The US fragile democracy Exposed

[TysonLPrice]

I just heard another aspect of their standing. The election is so close that is the democrats win, and the senate is tied, the VP could break the tie that would hurt Texas. I'm paraphrasing but it is along those lines.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's a totally specious argument. It won't stand and won't be heard.

[TysonLPrice]

That's a totally specious argument. It won't stand and won't be heard.

I'm still worried about Biden's Presidency being revoked, overturned, something. Regardless how nonsensical the arguments are if it goes to the House for some reason the republicans can take it.

Actually I'm more than worried...I'm feeling strong anxiety over it.

[dday9]

It’s 2020, I was actively cheering for a 269-269.

Why? In the words of Dave Chappelle: ‘cause f*** ‘em, that’s why.

[wes4dbt]

Well Ken Paxton and Trump are cut from the same cloth.

Paxton has spent most of his six years in office under felony indictment alleging he defrauded investors in a high-tech startup before becoming Texas’ top law enforcement officer in 2015. The criminal charges — which carry a potential sentence of 5 to 99 years in prison — threatened to sink Paxton’s political career just as it was taking off, but the case has stalled in court, partly because of legal challenges by his conservative allies.

The latest accusations — leveled by his own senior staff — could spell more legal trouble.

Seven of his former top aides signed a letter in October saying they reported their boss to law enforcement over potential crimes including abuse of office and bribery. The allegations center around his relationship with a donor who gave him $25,000 in 2018 and wanted Paxton to investigate claims that the FBI and a federal judge broke the law over a search of his home.

Each of Paxton’s accusers has resigned, been put on leave or been fired since reporting him. Paxton, who has broadly denied wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty in the securities fraud case, has said he will not resign. His office did not respond to a request for an interview or questions about why the state’s solicitor general, who normally argues cases before the Supreme Court, did not attach his name to the case.

He has already been convicted of fraud once before.
He's looking for one of those pardons.

I'm with Tyson, I still have anxiety about the election being overturned.

[techgnome]

I have some anxiety, but it hasn't risen to the Tums or Pepto level yet.

-tg

[TysonLPrice]

That's a totally specious argument. It won't stand and won't be heard.

This seems to fit the definition of "specious". It is another part of the "suit"

Ever since the election, President Trump’s legal team and allied lawyers have said they had myriad evidence of actual, provable fraud. This has been rejected in almost every case by the courts, but the Trump team has asserted that its evidence — based largely on affidavits from people involved in the vote-tabulating process — is sound and demonstrates malfeasance.

The Texas lawsuit, though, effectively acknowledges that that effort has failed. Rather than claiming evidence of proven fraud, it instead claims that the fraud is actually “undetectable,” because election officials made it so by doing illegal things. And that’s why it wants the results overturned.

“Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven,” the lawsuit says (and that proclamation is accurate). “But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...g-voter-fraud/

The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable.

WOW...it is not there was fraud it is it is undetectable. Therefore, not being able to show there was fraud, the election should be nullified.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Right, but they've put all their hopes into the idea that SCOTUS will do something as irrational as accept this case. They won't.

[dilettante]

Eighteen states have joined Texas in its lawsuit that seeks to halt presidential electors in four battleground states from casting their votes for President-elect Joe Biden.

Doesn't sound like something that can be wished away.

[fafalone]

Right, but they've put all their hopes into the idea that SCOTUS will do something as irrational as accept this case. They won't.

Every lawyer on the team should be held to be a vexatious litigant and sued for malicious prosecution. Should have happened to Guiliana, Ellis, and Powell weeks ago.

[TysonLPrice]

If you look at a map of the states joining the suit they are pretty much right up through the center of the country. So if there is a civil war the Trumpers will be fighting a two front war. Traditionally that is a losing strategy. Now Trump might try and bring in the Space Force and that could change things. I will admit republicans are generally better armed then Democrats.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Doesn't sound like something that can be wished away.

Doesn't sound like something that can be wished into existence would be more accurate.

[techgnome]

Irony:
South Carolina: Hey DC, you can't tell us what to do. State Rights!
Also South Carolina: Hey Texas, we'll join you in telling other states what they can do with their election.
Also South Carolina: Hey teachers that are refusing to return to classrooms because of COVID. Y'all are revoked, because no rights!

Seriously, it might be time to move.


-tg

[jmcilhinney]

If you look at a map of the states joining the suit they are pretty much right up through the center of the country. So if there is a civil war the Trumpers will be fighting a two front war. Traditionally that is a losing strategy. Now Trump might try and bring in the Space Force and that could change things. I will admit republicans are generally better armed then Democrats.

