Trump Presidency

[arahop]

There is a moral superiority. You learn an awful lot about someone by their views on abortion.

Only in the mind of radicals and Proud Boys.

 

[Irish YJ]

Dude in what way do you get to say liberals hate God and Country while republicans stand firmly behind the most Godless man one can imagine and are well and truly putting party ahead of country? There are countless liberals who have God in their lives that try to practice what he preached, you know, helping others and condemning the wealthy, among others. Republicans are more godly because of the issue of abortion? Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. They may say they’re more religious, but they sure as shit don’t act like it. And delaying the transition in the middle of a pandemic is one of the more damning examples of putting party over country that could possibly happen. The idea conservatives think they hold some sort of superiority over liberals when it comes to god and country is utter nonsense, full stop.

Trying to find morals in politicians is a fools errand, and trying to compare them on that level is even more foolish. It's like trying to have a beauty contest between Hitler and Stalin. It's a pretty simple equation for me. If a politician can't at least come out and simply denounce 3rd term abortions, they're a non-starter for me. I can understand intellectual debate on 1st term, and perhaps 2nd, but 3rd term isn't even close. If you can't even take a stand on that as a politician, or party, you've disqualified yourself.

 

[Legacy]

There is a moral superiority. You learn an awful lot about someone by their views on abortion.

I'm not following this one. If liberals's stance on abortion is that it should be a decision of the individual, you would not bring morality into the discussion and advocate for government not to support abortion?

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm not following this one. If liberals's stance on abortion is that it should be a decision of the individual, you would not bring morality into the discussion and advocate for government not to support abortion?

Suggesting that a stance of "individual decision", relieves any moral onus, is intellectually dishonest.

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GOPChairwoman</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/MIGOPChair?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MIGOPChair</a> pen a letter to the Board of State Canvassers asking them not to certify Michigan’s election results at Monday’s meeting. Instead, they ask them to adjourn for 14 days & audit Wayne County results first. <a href="https://t.co/5GnLcXxTxs">pic.twitter.com/5GnLcXxTxs</a></p>— Emily Lawler (@emilyjanelawler) <a href="https://twitter.com/emilyjanelawler/status/1330177142487912449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is an example of what I was referring to yesterday. What they are asking -- not certifying and auditing Wayne County first -- isn't how Michigan law works. You cannot audit until after the vote is certified. The proposed 14 day adjournment is to delay to a point where it becomes impossible to award electors.

 

[NorthDakota]

Or capital punishment and war.

I dont live in a state that has the death penalty. I think it's gross. And literally everybody supports war lol.

Only in the mind of radicals and Proud Boys.

You have some weird obsession with proud boys? Did one fuck your wife or something?

 

[TorontoGold]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GOPChairwoman</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/MIGOPChair?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MIGOPChair</a> pen a letter to the Board of State Canvassers asking them not to certify Michigan’s election results at Monday’s meeting. Instead, they ask them to adjourn for 14 days & audit Wayne County results first. <a href="https://t.co/5GnLcXxTxs">pic.twitter.com/5GnLcXxTxs</a></p>— Emily Lawler (@emilyjanelawler) <a href="https://twitter.com/emilyjanelawler/status/1330177142487912449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is an example of what I was referring to yesterday. What they are asking -- not certifying and auditing Wayne County first -- isn't how Michigan law works. You cannot audit until after the vote is certified. The proposed 14 day adjournment is to delay to a point where it becomes impossible to award electors.

....this can't continue though....right?

 

[NorthDakota]

Suggesting that a stance of "individual decision", relieves any moral onus, is intellectually dishonest.

Its just about the weakest take of all time lol.

 

[Irish YJ]

Its just about the weakest take of all time lol.

Yup. When we're talking 3 trimester at minimum when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, we're no longer talking about an "individual's" rights. We're talking about the rights of two. For a party to punt to "individual choice", while also being big gov and anti individual rights on so many other topics, it's pretty rich.

 

[IrishLax]

....this can't continue though....right?

I mean...

American election laws are a mess. Every state has different rules, and some states are more fucked up than others. This final vote certification in Michigan is just supposed to be a rubber stamp of the county certifications that were already done. No one in Michigan ever conceived of a scenario where two random functionaries (!!!) -- a crackpot florist and a lawyer -- would have the power to potentially overturn the results of the election. But that's what Trump & Co. are explicitly asking them to do and at least one of them has said he's going to do it.

