Scrutable

lpm wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:50 pm No. It can't be real. Because that's not how you'd do it.

Some bloke would be tasked with writing the two versions, probably via email. Perfectly sensible to prepare both options before election day. The emails of drafts would go back and forth until somebody at Number 10 approved the final version of each text.

When the election result was confirmed somebody would have been told to copy and paste those approved words onto the slide format. There's no reason why both versions would ever get Ctrl-C Ctrl-V'ed onto the template. Even Four Seaons Graphic Design simply copy and paste your words on top of whatever graphics they've prepared.

You assume some measure of competence. I'm just surprised it wasn't handwritten in crayon, photographed with a phone, emailed to a gmail account, printed out on a cheap inkjet printer, scanned and *then* posted.

And this is the sort of sh.t Biden, Harris and Democrats generally are up against. I know US First Amendment rights are fairly broad but this surely borders on treason:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-09- ... -line.html

On the plus side, I tried to write a FB post about it but the link was blocked as spam, so while Adams' subscribers are seeing this, it's not getting massive wider circulation.

bjn wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:00 am

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:46 pm My understanding is that, other than delaying tactics, it matters little what the Senate does at the joint sitting because you need a vote of the Senate and a vote of the House to disqualify electoral college votes otherwise they count. I fully expect the Republicans to try and disqualify votes, but it will be unlikely for them to get the House to agree.

The optics of trying to steal the election at this stage are going to look bad and, Trump's base notwithstanding, likely to hurt future political promotion.

The optics are going to look good for the 70% of Republicans who think the election was stolen. With any luck this will split the republicans, but more likely the crazies will be even more in charge after a purge.

Worth remembering that registered Republicans does not equal Republican voters. We saw what happens when a party listens to its members but not its voters in the UK with Corbynism and its disastrous failure to stop Johnson. In the USA, the Virginia Republican Party going full tea party in response to the state going blue for Obama in 2008 soon left the state a genuine blue state.

https://www.ayrshiredailynews.co.uk/pos ... 6tkzz0-GMU

Important media outlet calls election. Surely it's all over now?

JQH wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:54 am And this is the sort of sh.t Biden, Harris and Democrats generally are up against. I know US First Amendment rights are fairly broad but this surely borders on treason:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-09- ... -line.html

On the plus side, I tried to write a FB post about it but the link was blocked as spam, so while Adams' subscribers are seeing this, it's not getting massive wider circulation.

Did you try this link?

Allo V Psycho wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:16 am https://www.ayrshiredailynews.co.uk/pos ... 6tkzz0-GMU

Important media outlet calls election. Surely it's all over now?

My daughter told me of that.

A bit of debate right now over whether or not the Lincoln Project are right to go after Jones Day for their dubious lawyerly activities in service of Trump.

Normally, I wouldn't be in favour, but I think in this case I am, for the following reasons.

If they really intend them to succeed, the lawsuits seek to totally disenfranchise major cities - notably ones with a rather high black population - to overturn the results of state elections to try and retain power for a man who lost those elections, lost the popular vote by an overwhelming margin, and by seeking to overturn these, shows he is dangerous and unfit to rule*. The lawsuits they are filing, if they intend to actually win them, would destroy democracy in the USA. Seriously, this is not hyperbole. They want to block Pennsylvania from certifying results. The destruction of democracy in the USA must be resisted by what ever means are required to resist it - even insurrection and war if it came to it, which it probably won't - publically denouncing a law firm for engaging in such behaviour is certainly within the realm of acceptable behaviour to defend democracy, even if it is against some norms the law firm in question would prefer to hide behind.

If they do not intend to win, then they have knowingly submitted frivolous lawsuits - something that lawyers are very much not meant to do - and it is obvious by now that Trump is using the existence of these lawsuits to obstruct the transition of power, blocking the usual transition processes and even seeking out staff for a second term he has not won. His allies are talking about "a peaceful transition to a second Trump term". Jones Day must know that the frivolous suits they have filed are enabling obstructionism that will come at a very real cost, as by slowing the Biden team now, they will delay their efforts to fight the pandemic, and create a dangerous gap in oversight of national security, as well as perpetuating a state of chaos and confusion in which misinformation will proliferate and violence is disturbingly likely.

