Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House, Fox News projects

[abum 324]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

You are funny while ignoring all the evidence amassed of the corruption of the Biden family.

this is classic example non-sequitur and also Projection, something the Trump worshippers are emulating from the Liar InChief

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-success-of-smoke-and-mirrors/533706/

[Prizm123 1,086]

19 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well tbh with you I don't know that much on that but I am learning. But I do know more about national security issues

it seems everyone has that one thing they seem to specialize in. even as amateurs, as i freely admit i am, and like you i am making an effort to learn other things. we disagree a lot, but i can respect where you are coming from and have let out an occasional touche or well played sir in your direction

[abum 324]

6 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/68MAP2020pco-104617959120808426.pdf

 

as i was saying about this state case.

 

 

We need the Kraken to be re-unleashed!!!!

 

It would have been biblical!

 

so we're back to 306-223?

 

Shellacking!

[abum 324]

6 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

It takes away 20 electors from the EC. He just needs two more states taken away in order to make it a contingent election. Which has happened in the past

It is actually in the injunction that the electors can't be seated

so this is moot now. can SCOTUS take a case that has been dismissed with Prejudice?

[Dashinka 24,507]

31 minutes ago, abum said:

this is classic example non-sequitur and also Projection, something the Trump worshippers are emulating from the Liar InChief

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-success-of-smoke-and-mirrors/533706/

It all goes both ways in politics.  No one in DC is clean especially someone like Old Joe.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Except you don't even have to be a constitutional novice. It's right there. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. It's also been discus ad nauseam in every news outlet and cable news channel for about the last three months.

It isn't, it doesn't say it's a majority of the electors present and doesn't say a thing about subtracting a state's electors that don't vote it only says majority of electors. We have past instances right when 12A was passed of contingent elections so its pretty easy to understand you're actually wrong, and a higher number of electors alone isn't sufficient. What you'll find if you use your beloved Google is the term absolute majority. An understanding between simple vs absolute majority helps. The simple majority concept you're using is one applied to the Senate for normal votes requiring a simple majority of those present and voting. The Kavanaugh confirmation vote is an example.

 

You're welcome 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Here is the thing. One state aint gonna make a difference.  If the Shoe was on the other foot Biden would be doing the same thing and all you supporting Trump would be crying foul and all those supporting Biden would be convinced he had been cheated out of the election. 

 

The election is over. Let the hypocrisy continue on both sides. If you think much is gonna change you are delusional 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

WE'RE GONNA GO TO PENNSYLVANIA, THEN WE'RE GONNA GO MICHIGAN, THEN TO WISCONSIN, THEN GEORGIA, THEN ARIZONA, THEN NEVADA, THEN PEBBLE BEACH, THEN AUGUSTA... YEAAAAAAH!

 

 

[abum 324]

2 hours ago, moxy said:

Except you don't even have to be a constitutional novice. It's right there. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. It's also been discus ad nauseam in every news outlet and cable news channel for about the last three months.

 

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It isn't, it doesn't say it's a majority of the electors present and doesn't say a thing about subtracting a state's electors that don't vote it only says majority of electors. We have past instances right when 12A was passed of contingent elections so its pretty easy to understand you're actually wrong, and a higher number of electors alone isn't sufficient. What you'll find if you use your beloved Google is the term absolute majority. An understanding between simple vs absolute majority helps. The simple majority concept you're using is one applied to the Senate for normal votes requiring a simple majority of those present and voting. The Kavanaugh confirmation vote is an example.

 

You're welcome 

 

you could not be anymore wrong. Now you are just conflating between Senate voting on confirmation vs Selecting a US President.  If you read the constitution cited here by @moxy , then you should have understood the simple language being used. 

 

Quote

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

 

See NUMBER OF ELECTORS APPOINTED. 

 

and require the MAJORITY

 

 

 

 

[Prizm123 1,086]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Here is the thing. One state aint gonna make a difference.  If the Shoe was on the other foot Biden would be doing the same thing and all you supporting Trump would be crying foul and all those supporting Biden would be convinced he had been cheated out of the election.

not really. speaking for myself, i accepted it as soon as it was plain to see in 2016. not a word about any sort of wrongdoing or suppression or any of that. so, your blanket assumption has already been proven wrong.

would have been the same if biden didnt win. i wouldnt be happy, but i would have accepted it.

 

thats the difference between me and the folks who parrot these ridiculous claims about voting machines switching votes and votes not being counted correctly  and those idiotic conspiracy garbage regurgitated from places like oan or newsmax or q anon ad nauseum

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Prizm123

[abum 324]

11 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

not really. speaking for myself, i accepted it as soon as it was plain to see in 2016. not a word about any sort of wrongdoing or suppression or any of that. so, your blanket assumption has already been proven wrong.

would have been the same if biden didnt win. i wouldnt be happy, but i would have accepted it.