What I think people on the right are grossly underestimating is the backlash that will happen if the current plan actually works. If the election results are overturned by a couple of low level partisans, people are going to lose their minds. It'd be one thing if they proved fraud in court or had ballots disqualified on technicalities. People would accept the former, and tolerate the latter. But I fear people are going to get killed left wing activists if we continue down the current path.

 

[NorthDakota]

If the election results are overturned by a couple of low level partisans, people are going to lose their minds.

It'd be Bush league but im not gonna lie it'd be funny as hell

 

[IrishLax]

To add one more piece of context, here is why these actions are unlikely to ultimately succeed:

The role of the board is very narrow and limited. It is to canvass and certify election results. Michigan election law experts told reporters on a press call Friday that the language of the law, which states that the board "shall canvass the returns," is key to understanding the requirements of the board.
"That's a mandatory requirement," John Pirich, a former assistant attorney general to the state of Michigan and current law professor at Michigan State University, said when explaining the laws that govern the board.
"The Michigan Supreme Court has been very clear that 'shall' means 'shall.' It's mandatory. It's ministerial. They have no choice," said Mark Brewer, the longest serving chair of the Michigan Democratic Party and an attorney at the lawfirm Goodman Acker.
The board cannot ask for an audit prior to certification, according to Michigan law.
"It's clear. It says after certification, and it's not to be used for recounts or certification issues," Pirich said, referring to the law.
One of the Republican board members told the Washington Post he was considering an audit.
"I do think with all of the potential problems, if any of them are true, an audit is appropriate," Norman Shinkle said. CNN has reached out to Shinkle multiple times for comment. CNN has also not received responses from the other board members.
The board cannot try to certify part of the results for the state and not all of it, as was suggested by the Republican chair of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers at their certification meeting, which received a lot of pushback at the time.
The only reason the board would be able to delay certification, hypothetically, would be if they did not have all of the results or information they needed to certify. But given that all counties have certified their results, there is no reason for the board to delay certification passed their Monday meeting.
"Historically, the board has always unanimously certified on that day," Brewer said.

What happens if there is a 2-2 deadlock?

If the board becomes locked in a 2-2 partisan deadlock, like what initially happened with the Wayne County Board of Canvassers on Tuesday, two parallel processes can occur.
Steve Liedel, the chief legal counsel for former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said this kind of deadlock has happened before, but mainly over ballot proposals.
The first avenue to force certification is through the courts. If the board fails to certify on November 23, the Michigan Court of Appeals will order the board to certify. Liedel said the court has proceeded with contempt proceedings in the past for members of the board failing to certify and that board members refusing to certify could be charged with a misdemeanor or willful neglect of duty. If the issue is not resolved by the Court of Appeals it would go to the Michigan Supreme Court, but Michigan election lawyers agreed Friday that it going to that level is unlikely.
At the same time, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has the power to remove and replace any board member, according to Michigan law, and can act without waiting for a court or anyone else. This would be a very politically complicated move for Whitmer to pursue.
When asked if Whitmer was prepared to step in if board members refuse to certify, her press secretary Tiffany Brown told CNN, "We're not to that point and hope individuals will do the right thing and respect the will of the voters."
If a board member fails to show up, the board can still act as long as a member from each party is present. If there is more than one vacancy, the governor fills the vacancy.

So the only avenue that they'd really have to not certify is to claim that they find fault with the Wayne County certification (wouldn't stand up in court, can't rescind votes). Then they'd have to hope they got a favorable judge on the Court of Appeals that wanted to go against precedent, and then they'd have have to hope that it stood up in the Michigan Supreme Court (4-3 Republican and comprised of elected judges).

But they're definitely going for it. This isn't posturing, Trump and the GOP are actively pushing for this outcome.

 

[Irish YJ]

I mean...

American election laws are a mess. Every state has different rules, and some states are more fucked up than others. This final vote certification in Michigan is just supposed to be a rubber stamp of the county certifications that were already done. No one in Michigan ever conceived of a scenario where two random functionaries (!!!) -- a crackpot florist and a lawyer -- would have the power to potentially overturn the results of the election. But that's what Trump & Co. are explicitly asking them to do and at least one of them has said he's going to do it.

