Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Republicans plan to steal the election


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

Well, it appears the GOPers plans fell apart.  But their activities set a dangerous precedent for American democracy.

To me this is CNN type OMG hype.     The GOPers tried some things and the system worked; 99% of them failed and they looked like morons.   I.e.  the Trump campaign could only hire non-election-trained attorneys (verses the long standing ones like the guys who handled Bush \ Gore).  

So the precedent set here was actually a good one;   don't try legal stunts with unqualified hack lawyers.   I.e. if expert GOP election lawyers refuse to take-the-case,.   that means the case is a no go!

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me this is CNN type OMG hype.     The GOPers tried some things and the system worked; 99% of them failed and they looked like morons.   I.e.  the Trump campaign could only hire non-election-trained attorneys (verses the long standing ones like the guys who handled Bush \ Gore).  

So the precedent set here was actually a good one;   don't try legal stunts with unqualified hack lawyers.   I.e. if expert GOP election lawyers refuse to take-the-case,.   that means the case is a no go!

 

As one incredibly smart person pointed out, the system was just one bad decision away from becoming a real crisis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me this is CNN type OMG hype.     The GOPers tried some things and the system worked; 99% of them failed and they looked like morons.   I.e.  the Trump campaign could only hire non-election-trained attorneys (verses the long standing ones like the guys who handled Bush \ Gore).  

So the precedent set here was actually a good one;   don't try legal stunts with unqualified hack lawyers.   I.e. if expert GOP election lawyers refuse to take-the-case,.   that means the case is a no go!

 

It is not that they failed this time, but the extent of how much support they had and still have.  Also, that they learned what works and what doesn't so next time they will be better prepared.  Especially for non-presidential races.

Their activities set a dangerous precedent because they attacked the very foundations of democracy.  It also is not just about the court cases, but what they will do in other arenas in the future to win elections.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

Well, it appears the GOPers plans fell apart.  But their activities set a dangerous precedent for American democracy.

Yep. Provided a road map for the next one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

It is not that they failed this time, but the extent of how much support they had and still have.  Also, that they learned what works and what doesn't so next time they will be better prepared.  Especially for non-presidential races.

Their activities set a dangerous precedent because they attacked the very foundations of democracy.  It also is not just about the court cases, but what they will do in other arenas in the future to win elections.

I really don't know what you mean by "support",   but that doesn't change my POV.   That so called support didn't lead to anything.   In fact it might just backfire with regards to the Senate races in GA;    Some GOPers have said they may not vote since the election-is-rigged-by-Dems.    I.e.  GOP lame and poorly layout plans to suppress vote is likely to only suppress votes of GOPers!   

(Because I suspect NON-GOP voter turnout will be very high).     Such voter turnout could even carry forward to 2022 and beyond.   

 I find that very humorous karma is a B.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

As one incredibly smart person pointed out, the system was just one bad decision away from becoming a real crisis.

Again,  you're forecasting.   E.g.  That the US Supreme Count would have ruled in such a way that Trump would have been appointed President.

I never accepted that (Roberts is a lot more professional then Dems given him credit for).    So even if a lower court judge or GOP politician had made that "one bad decision" I believe that SC would have overturned it.    

Either way,   I still say any precedent's set here support democracy and the overall fairness of elections. 

Yes,  the system was tested (just like mail-in system where fraud is more likely were "tested"),   and in the vast majority of the cases democracy prevailed.

Hyper partisans on both side are the ones that disagree with this POV.     I get that.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Again,  you're forecasting.   E.g.  That the US Supreme Count would have ruled in such a way that Trump would have been appointed President.

I never accepted that (Roberts is a lot more professional then Dems given him credit for).    So even if a lower court judge or GOP politician had made that "one bad decision" I believe that SC would have overturned it.    

Either way,   I still say any precedent's set here support democracy and the overall fairness of elections. 