 

thats the difference between me and the folks who parrot these ridiculous claims about voting machines switching votes and votes not being counted correctly  and those idiotic conspiracy garbage regurgitated from places like oan or newsmax or q anon ad nauseum

 

 

Yerps. Projection at its best.

 

"Since i would do it, everyone else would also do it"

 

 

"I would support my candidate to steal an election, making baseless claims to cast doubt on the same system that elects my Senators and House Reps, and also for my candidate to stage a coup, THEN everyone else would also do the same thing for their candidate of choice"

 

Below is another example of projection. (remember "Since Trump always lies, everyone else also lies" kind of argument seen here)

 

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

It all goes both ways in politics.  No one in DC is clean especially someone like Old Joe.  

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by abum

[Steeleballz 7,550]

55 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

not really. speaking for myself, i accepted it as soon as it was plain to see in 2016. not a word about any sort of wrongdoing or suppression or any of that. so, your blanket assumption has already been proven wrong.

would have been the same if biden didnt win. i wouldnt be happy, but i would have accepted it.

 

thats the difference between me and the folks who parrot these ridiculous claims about voting machines switching votes and votes not being counted correctly  and those idiotic conspiracy garbage regurgitated from places like oan or newsmax or q anon ad nauseum

 

 

   Yeah, Hillary conceded the day after the election and Biden would have done the same. Most candidates would have. Trump is unique in how he has handled this election, and not the good kind of unique. He's not fighting for the win, he's being a poor loser. 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Steeleballz

[abum 324]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   Yeah, Hillary conceded the day after the election and Biden would have done the same. Most candidates would have. Trump is unique in how he has handled this election, and not the good kind of unique. He's not fighting for the win, he's being a poor loser. 

 

but but but but but but but the Dems would have done the same!!

 

Nah, reality doesn't follow Trumps (and supporters) logic. 

 

Even when he won in 2016, but lost the popular vote, he made the same baseless claims - of people voting illegally - 2 millions of them! and he is just repeating the same baseless claims - and yet his supporters would blindly follow his warped reality. 

 

and then they would accuse everyone else would have done the same thing, clearly it is only in their mind - PROJECTING their own behavior onto others. 

 

I suppose this would count as a win, as he wants to be the sorest loser of all losers. 

 

Add this to the daily winning thread shall we?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

5 hours ago, abum said:

so this is moot now. can SCOTUS take a case that has been dismissed with Prejudice?

It depends. (Classic lawyer deflection but...)

 

The most important part of this ruling is that it is based on the equitable principle of laches. (Terrible embarrassment when I first pronounced this in American law school -- it is NOT pronounced "lay-cheez" here.) The plaintiffs knew of the possible issue and yet sat on it well after the law was amended without amending the constitution, despite knowing of the (alleged) defect. The principle of laches is that one must not sit on one's rights and then seek to assert them later. The plaintiffs did so here, ergo, an unfavourable ruling. Quoting from same:

Quote

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

(Emphasis added.)

 

Nice snippet here from Volokh: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/27/laches-and-the-pennsylvania-election-litigation/

 

So could SCOTUS take a case that was dismissed with prejudice? Yes! But there needs to be a showing of some defect in the dismissal, either on the part of the party asking for relief (usually mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect) or something wrong on the part of the court. 

 

SCOTUS could but in all likelihood will let stand this ruling. Generally, it is loath to intervene in matters that are reserved purely to the states. This is likely to stand, in my unstudied opinion. Ask me about commercial property law in California, cool. Constitutional law? I passed the CA bar exam and didn't look back, boo.

[Prizm123 1,086]

5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

It depends. (Classic lawyer deflection but...)

 

The most important part of this ruling is that it is based on the equitable principle of laches. (Terrible embarrassment when I first pronounced this in American law school -- it is NOT pronounced "lay-cheez" here.) The plaintiffs knew of the possible issue and yet sat on it well after the law was amended without amending the constitution, despite knowing of the (alleged) defect. The principle of laches is that one must not sit on one's rights and then seek to assert them later. The plaintiffs did so here, ergo, an unfavourable ruling. Quoting from same:

(Emphasis added.)

 

Nice snippet here from Volokh: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/27/laches-and-the-pennsylvania-election-litigation/

 

So could SCOTUS take a case that was dismissed with prejudice? Yes! But there needs to be a showing of some defect in the dismissal, either on the part of the party asking for relief (usually mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect) or something wrong on the part of the court. 

 

SCOTUS could but in all likelihood will let stand this ruling. Generally, it is loath to intervene in matters that are reserved purely to the states. This is likely to stand, in my unstudied opinion. Ask me about commercial property law in California, cool. Constitutional law? I passed the CA bar exam and didn't look back, boo.

i had the impression laches was going to be a thing in the case, i wasnt sure how much of a thing they would be all things considered.

 

i was seeing some people think SCOTUS doesnt have jurisdiction in a case like this, others just think they wont intervene because of what you just said.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Prizm123