Scrutable

Little waster wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:16 pm 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countered that when the cases Starr referenced were tested in court “every one of them has been shown empty or been withdrawn.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.

“inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.” as Judge Stephens put it when laughing such a case out of court.

Trump has gone totally insane. His latest tweet storm is basically fomenting civil war.

Well they're dropping another big section of their lawsuits, this time in Philly. It'll once again leave them with nothing to actually have an effect on the outcome of the election, even if there was something to the remaining challenges there.

This is all about poisoning the well for the incoming administration. They want 4 years of angry Fox pundits ensuring people think the Democrats are anti-US.

It's laying tbe groundwork for power by any means. Lindsey Graham said it aloud, "If we win, it's because of our ideas, if they win it's because they stole the election"

Those Georgia Senate seats are looking more and more important by the day.

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:09 am Well they're dropping another big section of their lawsuits, this time in Philly. It'll once again leave them with nothing to actually have an effect on the outcome of the election, even if there was something to the remaining challenges there.

This is all about poisoning the well for the incoming administration. They want 4 years of angry Fox pundits ensuring people think the Democrats are anti-US.

It's laying tbe groundwork for power by any means. Lindsey Graham said it aloud, "If we win, it's because of our ideas, if they win it's because they stole the election"

Whereas in reality, the GOP's ideas are popular with less than half of GOP voters, a smaller percentage of independents, and almost no Democrat voters.

Over half of Republican voters support Obamacare, want action on climate change, support some redistribution of wealth, support Medicare and Social Security, support gay marriage, support Roe v Wade, and support the existence of the Federal Government.

dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:36 pm
Over half of Republican voters support Obamacare, want action on climate change, support some redistribution of wealth, support Medicare and Social Security, support gay marriage, support Roe v Wade, and support the existence of the Federal Government.

And yet .....

Little waster wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:38 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:36 pm
Over half of Republican voters support Obamacare, want action on climate change, support some redistribution of wealth, support Medicare and Social Security, support gay marriage, support Roe v Wade, and support the existence of the Federal Government.

And yet .....

They vote Republican because they are Republicans, damnit, and don't want the atheist communist Catholic Joe Biden in charge.

Identity politics is stronger than policy politics, and GOP cheating and gerrymandering (including the default gerrymandering in the Senate and EC) is powerful.

dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:40 pm

Little waster wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:38 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:36 pm
Over half of Republican voters support Obamacare, want action on climate change, support some redistribution of wealth, support Medicare and Social Security, support gay marriage, support Roe v Wade, and support the existence of the Federal Government.

And yet .....

They vote Republican because they are Republicans, damnit, and don't want the atheist communist Catholic Joe Biden in charge.

Identity politics is stronger than policy politics, and GOP cheating and gerrymandering (including the default gerrymandering in the Senate and EC) is powerful.

Probably a bit more complicated than that. You need to look at strength of support for those and other issues. For example, a hypothetical Republican voter might tick the box when asked about the above causes, but actually care far more about tax cuts.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:40 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:40 pm

Little waster wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:38 pm

And yet .....

They vote Republican because they are Republicans, damnit, and don't want the atheist communist Catholic Joe Biden in charge.

Identity politics is stronger than policy politics, and GOP cheating and gerrymandering (including the default gerrymandering in the Senate and EC) is powerful.

Probably a bit more complicated than that. You need to look at strength of support for those and other issues. For example, a hypothetical Republican voter might tick the box when asked about the above causes, but actually care far more about tax cuts.

That's more of the identity politics - the GOP raised taxes on a large number of voters in 2017/18, and those taxes will go up some more in the next couple of years as some of the cuts expire. Trump is floating plans that will kill Social Security and Medicare within 4 years. But my mother-in-law, who is dependent on Social Security and Medicare, votes GOP (didn't actually vote this time around, though) because it's good for her pocketbook. Yet any real analysis shows that GOP policies make the middle-class poorer.

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?

And here's another one about split-ticket voting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8

This one is in the "not even wrong" category.

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:09 am Well they're dropping another big section of their lawsuits, this time in Philly. It'll once again leave them with nothing to actually have an effect on the outcome of the election, even if there was something to the remaining challenges there.

