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

[abum 324]

20 minutes ago, moxy said:

Y’know, I’m just happy you’re acknowledging Trump is a pathological liar. Thank you.

 

master of Projection

 

and then this fallacy 

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-quoque-logical-fallacy-1692568

[Dashinka 24,514]

Just now, moxy said:

None of which is “pathological.”

Ok, we can add to that a committed plagiarist along with being part of the most corrupt administrations in history.

 

And then there is this.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/30/joe-biden-is-a-pathological-liar/

[abum 324]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yeah, what I don't get is if there really was fraud, it's either not being pleaded inside a courtroom, or if it is, the courts have rejected the claims because there just isn't convincing evidence. I mean, they've had a gazillion chances to make these claims in the 75 bajillion lawsuits (approx.) filed so far, and there's not been a single finding of fraud. The lawsuits keep getting dismissed, often in very harsh terms. 

 

1 month after the election and nothing of significant were brought to the courts? 

 

and yet supporters of this serial liar dare to claim "this election is a mess" but no evidence were brought to the court to prove it? 

 

Still, right now, Biden has already had more than 270 electors certified for him. 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,514]

2 minutes ago, abum said:

 

master of Projection

 

and then this fallacy 

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-quoque-logical-fallacy-1692568

Only matters if the alternate being posited is not true.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, moxy said:

I’m asking why the Trump legal team is not arguing in court, all of the evidence of fraud that you are convinced happened. You keep bringing up all this supposed evidence, but I’m wondering if you have an explanation as to why this evidence isn’t being brought into court by Rudy’s team. If there is widespread evidence of fraud, but Rudy and team are not arguing it in the courts, then what’s the point?

The point is to get themselves to the Supreme Court. Trump said this long ago as he anticipated the problems that would happen. He's not going to exhaust his resourses pointlessly before the lower courts, and he already knew the state courts weren't going to be fair which is why he tried to go straight to SCOTUS before, only to be told to indulge the lower courts first. I still don't understand the confusion. I think patience would resolve your primary issues here.

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The point is to get themselves to the Supreme Court. Trump said this long ago as he anticipated the problems that would happen. He's not going to exhaust his resourses pointlessly before the lower courts, and he already knew the state courts weren't going to be fair which is why he tried to go straight to SCOTUS before, only to be told to indulge the lower courts first. I still don't understand the confusion. I think patience would resolve your primary issues here.

So they’re holding back their evidence in order to keep losing, so that they can win in the supreme court. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think that’s how the law works.

[Dashinka 24,514]

Just now, moxy said:

So they’re holding back their evidence in order to keep losing, so that they can win in the supreme court. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think that’s how the law works.

I believe it is called an appeal.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

I believe it is called an appeal.

I’ll clarify. I don’t believe intentionally losing in order to win on appeal is how the law works.

[Dashinka 24,514]

Just now, moxy said:

I’ll clarify. I don’t believe intentionally losing in order to win on appeal is how the law works.

Maybe, maybe not.  In the end a lot of lawyers make a lot of money.

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Maybe, maybe not.  In the end a lot of lawyers make a lot of money.

Imagine you are a client. Your lawyer tells you, “Ok. Here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re going to lose. We are going to lose BIG TIME, and we’re going to look so incompetent while losing that the judge is actually going to chew us out. And then... stay with me here pal... and then we’re going to appeal. Nothing can go wrong with this strategy!”

[yuna628 9,677]

20 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yeah, what I don't get is if there really was fraud, it's either not being pleaded inside a courtroom, or if it is, the courts have rejected the claims because there just isn't convincing evidence. I mean, they've had a gazillion chances to make these claims in the 75 bajillion lawsuits (approx.) filed so far, and there's not been a single finding of fraud. The lawsuits keep getting dismissed, often in very harsh terms. 

