Scrutable

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:05 pm**

On top of all that, even if Texas' lawsuit were somehow to succeed, they'd knock 62 electoral votes off Biden's count... and he would still win the election, 244 votes to 232.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:13 pm**

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:05 pm On top of all that, even if Texas' lawsuit were somehow to succeed, they'd knock 62 electoral votes off Biden's count... and he would still win the election, 244 votes to 232.

The idea (and I use the term quite loosely) is that the court would order that Trump won really and award those EC votes to Trump.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:17 pm**

But according to this they haven't asked for that - they've just asked for them "not to be counted". I fail to see how a court, even if it reached to point of giving Texas something, would give them something that they hadn't specifically asked for.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:19 pm**

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:17 pm But according to this they haven't asked for that - they've just asked for them "not to be counted". I fail to see how a court, even if it reached to point of giving Texas something, would give them something that they hadn't specifically asked for.

Incompetence is a preference for the habitual lawyer of what is known as
(Dank life)

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:36 pm**

FFS

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
1:44 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:25 pm**

FlammableFlower wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:36 pm FFS
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
1:44 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

If he intervenes, it ceases to be state vs state, and then the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction until it's been through the district and circuit courts.

And there's no case filed until the Supreme Court gives Texas permission to file. Which it won't.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:46 pm**

Texas AG Ken Paxton is currently under FBI investigation over bribery allegations.

Trump is currently handing out pardons like candy

I'm sure Ken Paxton's launching of a ludicrous lawsuit is entirely unrelated to either of these facts...

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:04 pm**

Trump concedes again! Second time, after his first concession of 15 November.

Accepts the reality of a Biden presidency but predicts it will be a disaster.

racistDonaldTrump wrote:the Biden Administration will be a scandal plagued mess for years to come

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:58 pm**

lpm wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:04 pm Trump concedes again! Second time, after his first concession of 15 November.

Accepts the reality of a Biden presidency but predicts it will be a disaster.

racistDonaldTrump wrote:the Biden Administration will be a scandal plagued mess for years to come

How long before he tweets out a "correction" to show he's not conceding (again)?

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:10 pm**

lpm wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:04 pm Trump concedes again! Second time, after his first concession of 15 November.

Accepts the reality of a Biden presidency but predicts it will be a disaster.

racistDonaldTrump wrote:the Biden Administration will be a scandal plagued mess for years to come

God, it's like a new irregular Latin verb.

Scandal:

You are scandalised
I am persecuted
They are corrupt
We are politically targeted

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:22 pm**

As written up in the WaPo:

In an editorial Friday, the Orlando Sentinel apologized for having endorsed Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) for reelection, citing his decision to support a lawsuit that seeks to negate the election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, four states where Trump lost to Biden.

“We apologize to our readers for endorsing Michael Waltz in the 2020 general election for Congress,” the publication’s editorial said. “We had no idea, had no way of knowing at the time, that Waltz was not committed to democracy. During our endorsement interview with the incumbent congressman, we didn’t think to ask, ‘Would you support an effort to throw out the votes of tens of millions of Americans in four states in order to overturn a presidential election and hand it to the person who lost, Donald Trump?’ Our bad.”

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm**

bolo wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:22 pm As written up in the WaPo:
In an editorial Friday, the Orlando Sentinel apologized for having endorsed Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) for reelection, citing his decision to support a lawsuit that seeks to negate the election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, four states where Trump lost to Biden.

“We apologize to our readers for endorsing Michael Waltz in the 2020 general election for Congress,” the publication’s editorial said. “We had no idea, had no way of knowing at the time, that Waltz was not committed to democracy. During our endorsement interview with the incumbent congressman, we didn’t think to ask, ‘Would you support an effort to throw out the votes of tens of millions of Americans in four states in order to overturn a presidential election and hand it to the person who lost, Donald Trump?’ Our bad.”

TBF who could have predicted that Trump-supporting Republicans would turn out to be a bunch of proto-fascist c.nts. I mean other than absolutely everyone obviously.

Presumably the Sentinel part is a Arthur C Clarke reference as they appear to have spent the last four years at the bottom of a lunar crater on the dark side of the moon or frozen under miles of ice on a Jovian satellite.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:44 pm**

Little waster wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm Presumably the Sentinel part is a Arthur C Clarke reference as they appear to have spent the last four years at the bottom of a lunar crater on the dark side of the moon or frozen under miles of ice on a Jovian satellite.

