US Election

[Trinucleus]

Yes, it's all very simple.

Trump must win. Why are these evil/stupid people saying that the law doesnt allow that to happen?

[EACLucifer]

Federal judge in Michigan has thrown the attempt to delay certifying the result in that state out.

It's almost as if 1) the Trump campaign don't know what the hell they are doing legally ...

Well since they are trying to find a way to make a court agree with the fiction of the Dear Leader's delusion that he did not simply lose the election, when in fact he did simply lose the election, then it's exactly as if they don't know what they are doing legally. They only need to be seen to be trying to do something, however futile, until someone comes and leads the crazy man away.

And given the damage that would cause, that's why I'm saying the norm of leaving peoples' counsel alone can be reluctantly set aside, provided it is still just criticism and shaming and not actual violence, for now.

Interestingly, Trump's lawsuit in Arizona was withdrawn because further counting of votes rendered it moot (though not stated, the fact that remaining votes to count + votes they are alleging might have been affected by the stuff they are compaling about is less than Biden's lead is probably what lead to that realisation). That's probably as close to a concession as we'll get, but it is more or less his lawyers conceding.

[Brightonian]

I hope Trump goes back to hosting celebrity apprentice but this time whenever he tries to fire anyone, they sue him and refuse to leave

Tweet

[Vertigowooyay]

Trump has just finished speaking in the Rose Garden, and part of me really wanted them to have booked an Olive Garden by mistake.

[tenchboy]

Trump has just finished speaking in the Rose Garden, and part of me really wanted them to have booked an Olive Garden by mistake.

Would've bin funnier if they'd booked Graham Garden.

[dyqik]

Trump has reportedly turned all of his legal strategy over to the man who was conned by Sacha Baron-Cohen and who was last seen in the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot.

[basementer]

Trump has just finished speaking in the Rose Garden, and part of me really wanted them to have booked an Olive Garden by mistake.

His toupée seems to have lost confidence. It's turning grey, perhaps hoping to attract a new symbiote.

[Langster]

Trump has just finished speaking in the Rose Garden, and part of me really wanted them to have booked an Olive Garden by mistake.

His toupée seems to have lost confidence. It's turning grey, perhaps hoping to attract a new symbiote.

Possibly in preparation for the 'Too ill to stand trial gambit'.

[Little waster]

And to the surprise of literally no-one with a functioning brain, Qanon looks like it was all a load of old sh.t.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanons-ho ... one-silent

Tl;dr version. While fighting an international cabal of satanic paedophile cannibals is important I've decided to spend more time on my woodwork. Look I've made a peg!

[EACLucifer]

Trump's losing lawsuits 20:1, and more than that, Federal courts are making it very clear they aren't accepting certain arguments - ie the ludicrous idea that including more votes weakens existing votes in a violation that all votes are to be equally weighted has been rejected repeatedly, and at least one of the outstanding cases, in Georgia, relies on the same terrible argument.

[bjn]

And to the surprise of literally no-one with a functioning brain, Qanon looks like it was all a load of old sh.t.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanons-ho ... one-silent

Tl;dr version. While fighting an international cabal of satanic paedophile cannibals is important I've decided to spend more time on my woodwork. Look I've made a peg!

The whole QAnon schtick is deeply anti-semitic. It's basically a version of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion for modern times, which was just a warmed over C19th version of the mediaeval blood libel against Jews. All of them being lies layered upon prejudice believed by credulous haters. c.nts.

[EACLucifer]

And to the surprise of literally no-one with a functioning brain, Qanon looks like it was all a load of old sh.t.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanons-ho ... one-silent

Tl;dr version. While fighting an international cabal of satanic paedophile cannibals is important I've decided to spend more time on my woodwork. Look I've made a peg!

The whole QAnon schtick is deeply anti-semitic. It's basically a version of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion for modern times, which was just a warmed over C19th version of the mediaeval blood libel against Jews. All of them being lies layered upon prejudice believed by credulous haters. c.nts.

Yeah. There's a lot of rehashed blood libel in QAnon

[Vertigowooyay]

Tl;dr version. While fighting an international cabal of satanic paedophile cannibals is important I've decided to spend more time on my woodwork. Look I've made a peg!

The whole QAnon schtick is deeply anti-semitic. It's basically a version of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion for modern times, which was just a warmed over C19th version of the mediaeval blood libel against Jews. All of them being lies layered upon prejudice believed by credulous haters. c.nts.

Yeah. There's a lot of rehashed blood libel in QAnon

And the thing is, people don’t believe it because they’re stupid. They believe it because they *want to* and Trump effectively gave them permission to believe it.

[Martin Y]

Trump has just finished speaking in the Rose Garden, and part of me really wanted them to have booked an Olive Garden by mistake.

His toupée seems to have lost confidence. It's turning grey, perhaps hoping to attract a new symbiote.

Possibly in preparation for the 'Too ill to stand trial gambit'.

That would be a torment for Trump. I doubt he could pull it off. He'd have to remember to bite his tongue and not claim to be the fittest man who ever lived and an amazement to his doctors.

PS Hi, first poster.

[Woodchopper]

Interesting summary of reasons for Republican success in Texas by that Beto O’Rourke https://twitter.com/patricksvitek/statu ... 64257?s=21

tl;dr Democrats were complacent, Republicans put in more effort and were better at talking directly to voters.

