2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[horninchicago]

benedict roberts wont be able to spin around this one

I put nothing past him.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Cannot help but wonder if the Texas St AG lurks here, since we laid out this idea some time back -- "What starts here ...."

2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

I hope SCOTUS takes it up -- I want to see this idea fully vetted in public. If you like Con Law and federal court jurisdiction and procedure, this is juicy stuff. As mentioned in the original, our federal election system and procedures must be cleaned up. But the states need a kick in the butt first, apparently, before they are going to act. The SCOTUS could provide that needed kick with this

Here is part of what I wrote back on Nov 23 in here

.... Their first problem was the Constitution. Article II establishes that it is up to state legislatures to set election rules and policy. This was not a random idea. Just like with the Electoral College, they knew what they were doing.

The problem for Democrats is that Republicans control the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Arizona and Texas. The Left was unable to get lax voting rules past these state bodies. And so this is why they started suing. And, despite the R-controlled state legs, many of these states have alot of Dem judges. You probably already know about the Penn state supreme court which is full of partisan liberal judges (reminiscent of the FL state SC being in the bag for Al Gore back in the day).

Republicans did not fight these lawsuits as hard as they should have, in part due to money issues. Dems get essentially bottomless funding from Soros, Bloomberg, Wall Street and Big Tech. And so all over the country liberal state judges were approving all sort of weird and lax voting rules. It was a big mistake for Rs not to fight back harder (even Texas threw in the towel on some items). It's a problem and that problem is eventually going to get dropped back in John Roberts' lap (his earlier refusal to take a strong stand directly led to the problem we have right now. Kavanaugh also wobbled).

What is that problem? It is that the judicial branches in the these states started making new election rules, not the state legislatures, as required by the Constitution. So here we have an Article II issue (and probably a Separation of Powers issue)..."​

Next up, California/Washington/Oregon/Utah file suit against Texas to tell them how to run their elections. Maybe all the states can sue to declare Florida incompetente and get guardianship?

j/k It's why this case will go nowhere. It's very doubtful this case will "heard" by the SCOTUS.

 

[Joe Fan]

Ted denied

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Georgia, Michigan, Penn and Wisc were given until Thurs @ 3pm to respond to the filing by Texas

 

[Joe Fan]

Dershowitz gives us points for creativity but doesnt like the Texas suit --

"Will the Supreme Court take the case? Who knows. They’re never had it like this presented before, this is all novel. The whole case is a first impression. A+ for creativity, but whether or not it will work in the end is very doubtful.”​

 

[Joe Fan]

“one in a quadrillion to the 4th power”

 

[horninchicago]

“one in a quadrillion to the 4th power”

Hate this loon, but, obligatory...and what every loony liberal thinks.

 

[Captain9Dragons]

if SCOTUS doesnt take this up then they are no longer needed and can be excluded from the budget, cough , continuing resolution

 

[Garmel]

“one in a quadrillion to the 4th power”

Nope. The great statisticians on this board that go by the names Husker and NJLongHorn have already debunked it.

 

[OUBubba]

“one in a quadrillion to the 4th power”

NJ tore down this simplistic logic earlier. It's the equivalent of someone arguing the merits of the wishbone in the current NFL. The world changed since 2016. Two of the most despisable candidates that have ever been seen by a major party along with new waves of polarization and this whole global pandemic not seen since 1918.

 

[OUBubba]

if SCOTUS doesnt take this up then they are no longer needed and can be excluded from the budget, cough , continuing resolution

I'm sure that's the mindset over at Parler these days.

 

[humahuma]

If Trump is so despicable how did he receive more popular votes in 2020 vs 2016? Simple logic.

 

[Garmel]

NJ tore down this simplistic logic earlier. It's the equivalent of someone arguing the merits of the wishbone in the current NFL. The world changed since 2016. Two of the most despisable candidates that have ever been seen by a major party along with new waves of polarization and this whole global pandemic not seen since 1918.

NJ didn't tear **** down. NJ isn't a statistician and him making a definite assessment over a 10 page summary is hella stupid. Yes, 2016 is somewhat different than 2020 to a certain extent but let's not go overboard.

 

[Garmel]

Has anybody noticed the lack of statisticians/cyber experts that have tried to defend this election? That should tell you something.

 

[OUBubba]

If Trump is so despicable how did he receive more popular votes in 2020 vs 2016? Simple logic.

So you're gonna argue that he's not a polarizing candidate that 50.01% of the people find despicable? I'm embarrassed for my "Christian" friends who continue to support the most un-Christian leader that this country has seen to my knowledge. For what, to own the libs? I don't know anyone here personally to be embarrassed by your actions.

 

[Seattle Husker]

NJ didn't tear **** down. NJ isn't a statistician and him making a definite assessment over a 10 page summary is hella stupid. Yes, 2016 is somewhat different than 2020 to a certain extent but let's not go overboard.