Possibly, although if so it was a prescient choice, given that the paper was established in 1876.

The Orlando Sentinel, btw, does better reporting on space news than any other general newspaper. They even have a whole separate section for it. But that's not because of Arthur Clarke. It's because Orlando is just a few miles from Cape Canaveral.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:46 pm**

bolo wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:44 pm
Little waster wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm Presumably the Sentinel part is a Arthur C Clarke reference as they appear to have spent the last four years at the bottom of a lunar crater on the dark side of the moon or frozen under miles of ice on a Jovian satellite.
Possibly, although if so it was a prescient choice, given that the paper was established in 1876.

The Orlando Sentinel, btw, does better reporting on space news than any other general newspaper. They even have a whole separate section for it. But that's not because of Arthur Clarke. It's because Orlando is just a few miles from Cape Canaveral.

Given that the ending of 3001 was scooped by Independence Day while 3001 was in the editing/publication phase leading A.C. Clarke to allege transtemporal plagiarism, that doesn't seem impossible

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:05 pm**

Senator votes against division, guess the party.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:16 pm**

Gfamily wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:05 pm Senator votes against division, guess the party.

From the libertarian wing.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:27 pm**

Gfamily wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:05 pm Senator votes against division, guess the party.

To be fair, the entire point of the Senate unanimous consent rule is that it requires unanimous consent. And it's not always a Republican who holds things up. For example, the coronavirus relief bill is currently being held up by two senators, one of whom is Bernie Sanders.*

Another question might be why it took the Senate so long to bring this bill to the floor, given that it passed the House in early July. There could have been plenty of time for passage under normal procedures on a 99-1 vote, if they hadn't left it until just before the end of the session to bring it up. Apparently the answer is something to do with moving the Department of Agriculture headquarters building. Nothing is ever simple in this town.

* Whether Sanders's reasons are good or bad is not my point.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:38 pm**

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear Texas's case.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:43 pm**

dyqik wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:38 pm Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear Texas's case.

Thank f.ck for that. 2 dissensions though.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:49 pm**

Grumble wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:43 pm
dyqik wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:38 pm Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear Texas's case.
Thank f.ck for that. 2 dissensions though.

Not really. Alito and Thomas believe that the Court must hear all cases between the states, and have always voted to allow states to file, but also explicitly said that they wouldn't grant the injunction requested even if they did agree to hear the case.

And they probably would have granted leave to file, and then dismissed the case for lack of standing, rather than refusing to grant leave to file due to lack of standing. Yes, it's a very fine distinction.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:28 am**

dyqik wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:49 pm
Grumble wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:43 pm
dyqik wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:38 pm Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear Texas's case.
Thank f.ck for that. 2 dissensions though.
Not really. Alito and Thomas believe that the Court must hear all cases between the states, and have always voted to allow states to file, but also explicitly said that they wouldn't grant the injunction requested even if they did agree to hear the case.

And they probably would have granted leave to file, and then dismissed the case for lack of standing, rather than refusing to grant leave to file due to lack of standing. Yes, it's a very fine distinction.

Not just probably, it's in their dissent. They both have a record of saying that all original jurisdiction cases should be heard, so it isn't a political thing, it's just their belief about procedure - 7 were happy to throw it out unheard, 2 wanted to hear it, then throw it out without granting relief.

The damage here, though, wasn't from any risk this lawsuit might succeed. Over half the republicans in the house supported an attempt to destroy democracy.

Their argument about changing rules re: mail in voting, incidentally, would apply to I think 39 states in the union, and Georgia - one of their targets - was not among them. (Biden would win something like 48-30 if all the votes from states that changed their mail in rules in the way the plaintiffs didn't like were excluded, FWIW).

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:33 am**

Unsurprisingly, the Texas GOP is now floating the idea of secession.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:34 am**

Texit?

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:41 am**

dyqik wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:33 am Unsurprisingly, the Texas GOP is now floating the idea of secession.

I suppose at 1-1 they've got a better record than other southern states at it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:32 am**

dyqik wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:33 am Unsurprisingly, the Texas GOP is now floating the idea of secession.

So Biden wins the electoral college 306 - 194? Plus, the Senate is now tied before the Georgia special elections, and the Democrats double their house majority!

Scrutable

US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election

Re: US Election