I read something today about Geraldo Rivera criticising Rush Limbaugh for talking about a secession. Limbaugh said something along the lines of it not being sustainable having two such different worldviews in the same country. He said that he was advocating for it but he sees a distinct possibility of the country separating into two. I see at least two obvious issues with that. Firstly, while there are certainly parts of the country that are more left-leaning and more right-leaning, there is also division within individual states, where the cities tend to be more left and the rural areas more right. There's no way the country could be divided into two easily without either leaving many thousands, if not millions, of people stranded or forcing mass migration. Are we supposed to believe that all right-wingers would move away from where they currently live in left-wing territory to live in the new right-wing nation and and none would be left behind trying to push that new left-wing nation to the right, with the opposite being the case for those left-wingers currently in right-wing territory? Apart from that, are we also supposed to believe that no one born in right-wing territory will develop a left-wing mindset and vice versa, eventually creating two countries that end up with the same divides as America today?

[dilettante]

Secession is crazy. Everyone loses, even if it occurs with a whimper and not a bang.

[dday9]

Secession doesn't need to occur but states should be invoking the 10th amendment more frequently. The issue is that generally speaking the Federal government will tie grant money to certain things which give states a financial incentive not to invoke the 10th amendment. A good example of this is the federal civil asset forfeiture program where states get a cut of the appropriations for the assistance of enforcing federal cases.

In an ideal situation, if states had a more realistic opportunity to invoke the 10th amendment more often, then people would be able to vote with their feet in a much more meaningful way.

[FunkyDexter]

Is anyone seriously talking about secession?! That sounds like hyperbole to me but... these are some pretty crazy times.

JM, I don't think the mixture of views would preclude a divide and there's plenty of historical precedent: post-partition India, Ireland, I don't imagine everyone in the American South wanted to secede before the civil war... or the American Revolution, for that matter. If it happened the minority would simply have to suck it up and either flee for the border or take their lumps. It'd almost certainly be violent and bloody with massive suppression of dissenting voices in each constituency but, if there's one thing that history teaches us, it's that the majority doesn't give much of a crap about what's happening to the minority.

It's definitely not a pleasant thought but that wouldn't stop it from actually happening.

edit>"Secession is crazy" Would you mind explaining that to Nigel Farage for me? I think you're right but he seems to be of a different opinion. If you could drop in on Nicola Sturgeon while you're here, that'd be a bonus.

[dday9]

Is anyone seriously talking about secession?! That sounds like hyperbole to me but... these are some pretty crazy times.

I have certainly heard podcasters (both on the left and the right) at least talk about it, if nothing else using it as a "if it gets so bad then..." situation.

[wes4dbt]

Right, but they've put all their hopes into the idea that SCOTUS will do something as irrational as accept this case. They won't.

It seems like that's what should happen, but why is it taking them days to write a one sentence answer saying that. The longer they let this absurdity live, the bigger the fire will grow.

[techgnome]

Because they don't get it the same day it gets filed... and I don't know that it's been formally filed... even when it does... it then has to go through a process... land on the docket, get read by all the Justices... then go through a discussion if it will be heard, then they have to decide who's going to write the decision, find the time to write the decision, then that gets filed... released... blah blah blah... ipso facto mumbo jumbo leagalease.


-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, I don't believe they even COULD have ruled on it until today, due to the process it has to go through.

During the Civil War, there was a particularly vicious war within the war waged in the Appalachia region of the south. The residents tended to be unionists, which resulted in some savage partisan actions.

[jmcilhinney]

I read something today about Geraldo Rivera criticising (I think) Newt Gingrich for talking about a secession. Gingrich (if it was him) said something along the lines of it not being sustainable having two such different worldviews in the same country. He said that he was advocating for it but he sees a distinct possibility of the country separating into two. I see at least two obvious issues with that. Firstly, while there are certainly parts of the country that are more left-leaning and more right-leaning, there is also division within individual states, where the cities tend to be more left and the rural areas more right. There's no way the country could be divided into two easily without either leaving many thousands, if not millions, of people stranded or forcing mass migration. Are we supposed to believe that all right-wingers would move away from where they currently live in left-wing territory to live in the new right-wing nation and and none would be left behind trying to push that new left-wing nation to the right, with the opposite being the case for those left-wingers currently in right-wing territory? Apart from that, are we also supposed to believe that no one born in right-wing territory will develop a left-wing mindset and vice versa, eventually creating two countries that end up with the same divides as America today?

Correction: Rush Limbaugh, not Newt Gingrich.

