Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #21

    Jan 25, 2021, 10:19 AM
    And many of those by-mail voters voted Republican....
    You have completely missed the point.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #22

    Jan 25, 2021, 10:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Again with the word lie . Incite to insurrection only is established if he directed the mob to storm the Capitol and riot . Even then insurrection is a violent uprising against the government . What weapons were carried into the Capitol for that endeavor ? The mob was armed with cellphones with their GPS active ;and for most of them the most violent act performed was taking selfies . Turns out even the plastic cuffs were already in the Capitol ;abandoned by the Capitol Police .


    The challenges to the ballots were all completely legitimate and constitutional . He lost mostly because either he did not present sufficient evidence ;or judges did not want to hear the case .

    The real cause of this was not Trump complaining about the election being stolen. The cause was that Governors and State Courts took advantage of the covid pandemic to unconstitutionally usurp the proper authority of the State legislatures to decide how the vote is conducted . (Art 2 Sec 1 Clause 2 .... Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: )
    Imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence. Even a repub appointed conservative judge. That tell you a lot right there. Or you can stick with the conspiracy against repubs which might have merit if the whole party issue didn't actively and obviously pursue voter suppression against SELECTED voters which has been patently held as unfair, illegal, or unconstitutional. We're trying to kill Jim Crow and it's descendants while repubs want to keep perpetrating voter suppression. Unfortunately for your arguments a number of recounts don't bear out the fraud or undermine the security of the votes, even while the tired old meme of voter fraud is being adhered to without a scintilla of EVIDENCE! It is however clear evidence of intent by repubs to reduce the dems/minority vote and courts have ruled it so.

    Can't blame you since that's the only hope you have to win the national vote. I doubt that stops repubs from more suppression antics though, or silences the hollering about fraud either.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Exactly correct. I would add that the idea of mail-out ballots being sent to household addresses with very little in the way of ballot security left the voting process, in those states, open to charges of irregularities whether they actually occurred or not. It certainly makes it appear that dems are trying to win elections by any and all means available, ethical or otherwise.
    That has proved to be a big LIE as have the charges and allegations of irregularities. We have evidence of that because even repubs investigated and found the last election to be fair and accurate and thusly certified the results. Repub efforts to obstruct and delay and change the vote count FAILED.

    And any reasonable person can see that empowering loonies is a disaster, yet that's exactly what the dufus did.

    “Fight for Trump”: Video Evidence of Incitement at the Capitol (justsecurity.org)

    Lying, cheating to STEAL the election. 5 DEAD!
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Jan 25, 2021, 02:21 PM
    imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence.
    That was true of some of the court challenges . The significant ones were not thrown out because of lack of evidence as much as the court ruling "lack of standing " .

    If there is no redress in the courts then where does he go to address grievances when it is clear by the reading of the Constitution that state legislatures make the laws governing how a state conducts an election ;and just as clearly it was the Governors and the courts themselves that usurped the power from the legislatures ? If the President of the US has no standing according to the courts in an issue involving the election of the President then when does he have standing in the imperial courts ?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #24

    Jan 25, 2021, 04:56 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That was true of some of the court challenges . The significant ones were not thrown out because of lack of evidence as much as the court ruling "lack of standing " .

    it was the Governors and the courts themselves that usurped the power from the legislatures ? If the President of the US has no standing according to the courts in an issue involving the election of the President then when does he have standing in the imperial courts ?
    Fair question, Tom. But first you must answer how 82+ courts, 2 SC decisions, and 3 state recounts all resulted in zero wins for Trump. Are you saying these judges and recounters are ALL involved in a huge conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #25

    Jan 25, 2021, 06:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
    Fair question, Tom. But first you must answer how 82+ courts, 2 SC decisions, and 3 state recounts all resulted in zero wins for Trump. Are you saying these judges and recounters are ALL involved in a huge conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights?
    I think he does see a conspiracy against the dufus or doesn't understand standing or evidence. You can allege anything but judges require and the dufus lawyers didn't dare lie and say there was evidence or even probable cause to sustain a case even if you are the president.