This is all about poisoning the well for the incoming administration. They want 4 years of angry Fox pundits ensuring people think the Democrats are anti-US.

It's laying tbe groundwork for power by any means. Lindsey Graham said it aloud, "If we win, it's because of our ideas, if they win it's because they stole the election"

And yet, he made an attempt at stealing it himself.

Lindsey Graham tried to pressure the Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffenperger, to throw out counties worth of legal mail ballots.

He really is one of the vilest politicians in Washington, and that's a hell of a title to be awarding.

This is going to be a shitshow.

That said, I'm curious about who is actually writing the Trump lawsuits. In this case, he's got a talkshow host/general practioner representing him in district court, and in another, it's a divorce lawyer. Despite that, the filings are mostly properly written and appropriate to the court, a terrible hand played by someone who still knows the rules of the game - yet they are supposedly by people who haven't got the right background. I can't help but wonder if they are being ghostwritten. It would hardly be the first time Trump's tried to use the DOJ as his personal lawyers.

ETA: To be clear, this is speculation based on the details of the lawsuits, the opinion of American lawyers about those lawsuits, the details of the lawyers who are officially involved and prior Trump form abusing the justice department as if they were his own lawyers, it isn't based on new or specific information.

ETA2: The motion that was denied in the attached judgement needs context I initially failed to provide. Trump's side of things changed lawyers the day before the case and tried to get the hearing delayed. The judge did not indulge them, so a legal general practioner/talkshow host is going to be up in front of a district judge with about 24 hours prep after being told he is expected to be prepared

Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

If there's a central control of the lawsuits, there will be someone writing the submissions, and then a local lawyer qualified in that jurisdiction to plead them. Most likely the person writing the submissions isn't qualified in more than one, if any, of the states they are suing in. However, since many of the cases are under state law, that could get messy.

The degree of lies in the submissions means that they are having to find lawyers that don't care about getting disbarred or are true Trump believers to plead them. Neither of which says much about the quality of the lawyer. It's possible that it's just that the lawyer writing the submissions doesn't want to face the music for lies in the pleadings.

dyqik wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:49 pm If there's a central control of the lawsuits, there will be someone writing the submissions, and then a local lawyer qualified in that jurisdiction to plead them. Most likely the person writing the submissions isn't qualified in more than one, if any, of the states they are suing in. However, since many of the cases are under state law, that could get messy.

The degree of lies in the submissions means that they are having to find lawyers that don't care about getting disbarred or are true Trump believers to plead them. Neither of which says much about the quality of the lawyer. It's possible that it's just that the lawyer writing the submissions doesn't want to face the music for lies in the pleadings.

And who don't mind working for someone infamous for not paying his lawyers

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

In some states they start with "Now comes the plaintiff".

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

It's like a Daily Express headline

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:39 pm

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

It's like a Daily Express headline

I think it should be followed by 'LIVE FROM THE PALLADIUM!..."

I did mention this was going to be a shitshow, right? Guiliani wants to get involved in his first federal court case in nearly three decades.

sTeamTraen wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:16 pm

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

In some states they start with "Now comes the plaintiff".

That is redolent of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k, though.

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:26 pm
I did mention this was going to be a shitshow, right? Guiliani wants to get involved in his first federal court case in nearly three decades.

Twitter is saying nice Mr Giuliani lied to the court in his submssion. He claims he is a member of the bar in Washington DC. But he has been suspended from the bar for not paying his subs.

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

ETERNITY

sTeamTraen wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:16 pm

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

In some states they start with "Now comes the plaintiff".

And then they drop a massive beat, right?

lpm wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:03 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:26 pm
I did mention this was going to be a shitshow, right? Guiliani wants to get involved in his first federal court case in nearly three decades.

Twitter is saying nice Mr Giuliani lied to the court in his submssion. He claims he is a member of the bar in Washington DC. But he has been suspended from the bar for not paying his subs.

I would be quite frankly surprised if the above were not true. Shame, I was hoping we'd get some blatant perjury.

insignificant wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:32 pm

discovolante wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:09 pm Heh, I like how Pennsylvania court orders start 'AND NOW'.

ETERNITY

Hahaha, that too.