Yes,  the system was tested (just like mail-in system where fraud is more likely were "tested"),   and in the vast majority of the cases democracy prevailed.

Hyper partisans on both side are the ones that disagree with this POV.     I get that.   

I don't think the 'bad decision' necessarily had to be one from the court.  Michigan came close to not certifying their own vote.  The transition has not gone exactly without a hitch.  There have been spanners in the works all over the place testing the system and Republican party members who are actually custodians of the vote have been called upon to act in the interests of the people and not their own party.  

If you are talking about something that hasn't happened, then yes that is "forecasting."  But that is what the person said.  One bad decision away from a crisis.  Not necessarily an insoluble one, but a constitutional crisis nevertheless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I really don't know what you mean by "support",   but that doesn't change my POV.   That so called support didn't lead to anything.   In fact it might just backfire with regards to the Senate races in GA;    Some GOPers have said they may not vote since the election-is-rigged-by-Dems.    I.e.  GOP lame and poorly layout plans to suppress vote is likely to only suppress votes of GOPers!   

(Because I suspect NON-GOP voter turnout will be very high).     Such voter turnout could even carry forward to 2022 and beyond.   

 I find that very humorous karma is a B.

I don't understand your last statement.

As Hibi said, this scenario gave them a road map for how to do it better next time.  Also, they will try it in state races where there is less media attention so less opposition.

The "support" refers to the large number of people who supported all the lawsuits and so forth.  Many still support them or at least believe in the intention of the suits.   In the future these same people will also support any other activities to gain a victory for Republicans at all levels.  But they will have learned how to do it better.

As for GA senate races, I hope you are right, but I don't think so.  Black voter turn-out during non-presidential years is less than favorable historically.   Yes, Stacey Abrams did very well in 2018, but she still lost.  Many Trump voters thought the Nov. election was rigged, but that did not keep them from voting in very high numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NipkowDisc said:

how many weeks after election night 2000 did Gore hold out before finally conceding?

:P

Look it up.  Difference was that the question was over some 500 votes in one state, Florida.   The Supreme Court decided fairly quickly that another recount was not necessary and Gore conceded the election.

Trump's cases won't even get to the Supreme Court because they are worthless and even the ultra-conservative justices can see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

how many weeks after election night 2000 did Gore hold out before finally conceding?

several fortnights as the brits would say.

:P

That was 500 votes in one state with some dodgy chads.  Biden is up by over 6 million now and hundred of thousands if you add up all those swing states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

how many weeks after election night 2000 did Gore hold out before finally conceding?

several fortnights as the brits would say.

:P

You need a refresher on what actually happened on Election Night.  

Florida (and the overall election ) was initially called by the networks for Gore.  The networks had to reverse that call, moving Florida as "too close to call" and then later giving it to Bush, and then retracting that, going back to "too close to call." 

So no one was decisively the winner between Election Night and when the whole mess finally ended in December.

Thus, there was no need for either Bush or Gore to concede until the final Supreme Court ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I don't understand your last statement.

As Hibi said, this scenario gave them a road map for how to do it better next time.  Also, they will try it in state races where there is less media attention so less opposition.

The "support" refers to the large number of people who supported all the lawsuits and so forth.  Many still support them or at least believe in the intention of the suits.   In the future these same people will also support any other activities to gain a victory for Republicans at all levels.  But they will have learned how to do it better.

As for GA senate races, I hope you are right, but I don't think so.  Black voter turn-out during non-presidential years is less than favorable historically.   Yes, Stacey Abrams did very well in 2018, but she still lost.  Many Trump voters thought the Nov. election was rigged, but that did not keep them from voting in very high numbers.

Of course in states where the GOP has the power they will try new and improved techniques to try to suppress voting.   Some of these may be successful,  but every legal 'method' can be overcome by non-GOPers;   I.e.  in some states it will be more difficult to vote,  but one can overcome  that by just voting.     My gut tells me that now that the GOP attempts have been so openly exposed the net result in voter suppression will be offset (at a minimum),  by higher NON-GOP voter turnout.