In short, whether or not the lawsuits are frivolous or actually meant to succeed, I think the Lincoln Project's tactics - using the power of public shaming to try and undermine Jones Day's client base and incite an employee revolt - are proportionate and justified.


*And all the other times he's shown he is dangerous and unfit to rule, obviously.

bjn wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:00 am The optics are going to look good for the 70% of Republicans who think the election was stolen. With any luck this will split the republicans, but more likely the crazies will be even more in charge after a purge.

Nearly 80% of Americans, including more than half of Republicans, recognize President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the Nov. 3 election

Biden is being extremely cool about this, merely describing Trump's refusal to concede as "an embarrassment". I think he has probably worked out that anything more than that would only inflame the frootloops, while making no difference if there was in fact a coup in progress. And I also suspect that he has ears to the ground in Congress and believes that nothing very bad is going to happen. He knows the place inside out and has genuine friends among the non-frootloop Republicans, many of whom are just saying what they need to in order to not get primaried.

The new (or renewed) President has to be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 20 January. I really don't see how that's going to be Trump.

(And if I'm wrong about all the above, we will be soooooo f.cked that any derision that might be poured on me in the hours before this forum evaporates along with most of wherever the servers are located will be of no concern whatsoever.)

One for the number geeks:-

Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am ...even if it is against some norms the law firm in question would prefer to hide behind...

I don't think anyone in or supporting the Republican party's attempt to undermine or destroy democracy can complain about the other side breaking norms.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:00 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am ...even if it is against some norms the law firm in question would prefer to hide behind...

I don't think anyone in or supporting the Republican party's attempt to undermine or destroy democracy can complain about the other side breaking norms.

Exactly.

Meanwhile, I'm very much leaning towards frivolous, based on things like Trump's lawyers having to dismiss their own appeal. Most of his litigation couldn't come close to changing the results anyway, it's things like whining that there's something wrong - but when pressed by the judge saying they don't mean fraud - with 500 votes or so here or there. It's just a smokescreen.

A smokescreen designed to destroy confidence in democracy, politicise voting rights to undermine efforts against voter suppression, and create enough confusion that Trump can cause a lot of harm on the way out. f.ck 'em. They should have their moolis nailed to the fence.

Some courts have 'vexatious litigants' lists...not quite a blanket blacklist (not here at least, as far as I know) but it could come in handy here...

It's honestly pretty galling to see someone abuse the court system like this, even in another country.

Little waster wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:42 am One for the number geeks:-

Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

Valuable stuff. I'd seen someone on Quora going on about how "Benford's law proves 'fraud'", so if it comes up again I can post a link to that.

I'm sure it'll lead to a retraction and apology for the mistake.

sTeamTraen wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:40 am The new (or renewed) President has to be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 20 January. I really don't see how that's going to be Trump.

There is no requirement for him to be sworn in at the Capitol by any particular person at any particular time. It's just tradition. For example, if 20 Jan is a Sunday this formal oath taking is on Mon 21st.

The office leaves Trump at noon on 20 January. Biden becomes President at the same moment. He cannot formally execute the office until he has taken the oath, however, as it's part of the constitution that the oath be taken. Typically the oath happens a couple of minutes after noon.

If Trump has tanks surrounding the Capitol on 20 January and justices locked up, Biden can simply take the oath somewhere else in front of any notary public. Coolidge was sworn in by his dad. Any federal judge would be a suitable witness.

Presumably Trump could also take the oath at the same time, in front of any corrupt notary public.

Gfamily wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:16 pm

Little waster wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:42 am One for the number geeks:-

Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

Valuable stuff. I'd seen someone on Quora going on about how "Benford's law proves 'fraud'", so if it comes up again I can post a link to that.

I'm sure it'll lead to a retraction and apology for the mistake.

hahahahahahahahaha oh gfamily, you do make me laugh

Little waster wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:42 am One for the number geeks:-

Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

Great video, thanks

discovolante wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:14 pm Some courts have 'vexatious litigants' lists...not quite a blanket blacklist (not here at least, as far as I know) but it could come in handy here...

It's honestly pretty galling to see someone abuse the court system like this, even in another country.

I've seen discussion of Section 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure* that apparently allows sanction for attorneys who are dishonest or file frivolous suits, but apparently it is seldom used.