    Trump: If the President Doesn’t Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does? – Reason.com

    And

    Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election by the numbers (usatoday.com)
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Jan 25, 2021, 08:20 PM
    Many reasons .. Some were bad representation by Trump's lawyers . Most of the challenges ended at the district level and state court level and did not make it all the way to SCOTUS where the larger constitutional issue could be considered .

    When cases made it to SCOTUS ; instead of considering the constitutional point about legislatures making the voting rules for the states and not governors and courts; the court generally and Roberts specifically was inclined to give deference to lower court rulings . Roberts is sensitive to the charge that SCOTUS is a political actor and goes out of his way to avoid the charge. So he was determined to make sure that SCOTUS had no significant role in determining the outcome of the election. And Barrett being the new kid on the block was certainly not going to be the deciding justice.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #27

    Jan 26, 2021, 08:21 AM
    I guess that's why conservative put such high stock in packing SCOTUS, to get a favorable conservative outcome and fits the narrative of liberal activist judges not following the law. All those conservative judges aren't following the law either if I get your point correctly.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Jan 26, 2021, 09:16 AM
    To me it is not conservative /liberal in the court .It is originalist /textualists opposed to activists believers in a 'living breathing ' Constitution ie the words of the text don't matter .

    John Roberts has been a major disappointment . He avoids taking on the hard issues . This giving deference to lower courts and unconstitutional laws makes me ill .Imagine if the Warren Court in 1954 gave deference to the Fuller Court when deciding Brown v Board of Education .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #29

    Jan 26, 2021, 10:39 AM
    How long did it take for SCOTUS to hear the Brown case which overturned Plessy?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Jan 26, 2021, 10:48 AM
    A year and a half from arguments to decision . Why do you ask ? If you are asking between decisions it was 58 years where Plessy was precedence . Had the Warren court gave deference to that precedence then the decision never would have been reversed .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #31

    Jan 26, 2021, 11:08 AM
    It took numerous lower court victories spanning decades Tom before Plessy could be overturned so expecting the dufus, Rudy, or practically anyone else to even get a hearing without lower favorable results is pretty pie n the sky.

    Lower courts defeats and failure doesn't help things much. Matter of fact it hurts a lot when you cannot make a compelling case in district courts.

    More details on the history can be found here.

    Brown v. Board of Education: Summary & Ruling - HISTORY
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Jan 26, 2021, 12:43 PM
    you generally can't get a SCOTUS hearing until you get a negative call from a lower court and repeal .Favorable rulings end at the lower court unless the other side appeals .

    Bottom line . There is a theory called the 'independent state legislature doctrine' that says that the Constitution empowers state legislatures with authority to set voting procedures. On this view, any action by other parts of state government; state courts, executive officials, or election administrators that depart from the legislature’s wishes are null and void. This is a view that Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch agree with ;and probably Barrett even though she recused herself as the new justice on the block .
    The problem is Roberts who goes along to get along. He can't sacrifice his place in the DC cocktail circuit . Roberts cover is that not one case could've overturned the election result by itself .

    But the larger issues remains . Do the state legislatures have the power granted in the Constitution to them to make the election rules or not ?

    For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #33

    Jan 26, 2021, 04:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Bottom line ---- But the larger issues remains . Do the state legislatures have the power granted in the Constitution to them to make the election rules or not ?
    Of course they do, but not in the way the right-wing interprets the theory. The Repub/right unlawfully removes the ability of state courts to review the actions of legislatures. The was never the intention of the US Constitution. In the states in question, they have Republican legislatures which obviously makes it a simple thing to invalidate whatever they want so their Repub candidate wins an election. Hardly the intent of the framers. Your "originalists" or "textualists" rely on an interpretation that isn't there.

    A good example of why "originalism" is a strange concept. It assumes the world has never changed from the late 18th century. Tomder, you need to find a new website for your legal cut-and-pastes - one a bit more legally mainstream.