What will do more harm to Dems in red and especially purple states (mostly run by the GOP):    new and improved GOP voter suppression efforts,  or the damage of progressives?      I'm predicting the latter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hamradio said:

Hopefully there will be no virus to prevent people from voting in person during the next election. This issue may go the way of the hanging chad.

The elections in GA in January will still be during the "Covid era."

In 2022, Covid may be gone, but as we saw in previous elections, in-person voting is problematic in most areas.  The long lines, six hour waits, too few polling places and so forth will still be with us.  Unless changes are made.

I have been voting "absentee in-person" for last several years simply to avoid the long lines, not to mention the politicians standing around to "greet you" as you entered the building.  However, this is not an option available to most voters.

To fully restore in-person voting, we need more polling places, more machines in each place, more poll workers, etc.  As part of their voter suppression programs Republicans have reduced the number of polling places, machines and workers in Democratic leaning areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

I have been voting "absentee in-person" for last several years simply to avoid the long lines, not to mention the politicians standing around to "greet you" as you entered the building.  However, this is not an option available to most voters.

Thankfully we have early voting here for a couple of weeks in advance of any election.  No reason is needed to vote early.   There's rarely a line when you vote early.   In my particular county, you can vote at any polling location within the county.  Previously, you had to go to a place specific to a precinct, as they held the ballots particular to your area.   This changed about 10 years ago.  Some counties in Texas may still have this restriction.

Is there not a buffer zone around your polling places there?  Here, electioneering and campaign signs are forbidden within 100 feet of the door of the polling place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Thankfully we have early voting here for a couple of weeks in advance of any election.  No reason is needed to vote early.   There's rarely a line when you vote early.   In my particular county, you can vote at any polling location within the county.  Previously, you had to go to a place specific to a precinct, as they held the ballots particular to your area.   This changed about 10 years ago.  Some counties in Texas may still have this restriction.

Is there not a buffer zone around your polling places there?  Here, electioneering and campaign signs are forbidden within 100 feet of the door of the polling place.

The same buffer exists, but the candidates or their representatives are allowed to congregate around the entrances so they can "welcome" voters.  They cannot wear badges, buttons, hats, etc. that are campaign related nor ask for your vote.  It's like a gauntlet to get in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
 
 
L33uNhXY_bigger.jpg
 
 
This is embarrassing. It’s worth bearing in mind that Texas AG Ken Paxton, who filed the suit, is under criminal investigation by the FBI after his own entire senior staff turned him in for corruption. Maybe he thinks disgracing himself further will win a pardon.
Quote Tweet
 
 
jPHT7Jb8_mini.jpg
 
Jonathan H. Adler
 
@jadler1969
· 26m
So now Texas is trying to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia to challenge the election in the Supreme Court. The filing may not have all the typos and errors of a #kraken suit, but it's still really bad. https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
 
 
 
L33uNhXY_bigger.jpg
 
Paxton fired or got resignations from the seven senior attorneys who accused him of assorted felonies. He plans to run for reelection in two years.
 
 
 
L33uNhXY_bigger.jpg
 
Just, you know, in case you were wondering: Deputy Attorneys General do not typically accuse their bosses of committing crimes frivolously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
PjNCtHgg_bigger.jpg
 
So Texas' Attorney General is literally asking the Supreme Court to throw out the results of other states' presidential elections, set aside the millions of votes cast in states that are not Texas and have other state legislatures make Trump president. https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
 
 
Image
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
QcgK2k4V_bigger.jpg
 
Texas AG should be ashamed of himself
Quote Tweet
 
 
eltdtGf5_mini.jpg
 
Steve Vladeck
 
@steve_vladeck
· 1h
It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category: The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS. (Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.)
Show this thread
 
 
Image
 
Image
 
Image
 
Image
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...