[wes4dbt]

SCOTUS throws out Texas filing. Proud of our judicial system for doing the right thing. Actually proud of several Republicans that were in charge of the elections in their states, they upheld the law.

I feel like this is it and I can finally sing,

Ding dong the witch is dead,
Which old witch, the wicked old witch
Ding dong the wicked witch is dead lol

But I'm sure he'll think of something else to try between now and the Monday electoral count.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Somebody suggested that he'll announce that he's running in 2024 on inauguration day, just to try to steal the spotlight. If he hadn't already thought of that, he's sure to be thinking about it now.

[wes4dbt]

I just was reading what happens on Jan. 6th. It includes the right to object and having to vote on certain objection. It seems to me that if one party had a majority in both houses of congress they could reject the electoral votes. I'm I understanding this right.

[TysonLPrice]

I just was reading what happens on Jan. 6th. It includes the right to object and having to vote on certain objection. It seems to me that if one party had a majority in both houses of congress they could reject the electoral votes. I'm I understanding this right.

From here:

https://www.axios.com/republicans-el...6081af196.html

Several Trump allies, led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), plan to challenge the election results on Jan. 6, when Congress convenes to officially tally the votes from the Electoral College and certify Joe Biden as the president-elect.

Why it matters: Trump has refused to concede the election and has repeated false allegations of mass voter fraud while losing dozens of court cases. The challenges Brooks plans to bring up in Congress are extremely unlikely to change the outcome, but they will be another high profile effort on the part of some Republicans to invalidate millions of votes to overturn the election.

What they're saying: “We have a superior role under the Constitution than the Supreme Court does, than any federal court judge does, than any state court judge does,” Brooks told the New York Times. “What we say, goes. That’s the final verdict.”

"How it works: Brooks told the Times he plans on challenging the electors in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin.

In order for an objection to get a debate, he will need at least one senator to join him. It's not clear so far that any senators will object.
If an objection is filed, each Chamber would have to debate for two hours. For electors to be tossed, the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have to agree.
Several Senate Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, have said they will not vote to overturn the results of the election."

Susan Collins always says things like that and turns right around and supports Trump. I take Mitt Romney at his word.

From the bottom of the link:

"The bottom line: Any objection to the Electoral College count may delay things, but it won't change the winner of the election."

I still worry about what Trump will try. He has enough morally bankrupt people around him to try just about anything.

[wes4dbt]

In order for an objection to get a debate, he will need at least one senator to join him. It's not clear so far that any senators will object.
If an objection is filed, each Chamber would have to debate for two hours. For electors to be tossed, the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have to agree.
Several Senate Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, have said they will not vote to overturn the results of the election."

That's what I as was talking about. If one party had a majority in both houses and no moral boundaries (like Trump) they could overturn the election results.

I still worry about what Trump will try. He has enough morally bankrupt people around him to try just about anything

Not "just about anything", he will try "Anything". Trump is living proof that if you give power to a person who is not restrained by any acceptable norms. morals, compassion ... , they become extremely dangerous.

[coothead]

Perhaps, a view of...

Cal Sagan's Pale Blue Dot

...would be a timely reminder of the folly of human conceits.

[dilettante]

It is shocking how many bizarre accusations about Trump are actually historical fact about Biden and Harris.

Leaked Audio Of JOE BIDEN Exposes Disregard for his Base.

[jmcilhinney]

It is shocking how many bizarre accusations about Trump are actually historical fact about Biden and Harris.

Leaked Audio Of JOE BIDEN Exposes Disregard for his Base.

What seems weird to me is that, while I don't necessarily disagree with many of your criticisms of Biden, you seem determined to defend Trump so often while making them. I haven't followed that link but I've said numerous times that I think that Biden is a bad candidate - I'd support Bernie Sanders or the like given the chance - but are you really trying to suggest that Trump has any real regard for his base, other than as a tool to further his own ends? How would it be a bizarre accusation to say that Trump disregards his own base? He talks a good game - good enough for them, anyway - but despite being praised by those same supporters for not being a career politician, he's as big or bigger a liar as any of them.

[dday9]

For the first 2 years of Trump's presidency all I heard from Democrats was that Russian influence was the reason behind Hillary Clinton's loss. Not that she was the worst candidate in modern American history running against the second worst candidate. Then the Mueller report dropped and so did the narrative.

Now all I'm hearing from Republicans is that voter irregularities or straight up election fraud is the reason behind Donald Trump's loss. Not that he was second worst candidate in modern American history running against not Hillary Clinton. I bet that's all I will hear from Republicans until inauguration day and the courts have made their final (obvious) judgements in these various suits.

I don't see how anyone can be particularly jazzed about either major party or any of their candidates.

