US Election

[dyqik]

I’ve skipped numerous pages of this thread because, well, there were a lot. But I see people getting very agitated about Trump 2024 where a few weeks ago it seemed like we were doubting whether Trump would keep the dementia at bay long enough to make it through Trump 2020. Has something changed?

Nothing has really changed, but it'll last a year or two and mean only crazy GOPers keep support.

[Woodchopper]

I’ve skipped numerous pages of this thread because, well, there were a lot. But I see people getting very agitated about Trump 2024 where a few weeks ago it seemed like we were doubting whether Trump would keep the dementia at bay long enough to make it through Trump 2020. Has something changed?

The thing to worry about isn't Trump, but Trumpism. Whether or not the Donald runs in 2024, there will likely be a Trumpist candidate who attracts the voters who supported him this time around. That could be Donald, or one of his kids, or someone else within the Republicans.

Anyway, I don't think he has dementia. He's shown ample cognitive ability over the last few months. (Please don't post things showing that he got stuff wrong, Trump is intellectually lazy, doesn't give a sh.t and lies all the time).

[lpm]

He is "running in 2024" because:

1) Fools send him money and he likes money and likes expoiting people even more

2) It allows him to present the investigations and prosecutions as political attacks

He is of course not really running in 2024.

[dyqik]

It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

[FlammableFlower]

And Giuliani's mask-less antics have caused Arizona's legislature to shutdown for a week

[dyqik]

And Giuliani's mask-less antics have caused Arizona's legislature to shutdown for a week

Which is particularly special, as their plan to overturn the election requires the state legislatures to appoint fake Electors within the week.

[Vertigowooyay]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... protesters

But remember everyone, it's antifa and BLM who are the real terrorists. Apparently.

[dyqik]

It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

Two down by 11:30am.

[dyqik]

It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

Two down by 11:30am.

Two more lawsuits filed. Alleging things in state courts that the state Supreme Courts have already rejected outright.

[tenchboy]

It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

Two down by 11:30am.

Two more lawsuits filed. Alleging things in state courts that the state Supreme Courts have already rejected outright.

So they are just going through the motions with no intention of continuance: making a big publicity show, spending a few grands worth of dollars on useless filings and preliminary hearings that are designed to fail, whilst raking in millions of dollars from their gullible fan base.
Grifters: what a Sting!

[dyqik]

New Lolsuit.

Texas is trying to sue Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over how those states ran their elections. In other words, Texas is trying to overturn the idea of States' Rights.

Which I'm sure will be popular in Texas.

[bmforre]

Trump trying hard to sabotage election results
Question: Are these attempts impeachable?

[dyqik]

Trump trying hard to sabotage election results
Question: Are these attempts impeachable?

Obviously yes. But also obviously wouldn't lead to a conviction and removal.

[FlammableFlower]

So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

[bmforre]

A call for impeachment may serve as a useful reminder of how treasonous it is trying to overturn an election.

[bmforre]

Security official sues Trump campaign and lawyer for defamation.

I feel stronger accusations would fit in this case:

Christopher Krebs, who was fired Nov. 17 by President Trump after he refuted the president’s claims of widespread election fraud, singled out comments made almost two weeks later by attorney Joseph diGenova, who said Krebs should face the same punishment inflicted on those convicted of treason because he had asserted that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.

“He should be drawn and quartered,” diGenova said on the outlet Newsmax, a third defendant. “Taken out at dawn and shot.”

Would the attorney have Krebs shot before or after the security official were drawn and quartered? *
Or will the attorney claim his proposal is a joke and no threat?

* Hint: The condemned used to be hanged first but cut down while still alive so they could experience the following slaughter properly.

[dyqik]

So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

Chance of success is zero. Another PA case was dismissed just now, btw.

The electors are certified, the cases are dismissed, and state law gives the power to certify electors to the Governor, not the legislature. They could try and make a retroactive change to the law, but a) they aren't in session, b) the State Supreme Court would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional (State constitution) and c) the Governor has a veto over it.

