would probably have a hard time passing the test themselves based on their limited civics knowledge assuming they paid any attention in high school. I'd also bet ar will find this laughable since i'm sure he is big on civics for natives.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/1...ut-history.cnn
    smh

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

    I'll be curious to try the new version. Whenever I have done existing tests online I get 90%+. Based on my online interactions in other places I'm betting a lot of Americans can't manage that. :-)
    Considering many Americans say throw out the election I would say they missed the basic thrust of Civics 1 so no doubt you are right.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X