What I think people on the right are grossly underestimating is the backlash that will happen if the current plan actually works. If the election results are overturned by a couple of low level partisans, people are going to lose their minds. It'd be one thing if they proved fraud in court or had ballots disqualified on technicalities. People would accept the former, and tolerate the latter. But I fear people are going to get killed left wing activists if we continue down the current path.

Yep. Messy as hell. And it's been the wild west this year across the country.

We've needed consistent federal standards for a long time. Having one state, or county do something different, just feeds the argument. Shouldn't be this hard.

 

[IrishLax]

Yep. Messy as hell. And it's been the wild west this year across the country.

We've needed consistent federal standards for a long time. Having one state, or county do something different, just feeds the argument. Shouldn't be this hard.

Agreed 100%. All the state should look at what Maine is doing and follow suit. Would fix 95% of shit overnight.

 

[Irish YJ]

Agreed 100%. All the state should look at what Maine is doing and follow suit. Would fix 95% of shit overnight.

I'm a fan of ranked-choice. Not sure if you are talking about other elements, but I love that aspect.

I'm totally on-board with on-line voting. 96% of Americans have cell phones, with 81% having smart phones. If we can securely bank on-line, we can securely vote on-line. With all the vote by mail and ballot harvesting going on, I just can't intellectually hear an argument that voting on-line isn't safer.

 

[arahop]

I dont live in a state that has the death penalty. I think it's gross. And literally everybody supports war lol.



You have some weird obsession with proud boys? Did one fuck your wife or something?

Peace to you brother.
Not sure why any Mods haven't banned you.
Best of luck to you.

 

[NorthDakota]

Peace to you brother.
Not sure why any Mods haven't banned you.
Best of luck to you.

Jesus H. how soft are you?

 

[Irish YJ]

Jesus H. how soft are you?

 

[TorontoGold]

I mean...

American election laws are a mess. Every state has different rules, and some states are more fucked up than others. This final vote certification in Michigan is just supposed to be a rubber stamp of the county certifications that were already done. No one in Michigan ever conceived of a scenario where two random functionaries (!!!) -- a crackpot florist and a lawyer -- would have the power to potentially overturn the results of the election. But that's what Trump & Co. are explicitly asking them to do and at least one of them has said he's going to do it.

What I think people on the right are grossly underestimating is the backlash that will happen if the current plan actually works. If the election results are overturned by a couple of low level partisans, people are going to lose their minds. It'd be one thing if they proved fraud in court or had ballots disqualified on technicalities. People would accept the former, and tolerate the latter. But I fear people are going to get killed left wing activists if we continue down the current path.

I just can't wrap my head around it (maybe I'm not smart enough, distinct possibility), but why aren't the party leaders stepping in and saying OK ENOUGH.

 

[sharksamardzija8345]

There is a moral superiority. You learn an awful lot about someone by their views on abortion.

Couldn’t agree more about the second bit. You do learn a lot about someone by understanding their views on abortion.

 

[sharksamardzija8345]

Jesus H. how soft are you?

You’re confusing being soft with calling out an over the line dickhead comment. Don’t. Be better.

 

[NorthDakota]

You’re confusing being soft with calling out an over the line dickhead comment. Don’t. Be better.

Nah, he's soft.

 

[Irish YJ]

Nah, he's soft.

a drama fueled freight train

 

[arahop]

I dont live in a state that has the death penalty. I think it's gross. And literally everybody supports war lol.



You have some weird obsession with proud boys? Did one fuck your wife or something?

I'm in South Bend for at least 4 home games a year
Let me know when you get to one next.
It would be great to introduce myself to you.

 

[NDRock]

I'm in South Bend for at least 4 home games a year
Let me know when you get to one next.
It would be great to introduce myself to you.

Ha, pretty sure that isn’t happening.

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm in South Bend for at least 4 home games a year
Let me know when you get to one next.
It would be great to introduce myself to you.

I thoroughly enjoy meeting people from the few forums I'm active on.

Should be noted I've been there twice in my life. But if I make it to one in the next year or two I'll pm you.

 

[Rocket89]

Trump's final major court challenge blasted into the sun by a Federalist Society judge in Pennsylvania who did his undergrad at Notre Dame:

"This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect than when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened.

Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the USA, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all of the voters of its 6th most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-trump-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-n1248528

A statement from Giuliani afterward claimed pleasure that an "Obama- appointed judge" decided this so quickly so they can appeal to the 3rd Circuit and SCOTUS while claiming they didn't get to present their evidence in court and are being censored.