*I think, this is from memory.

lpm wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:19 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:40 am The new (or renewed) President has to be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 20 January. I really don't see how that's going to be Trump.

There is no requirement for him to be sworn in at the Capitol by any particular person at any particular time. It's just tradition. For example, if 20 Jan is a Sunday this formal oath taking is on Mon 21st.

The office leaves Trump at noon on 20 January. Biden becomes President at the same moment. He cannot formally execute the office until he has taken the oath, however, as it's part of the constitution that the oath be taken. Typically the oath happens a couple of minutes after noon.

If Trump has tanks surrounding the Capitol on 20 January and justices locked up, Biden can simply take the oath somewhere else in front of any notary public. Coolidge was sworn in by his dad. Any federal judge would be a suitable witness.

Presumably Trump could also take the oath at the same time, in front of any corrupt notary public.

Could be fun if they both tried to be President at the same time, like back when there were two popes for a bit. You'd have the crazier red states, which are mostly poor, corrupt and dysfunctional already, being led by their personification El Trumpo, while Joey B tries to get on with being sensible, having command of all the major economic centres (except perhaps the ones in Texas), the armed forces and so on.

Obviously by "fun" I mean "civil war" and it would be better if it didn't happen, but it'll be a fun concept for a Netflix series in a few years.

Working Title: The AntiPOTUS

dyqik wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:36 pm Working Title: The AntiPOTUS

Ooh nice

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:58 pm

discovolante wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:14 pm Some courts have 'vexatious litigants' lists...not quite a blanket blacklist (not here at least, as far as I know) but it could come in handy here...

It's honestly pretty galling to see someone abuse the court system like this, even in another country.

I've seen discussion of Section 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure* that apparently allows sanction for attorneys who are dishonest or file frivolous suits, but apparently it is seldom used.

*I think, this is from memory.

My father was once a witness in a case where a colleague sued the university after being denied tenure. The judge found the case to be frivolous and banned the lawyer from appearing in court again until he had taken a course in legal ethics.

loser.com

AMS wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:07 pmloser.com

I've been back to it three times now, cracks me up every single time.

bolo wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:57 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:58 pm

discovolante wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:14 pm Some courts have 'vexatious litigants' lists...not quite a blanket blacklist (not here at least, as far as I know) but it could come in handy here...

It's honestly pretty galling to see someone abuse the court system like this, even in another country.

I've seen discussion of Section 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure* that apparently allows sanction for attorneys who are dishonest or file frivolous suits, but apparently it is seldom used.

*I think, this is from memory.

My father was once a witness in a case where a colleague sued the university after being denied tenure. The judge found the case to be frivolous and banned the lawyer from appearing in court again until he had taken a course in legal ethics.

Yeah...it's probably not a power that should be lightly used, there is a genuine 'access to justice' issue (although banning lawyers and banning litigants are separate things obviously) and I don't think anyone should be stopped from advancing what is just a bad case - there are mechanisms in place to protect the other side in that situation, some more effective than others - partly because the line between a bad case and a frivolous/vexatious one isn't always that obvious. And objectively speaking, voter fraud is a genuinely important constitutional issue, but maybe just not when there is no evidence of it, at least not to the extent that there's any possibility at all that it might make the slightest bit of difference to the outcome you're actually seeking...although this is largely hypothetical for me because I've not actually been following the lawsuits properly at all, heh.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:28 pm

lpm wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:19 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:40 am The new (or renewed) President has to be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 20 January. I really don't see how that's going to be Trump.

There is no requirement for him to be sworn in at the Capitol by any particular person at any particular time. It's just tradition. For example, if 20 Jan is a Sunday this formal oath taking is on Mon 21st.

The office leaves Trump at noon on 20 January. Biden becomes President at the same moment. He cannot formally execute the office until he has taken the oath, however, as it's part of the constitution that the oath be taken. Typically the oath happens a couple of minutes after noon.

If Trump has tanks surrounding the Capitol on 20 January and justices locked up, Biden can simply take the oath somewhere else in front of any notary public. Coolidge was sworn in by his dad. Any federal judge would be a suitable witness.

Presumably Trump could also take the oath at the same time, in front of any corrupt notary public.

Could be fun if they both tried to be President at the same time, like back when there were two popes for a bit.

Three, between 1378 and 1417.