Someone STILL hasn't actually attacked the argument. Avoidance is a ***** because when you evaluate NJ's post against what was written in the declaration he has a very strong case. This is what happens when you evaluate information for yourself. Insert obligatory projection of "MSM talking points blah blah blah".

 

[OUBubba]

Has anybody noticed the lack of statisticians/cyber experts that have tried to defend this election? That should tell you something.

They recounted Georgia. THEN THEY HAND COUNTED. Statisticians can't debate fact.

 

[Garmel]

Someone STILL hasn't actually attacked the argument. Avoidance is a ***** because when you evaluate NJ's post against what was written in the declaration he has a very strong case. This is what happens when you evaluate information for yourself.

Because none of us have all of the facts to defend or attack over a paltry 10 page summary. I'll take his word until more evidence is produced or he recants.

 

[Garmel]

They recounted Georgia. THEN THEY HAND COUNTED. Statisticians can't debate fact.

Which means absolutely nothing if you're counting the same fraudulent votes over and over again.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Because none of us have all of the facts to defend or attack over a paltry 10 page summary. I'll take his word until more evidence is produced.

That's a copout. Read pages 4-6 first before making that claim.

 

[Garmel]

Most of the Western world has gotten away from massive mail-in ballots due to fraud. Even democrats worried about election fraud from mail-ins until Trump came into office. The amount of uninformed opinion here is staggering.

 

[Garmel]

That's a copout. Read pages 4-6 first before making that claim.

I did read it. Give me the full paper. He very well could have left out important info.

 

[OUBubba]

The amount of uninformed opinion here is staggering.

On that we agree.

Colorado, Oregon have elections 100% by mail with no problems. I did a quick and dirty google search and the only information that backs up your claim is a Washington Examiner thing and I would label that slanted, at best. I may dig into a 56 page peice later. The quick of it is that the right wants to make voting more difficult. Compulsory registration, mail voting, early voting, voting on Saturday, making election day a holiday are all ways to increase turnout. Generally, one party is in favor of making voting more accessible and one is against it.

 

[humahuma]

So you're gonna argue that he's not a polarizing candidate that 50.01% of the people find despicable? I'm embarrassed for my "Christian" friends who continue to support the most un-Christian leader that this country has seen to my knowledge. For what, to own the libs? I don't know anyone here personally to be embarrassed by your actions.

I was not arguing, It's a simple question. You gave your opinion, Just wanted you to explain. Just because someone doesn't vote for a person is not an explanation. I hope you agree. And I assure you I am no Christian. I also don't want to own any Libs, extra mouths to feed, they whine too much, they would do all my drugs, and they would want too much free stuff. You have your opinion and I have mine, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Has anybody noticed the lack of statisticians/cyber experts that have tried to defend this election? That should tell you something.

It tells you one segment of the group so wants it to be true that they have woven seriously flawed data models and fantastical conspiracy theories while the majority of statisticians, economists, election experts etc. don't think its plausible enough to waste their time.

It someone signs an affidavit swearing eating a dozen donuts a day is healthy it it really worth anyone else's time to disprove the obvious? When/if necessary in a court of law I'm certain the local city and state attorneys defending their elections would enlist the use of statisticians to defend the claims.

 

[Garmel]

Good grief.

 

[Garmel]

It tells you one segment of the group so wants it to be true that they have woven seriously flawed data models and fantastical conspiracy theories while the majority of statisticians, economists, election experts etc. don't think its plausible enough to waste their time.

It someone signs an affidavit swearing eating a dozen donuts a day is healthy it it really worth anyone else's time to disprove the obvious? When/if necessary in a court of law I'm certain the local city and state attorneys defending their elections would enlist the use of statisticians to defend the claims.

You do not have the expertise to assess if somebody's models are flawed. Like I said, many of these experts are not fly-by-nighters. They're way smarter than you and me. They haven't said anything outrageous. I'm looking back and I still can't find a major issue you've been right on but yet you talk with confidence. Best minds in the business are helping Trump's team but somehow they're all nuts/wrong but Husker knows more than them. Delusion at its finest.

Like I said you'll have a hard time finding anybody trying to defend Biden's win because they can't. Most people would love to prove these "Trump" statisticians wrong but they can't do it. Deal with it.

Conspiracies? Yeah, sure. From the guy creaming his britches over the hearsay witnesses in the impeachment trial. However, you ignore hundreds of witnesses that back up what the statheads are saying. You would love to have the witnesses that we have.

 

[Horn6721]

"The GOP needs to purge it's extremists."
All that was said was a willingness to give own life

How about this?

 

[Garmel]

In all seriousness, Husker get some experts on your side that you can quote or just keep quiet. I'm sick of your uninformed opinions about things that are obviously way above your head.