 

[IrishLax]

Trump's final major court challenge blasted into the sun by a Federalist Society judge in Pennsylvania who did his undergrad at Notre Dame:

"This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect than when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened.

Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the USA, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all of the voters of its 6th most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-trump-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-n1248528

A statement from Giuliani afterward claimed pleasure that an "Obama- appointed judge" decided this so quickly so they can appeal to the 3rd Circuit and SCOTUS while claiming they didn't get to present their evidence in court and are being censored.

Republican Senator Pat Toomey's statement on the conservative judge's ruling is worth reading --
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pat Toomey’s full statement telling the president that it’s over. <a href="https://t.co/tg8b0DI1lH">pic.twitter.com/tg8b0DI1lH</a></p>— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) <a href="https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1330331284313415682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Trump's final major court challenge blasted into the sun by a Federalist Society judge in Pennsylvania who did his undergrad at Notre Dame:

"This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect than when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened.

Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the USA, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all of the voters of its 6th most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-trump-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-n1248528

A statement from Giuliani afterward claimed pleasure that an "Obama- appointed judge" decided this so quickly so they can appeal to the 3rd Circuit and SCOTUS while claiming they didn't get to present their evidence in court and are being censored.

The decision was enjoyable to read. In addition to the above, the judge details how the first two attorneys for the Plaintiffs - who were from Porter Wright - asked to withdraw, how they were replaced by two attorneys from Texas replacing them subsequently requested to withdraw less than 24 hours before oral arguments with the judge allowing two to withdraw, and then a new attorney and one remaining asked for a continuance. Denied. Then Giuliani showed up. By that time, the plainiffs attorneys had withdrawn five of their seven complaints and the Pa State Supreme Court made one of the remaining one moot (in "Bognet"). The attorneys had amended complaints numerous times. The judge then said:

Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This
claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from
two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent. The general
thrust of this claim is that it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to give states
discretion to adopt a notice-and-cure policy. Invoking Bush v. Gore, Plaintiffs
assert that such local control is unconstitutional because it creates an arbitrary
system where some persons are allowed to cure procedurally defective mail-in
ballots while others are not.

Apparently recognizing that such a broad claim is foreclosed under the Third
Circuit’s decision in Bognet, Plaintiffs try to merge it with a much simpler theory
of harm based on the cancellation of Individual Plaintiffs’ ballots in order to satisfy
standing. Because Individual Plaintiffs’ votes were invalidated as procedurally
defective, Individual Plaintiffs argue, for purposes of standing, that their claim is
based on the denial of their votes. But on the merits, Plaintiffs appear to have
abandoned this theory of harm and instead raise their broader argument that the
lack of a uniform prohibition against notice-and-cure is unconstitutional. They
assert this theory on behalf of both Individual Plaintiffs and the Trump Campaign.
That Plaintiffs are trying to mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary
precedent is not lost on the Court.

He treated the Individual Plaintiffs who felt their votes were not counted and the Trump Campaign as Plaintiff separately. A court can "level up" by granting those individuals their votes, but found real difficulty with the Campaign's solution to "level down" denying the votes of 6.8 million Pennsylvania voters which would invalidate their rights to vote. The judge said he would not even have the right to deny one person their vote.

As far as Equal Protection,

In the instant matter, Plaintiffs (Trump Campaign) are not challenging any court action as a
violation of equal protection, and they do not allege that Secretary Boockvar’s
guidance differed from county to county, or that Secretary Boockvar told some
counties to cure ballots and others not to. That some counties may have chosen to
implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute
an equal-protection violation.

Concluding,

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted
with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. “Among the grounds that could justify
a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice,
and futility.” Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right;
(2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial
complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify
their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment
would unduly delay resolution of the issues.

Judge Brann's decision amounted to "get that weak sh*t out of here". Somewhere the lawyers who withdrew are hoping -as are many of us - that we get to see Giuliani argue in front of SCOTUS.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I just can't wrap my head around it (maybe I'm not smart enough, distinct possibility), but why aren't the party leaders stepping in and saying OK ENOUGH.

Basically where I am at the moment. You'd think a sitting POTUS attempting this level of undemocratic nonsense would be a unifier for the country, in that literally EVERYONE should be opposing him on these actions. I guess that's the level of tribalism we face. By any means necessary, as long as my team wins.