    For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .
    Trump's appointments were ideological appointees - he should have appointed those who rely first on the LAW. I agree both sides do this, and there may possibly be a different method of appointing judges to avoid jurists who apply the law through an ideological filter.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #34

    Jan 26, 2021, 07:46 PM
    If your saying the states did something ILLEGAL, or UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that's why the dufus lost then that ship has sailed. Even repub legislatures had the time before the election to address their issues and state courts made a decision so crying about them still is just sour grapes. The problem with all the crying is people believe they got robbed. They believe the Giuliani's and the dufus's and the Hawley's. The truth is there was no fraud and the highest turnout we have ever had went decidedly against the dufus.

    I think you should learn from that like we learned from the the previous elections. The whole notion of overturning the election results is insane without a clear compelling argument, and strong EVIDENCE. Allegations don't count without proof to back it up.

    Call me sick but I enjoy watching your heads explode.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #35

    Jan 27, 2021, 03:23 PM
    ok I give up I agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen (did they even let the cases get that far ? Does dismissing a case for standing even qualify as considering the evidence ? ) .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence or something like that . Judges are perfectly rational, infallible, and sworn to be unbiased and apolitical in their decision making , The oligarchs in black robes never make a flawed ruling .

    Software systems and voting machines are unhackable, and full election transparency already exists. What was I thinking ? All the experts agree that it was the most secure and transparent election ever because all the new voting methods worked flawlessly on the first try ;something typical for all large changes to complex systems .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #36

    Jan 27, 2021, 03:39 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I believed it was the most secure election in history
    Just like the 2016 election was....
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #37

    Jan 27, 2021, 04:49 PM
    .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.
    If Biden had not won, they'd be crying like little girls. The ends justify the means.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #38

    Jan 27, 2021, 05:53 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    If Biden had not won, they'd be crying like little girls. The ends justify the means.
    And since Trump was losing and then lost, what did the repubs do?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #39

    Jan 27, 2021, 06:13 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    ok I give up I agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen (did they even let the cases get that far ? Does dismissing a case for standing even qualify as considering the evidence ? ) .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence or something like that . Judges are perfectly rational, infallible, and sworn to be unbiased and apolitical in their decision making , The oligarchs in black robes never make a flawed ruling .

    Software systems and voting machines are unhackable, and full election transparency already exists. What was I thinking ? All the experts agree that it was the most secure and transparent election ever because all the new voting methods worked flawlessly on the first try ;something typical for all large changes to complex systems .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.
    Tomder, I don't think you meant it, but your sarcastic screed was inadvertently close to the truth in all respects. At least you know the argument against your position - a good sign.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #40

    Jan 27, 2021, 10:26 PM
    Yes transparent you could see right through it

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Stealing and Lying... breaking myself [ 6 Answers ]

Hi. I'm a new member here, and I desperately need help. Since I was a child, I've been stealing and lying, and lying and stealing but I've never been punished for it so I find it harder and harder to stop. I recognize that this is unhealthy for myself, and others have talked to me about this as...

Lying and Stealing [ 3 Answers ]

I am 16 years old and I have been caught stealing three times now. I have straight a's and have never been in any trouble around town. I am very well known for all the good things I do around our small town. However, my mom never seems to appreciate what I do in school or out of school. I was...

Lying and stealing [ 5 Answers ]

I have a 12 year old son that constantly lies and steals from his parents. We have tried many ways to stop this behavior but he just continues. Is there and help for this type of problem? There has been two occasions where he stayed over at someone's house and items got missing and we believe...

I am addicted to stealing and lying to my mum, Help. [ 2 Answers ]

Well my father used to steal from her, and my grandfather, and from other people. Now he is prison. I am only 13 years old, and my mum unconsciously gave me his responsibilities (paying bills going shopping) hence she gave me her bank details. So it started with small things. Buying with her card,...

Stealing and Lying [ 1 Answers ]

My Son used to steal money for drugs. He has been clean for six months now and is tested constantly by the legal system to make sure of this. I thought the stealing would stop, but he still steals money from us, items from his brother, my prescription pills at times to sell for money. I keep them...


View more questions Search