If the Senate votes to dispute the PA electoral slate (the House won't, as it has a D majority), then the Governor's say-so breaks the tie.

[dyqik]

A call for impeachment may serve as a useful reminder of how treasonous it is trying to overturn an election.

It'd just be called a politically motivated attack, and be taken as further evidence that the Democrats were stealing the election.

[dyqik]

So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

Chance of success is zero. Another PA case was dismissed just now, btw.

The electors are certified, the cases are dismissed, and state law gives the power to certify electors to the Governor, not the legislature. They could try and make a retroactive change to the law, but a) they aren't in session, b) the State Supreme Court would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional (State constitution) and c) the Governor has a veto over it.

If the Senate votes to dispute the PA electoral slate (the House won't, as it has a D majority), then the Governor's say-so breaks the tie.

And SCOTUS has now denied the PA appeal to them.

[dyqik]

New Lolsuit.

Texas is trying to sue Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over how those states ran their elections. In other words, Texas is trying to overturn the idea of States' Rights.

Which I'm sure will be popular in Texas.

They're expert testimony proving that there was fraud is online. There's pages of statistics showing that Biden's vote percentages weren't the same as Clinton's votes, and that the timing of votes reported are statistically different to a random distribution.

See this Twitter thread

[lpm]

The Texas suit cannot go anywhere because they can't get standing.

As a reminder, the 3 tests that the plaintiff must prove to get Federal courts involved are:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact". This means an injury which is "(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent".
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

They can't show injury to Texas as their right to vote was not hurt. They cannot prove causal connection. There is no possible redress that a court could give Texas.

[Vertigowooyay]

So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

Chance of success is zero. Another PA case was dismissed just now, btw.

The electors are certified, the cases are dismissed, and state law gives the power to certify electors to the Governor, not the legislature. They could try and make a retroactive change to the law, but a) they aren't in session, b) the State Supreme Court would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional (State constitution) and c) the Governor has a veto over it.

If the Senate votes to dispute the PA electoral slate (the House won't, as it has a D majority), then the Governor's say-so breaks the tie.

And SCOTUS has now denied the PA appeal to them.

How it started:

279F0692-D1C2-4035-9E44-FC874C0EA515.jpeg (107.14 KiB) Viewed 3354 times

How it’s going shortly after that:

D5589C67-95AC-42F0-8C8B-6FA6EE06B342.jpeg (53.39 KiB) Viewed 3354 times

It’s so unfair. I mean, he *bought* that Supreme Court. It’s almost as if... they don’t need him any more

[dyqik]

The Texas suit cannot go anywhere because they can't get standing.

As a reminder, the 3 tests that the plaintiff must prove to get Federal courts involved are:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact". This means an injury which is "(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent".
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

They can't show injury to Texas as their right to vote was not hurt. They cannot prove causal connection. There is no possible redress that a court could give Texas.

It's a bit different in that a state can only sue another state in the Supreme Court, they can't go via the lower courts.

But the Supreme Court usually only grants requests for leave to file if there's no other venue for deciding the issue, even with different plaintiffs. And Texas doesn't have standing to sue another state over Presidential elections, even if it did suffer harm - the Constitution explicitly gives the states authority to run their own elections.

[lpm]

Yes, reading up about the law, it's an "original action" which is a state vs state case, which is federal. But the plaintiff still has the burden of proving standing.

Republicans don't want any of these cases to succeed. If Texas wins now, then California could sue Florida next time - claiming Florida's voter suppression injures California.

[dyqik]

Yes, reading up about the law, it's an "original action" which is a state vs state case, which is federal. But the plaintiff still has the burden of proving standing.

Republicans don't want any of these cases to succeed. If Texas wins now, then California could sue Florida next time - claiming Florida's voter suppression injures California.

It could sue Texas immediately, because Texas changed the rules around dropboxes and absentee voting multiple times during the election. And Florida for ignoring it's own referendum that enfranchised felons.