Of course it's not being pleaded as such inside a courtroom. Because if they did, they'd be in a lot of trouble for lying. The judges have thus far ruled fairly and appropriately. But then of course, the last public game they want to play, is to get it to SCOTUS. They will not be successful there either, but that doesn't matter, that's not the long game. The long game is, it doesn't matter how many times they lose in court, how many absurd arguments or non-arguments they make it's creating a narrative for the 'fans'. The fans believe they're doing something. All in on this thing, and it will solidify support for however long they want. It's a scripted story, to be eaten up.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Of course it's not being pleaded as such inside a courtroom. Because if they did, they'd be in a lot of trouble for lying. The judges have thus far ruled fairly and appropriately. But then of course, the last public game they want to play, is to get it to SCOTUS. They will not be successful there either, but that doesn't matter, that's not the long game. The long game is, it doesn't matter how many times they lose in court, how many absurd arguments or non-arguments they make it's creating a narrative for the 'fans'. The fans believe they're doing something. All in on this thing, and it will solidify support for however long they want. It's a scripted story, to be eaten up.

Well if I understand @Burnt Reynolds position, he believes that this is actually the Trump campaign’s strategy. To lose in state court and appeal to SCOTUS. I feel like there are so many problems with that, including acting in bad faith in front of a judge.

But yes. It’s a smoke and mirrors show in the media to shear the faithful into paying off Trump’s debts.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

 

22 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I believe it is called an appeal.

This. In PA for example they made their argument before the election and it looks like the state court acted in bad faith. So, they'd be wasting their time. I would think that in any normal election (which is is clearly not), the most logical point of contesting procedures would be either before the election or just after the election before certification, so I don't exactly agree with Trump's approach in letting things so quickly get there, but it shouldn't be a surprise that this is the avenue he's taking, he said as much setting up the Barrett confirmation. Of course, there's no requirement she or the court deliver him anything, but you can see serious harmful wrongs that necessitate a remedy which was one vote away from the high court deciding over a month ago, that the chances are much better of them taking up now, particularly PA. There's also a ton of private lawsuits. From a time management aspect, they know the time it takes to argue cases and deliver an opinion, they know the last reasonable dates before the election is basically out of the hands of electors and into the hands of US Congress, so they can decide the slack they feel they need to deal with multiple cases at once as they have other matters to deal with as well.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

31 minutes ago, moxy said:

None of which is “pathological.”

did you ever see joe biden debate joe biden?

 

[moxy 1,051]

16 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

This. In PA for example they made their argument before the election and it looks like the state court acted in bad faith. So, they'd be wasting their time. I would think that in any normal election (which is is clearly not), the most logical point of contesting procedures would be either before the election or just after the election before certification, so I don't exactly agree with Trump's approach in letting things so quickly get there, but it shouldn't be a surprise that this is the avenue he's taking, he said as much setting up the Barrett confirmation. Of course, there's no requirement she or the court deliver him anything, but you can see serious harmful wrongs that necessitate a remedy which was one vote away from the high court deciding over a month ago, that the chances are much better of them taking up now, particularly PA. There's also a ton of private lawsuits. From a time management aspect, they know the time it takes to argue cases and deliver an opinion, they know the last reasonable dates before the election is basically out of the hands of electors and into the hands of US Congress, so they can decide the slack they feel they need. 

Again, not a lawyer, but none of this seems to me how the law works.

 

For starters, no lawyer is going to risk their career by intentionally losing, with the sole purpose of driving it in front of the SC. Ok, maybe Rudy, you might have me there.

 

But let’s imagine it gets to SCOTUS. What will SCOTUS be asked to rule on? Do you believe the SC will be asked to overrule GA on their own state election? The state has already determined that the election was held in accordance with state law and the state constitution. So will the SC be asked to invalidate Georgia’s constitution and state laws? If so, based on what?

 

Or are you saying that the Trump legal team is relying on his nominees to just hand him the election by invalidating the states that would need to be invalidated, based on nothing but their loyalty to Trump?

Edited December 6, 2020 by moxy