[jmcilhinney]

For the first 2 years of Trump's presidency all I heard from Democrats was that Russian influence was the reason behind Hillary Clinton's loss.

One point of interest was that, from many people, the claim was not necessarily that Trump colluded with Russia but that Russia did exert some influence in some way because they wanted Trump to win. I've now heard some claims from the Republican side - can't recall who exactly - that Russia, among others, exerted some influence over the most recent election because they wanted Biden to win. It seems fairly clear that no one is going to take any responsibility for any losses any time soon and the field of shadowy menaces to blame is ever-expanding.

[FunkyDexter]

I haven't followed that link

<shrug> I gave it 5 minutes, didn't hear a single criticism of substance, and switched off. I will say that I agree with the measures that were called for at the beginning of the piece but I've no idea what Biden's response was because there was simply too much of Dore's interruption to actually get to that point. I imagine Biden simply failed to endorse those measures but, yeah, lets leap from that to "Biden hates blacks" which is what Dore wants you to take away from that. It's the usual Jimmy Dore schtick. The guy has proudly declared himself a conspiracy theorist and really isn't worth listening to.

... he was second worst candidate in modern American history running against not Hillary Clinton

I reckon he was running against "not Donald Trump" rather than "not Hilary Clinton" but, yeah, you're pretty much bang on the money with that post. If I'm honest, though, I don't really believe that Trump voters are voting for Donal Trump in the main either. Mostly they seem to see casting their vote as a chance to own the libs.

This is one of the problems with first past the post systems, they encourage counter-voting.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

all I heard from Democrats was that Russian influence was the reason behind Hillary Clinton's loss. Not that she was the worst candidate in modern American history running against the second worst candidate.

Now all I'm hearing from Republicans is that voter irregularities or straight-up election fraud is the reason behind Donald Trump's loss. Not that he was second worst candidate in modern American history running against not Hillary Clinton.

Yup that's completely fair both were poor candidates who lost because they were poor candidates who ran bad campaigns.

I haven't followed that link but I've said numerous times that I think that Biden is a bad candidate

For running against Trump specifically right now I think Biden was the perfect candidate as he is not controversial (Trump couldn't really get any of his attacks to stick during the campaign) and not actively disliked (which Hillary clearly was).

In General, though Biden is a very average candidate his main qualification is he is not Trump and he is someone that centrists or swing voters can vote for.

In the current climate being Not Trump though is quite a big plus!

[kfcSmitty]

It is shocking how many bizarre accusations about Trump are actually historical fact about Biden and Harris.

Leaked Audio Of JOE BIDEN Exposes Disregard for his Base.

You know what I love from my political commentors? When they let a sound clip play 2 seconds, and then tell me what to think about what was said. It shows they're not trying to drive their own interpretation.

Seriously... play the entire clip, and then discuss it. Breaking it down like he does is ridiculous and I couldn't get through it because Jimmy Dore is so cringy.

[wes4dbt]

I reckon he was running against "not Donald Trump" rather than "not Hilary Clinton" but, yeah, you're pretty much bang on the money with that post. If I'm honest, though, I don't really believe that Trump voters are voting for Donal Trump in the main either. Mostly they seem to see casting their vote as a chance to own the libs.

I really don't care if it was a "not Donald Trump" candidate, as long as they care at least a little about the American people.

As to why they voted for Trump, I use to think like you but now it seems a large percentage of his voters actually think he is good for this country. An amazing amount of people have fallen for his con. The lies are the Dems fault and the fake news make these stories up.

[wes4dbt]

Seriously... play the entire clip, and then discuss it. Breaking it down like he does is ridiculous and I couldn't get through it because Jimmy Dore is so cringy.

It makes sense, if your the type of person who believes what Trump says, then your the type of person who believes what Dore says. Or vice-versa

[TysonLPrice]

The lies are the Dems fault and the fake news make these stories up.

You lost me there...Trump and his sycophants are a constant barrage of lies and they hide behind calling the news media fake. How do you square that with people fell for Trump's con? In other words, what do democrats have to do with Trump's supporters falling for his con?

[wes4dbt]

You lost me there...Trump and his sycophants are a constant barrage of lies and they hide behind calling the news media fake. How do you square that with people fell for Trump's con? In other words, what do democrats have to do with Trump's supporters falling for his con?

Obviously you haven't been paying any attention to my previous post, that hurts my feelings. It's called a joke.

[TysonLPrice]

Obviously you haven't been paying any attention to my previous post, that hurts my feelings. It's called a joke.

I love the sound of sarcasm, especially the whooshing sound it makes as it goes over my head