[EACLucifer]

Any post election analysis really needs to consider the extent to which the Democrats were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. The effect of having more field officers is already known, but this election saw one campaign with a ground game, and one campaign choosing to put public health first. In addition, the differing voting methods preferred by those who took COVID seriously and those who did not likely helped the Republicans. They saw the sheer amount of mail and early vote coming in, and had time to mobilise as many voters as possible, often by going door to door in person, to counter what they knew would be a high Democrat turnout. The result? High turnout on both sides. Democrats got more votes in 2020 in Texas than Trump did in 2016, but Republican turnout increased to match it.

[EACLucifer]

Democracy Docket have a rather good summary of outstanding cases. It's clear Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pa is going to make things rather difficult for Republican challenges.

The key point of that case was basically that one cannot claim harm under the equal protection clause if "illegal votes" are counted and "dilute" one's vote, as they will "dilute" everybody's vote the same amount, meaning the harm is not individualised. Not that there is any "illegal voting" going on, but it does make things a lot harder for the Republicans because even if they can find a small amount of fraud - and there's usually a few cases, like the two Republicans who tried to cheat highlighted by John Fetterman - it's not enough to seek redress, as the lack of individualised harm means the plaintiffs will lack standing.

For example of the two outstanding cases in Georgia, one of them is going to really struggle because of this ruling, because it relies on the same asinine b.llsh.t that Bognet does, while the other outstanding case in Georgia is truly insane, filed by a crank, and is filled with problems. It seeks to overturn all postal votes based on complaints about the signature matching rules, as there was a rule change back in the spring. This rule change, though, I gather, was the implementation of a court order that held that Georgia's existing signature matching rules were unfair voter suppression. Anyone filing this sort of challenge is also going to be up against it for not filing it when the change was made, rather than waiting for hundreds of thousands to vote and then trying to have their votes tossed out.

We saw a similar approach in the Harris County drive through votes case, where this point was made by one of the dodgier Trump appointed judges, who also tossed the case out based on the same standing issues we see in Bognet and a number of others.

Please note, however, IANAAL, an A, or an L.

[Bird on a Fire]

I also anal, but I'm not really following that argument.

If Party A alleges that there have been loads of illegal votes for Party B, that doesn't "dilute everybody's vote equally": it dilutes party A's and bolsters party B's.

Or is it the case that the law they're trying to use means that harm must fall to specific individual people, so everyone who voted for Party A would be equally affected and therefore f.ck 'em?

[EACLucifer]

Or is it the case that the law they're trying to use means that harm must fall to specific individual people, so everyone who voted for Party A would be equally affected and therefore f.ck 'em?

Not just party A voters, everyone. Because they are trying to argue that their personal vote has been lessened in power, because in order to have standing, they need to have suffered individualised harm.

They are trying to use an argument that stops states using their own electoral college system to select presidential electors, which would allow the same disaparities in voting power within a state as we see at a national level, where the effect of a vote depends on where it is cast.

Higher turnout, legit or not legit, makes every single vote worth a smaller percentage of the overall vote, and the harm they are trying to claim is that their personal votes have been weakened. They aren't trying to argue the election result directly, they are trying to pick at the details in the hope of getting a ruling that will overturn the election result by making a spurious civil rights case.

In short, it's a procedural issue of who is allowed to challenge what, and they don't meet the test for having suffered real, individual, harm.

If you want more detail, or just certainty given I'm trying to pick this up as I go along, talk to an American Lawyer. (I am not an American lawyer, an American, or a lawyer, but if you scroll up, you'll see where I quoted the 3rd Circuit discussing exactly that. That case is the precedent some of the others will struggle with, and indeed at least one case that rested in part on the "dilution" claim has now withdrawn that part of the case in light of the Bognet judgement)

[lpm]

He concedes! Via Twitter obviously.

He won

[Woodchopper]

He concedes! Via Twitter obviously.

He won

Before people start celebrating
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 22304?s=21

[Little waster]

From Fox vi's the Grauniard

The former solicitor general of the United States, Ken Starr, appeared on the show alongside Tribe. He said he is favour of the legal challenges. “Everyone has heard, if his or her ears are open, anecdotal evidence, not proof, that people who should not have received those ballots received them,” he said. Tribe countered that when the cases Starr referenced were tested in court “every one of them has been shown empty or been withdrawn.

You'd think a former solicitor general might have the faintest of clues of how much legal weight third hand "hearsay" has.

[bjn]

From Fox vi's the Grauniard

The former solicitor general of the United States, Ken Starr, appeared on the show alongside Tribe. He said he is favour of the legal challenges. “Everyone has heard, if his or her ears are open, anecdotal evidence, not proof, that people who should not have received those ballots received them,” he said. Tribe countered that when the cases Starr referenced were tested in court “every one of them has been shown empty or been withdrawn.

You'd think a former solicitor general might have the faintest of clues of how much legal weight third hand "hearsay" has.

He does. That’s not the point of the challenges though, it’s to undermine the legitimacy of Biden in the eyes of Republicans.

[jdc]

I thought it was a fundraising drive to pay off the campaign debt.

[bjn]

I thought it was a fundraising drive to pay off the campaign debt.

That too.