As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Election 2020] Joe Biden Wins

1979899101103

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    Havelock2.0zagdrobXandarFencingsaxGilgaronjoshofalltradesmonikerN1tSt4lkerNobeardLord_AsmodeusChaosHatMild ConfusionmRahmanishryke
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean if they took up that PA case and threw out the mail-in ballots on constitutional grounds you've just invalidated every mailin ballot in the country.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't.

    i think it's as simple as there being no benefit to them doing it

    your lifetime appointment over a country in ashes doesn't mean much

    Agreed. Say what you will about the GOP but they're only relevant so long as there's a Country for them to play in. They're not going to burn everything down because of what the Q-heads or the most hard core Trumper's shriek about. There are still adults, and I use that term loosely, in the room.

    They won't burn down the country because that's where they keep their stuff.

    No other reason. They don't have a space station or fortified MAGAcity or undersea colony where they and their income / stuff are safe from really pissed citizenry.

    If for no other reason, that. Look how sad they got when people started hassling them at fancy restaurants or stopped inviting them to dinner parties.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean if they took up that PA case and threw out the mail-in ballots on constitutional grounds you've just invalidated every mailin ballot in the country.

    Which would leave Trump victorious.

    JaysonFour
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't.

    i think it's as simple as there being no benefit to them doing it

    your lifetime appointment over a country in ashes doesn't mean much

    Agreed. Say what you will about the GOP but they're only relevant so long as there's a Country for them to play in. They're not going to burn everything down because of what the Q-heads or the most hard core Trumper's shriek about. There are still adults, and I use that term loosely, in the room.

    They won't burn down the country because that's where they keep their stuff.

    No other reason. They don't have a space station or fortified MAGAcity or undersea colony where they and their income / stuff are safe from really pissed citizenry.

    If for no other reason, that. Look how sad they got when people started hassling them at fancy restaurants or stopped inviting them to dinner parties.

    If this was true they’d give a crap about climate change.

    Russia has fancy restaurants and swish parties without all that inconvenient handing over of power to the opposition.

    Eddy
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean if they took up that PA case and threw out the mail-in ballots on constitutional grounds you've just invalidated every mailin ballot in the country.

    Which would leave Trump victorious.

    Over the ashes. Literally.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    IncenjucarHeirDoctor DetroitMarathonGennenalyse RuebenKnight_TofystedethRaijuCantideMan in the Mists
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean if they took up that PA case and threw out the mail-in ballots on constitutional grounds you've just invalidated every mailin ballot in the country.

    Which would leave Trump victorious.

    Over the ashes. Literally.

    Pretty much.

  • Havelock2.0Havelock2.0 Registered User regular
    I feel like this repeated polishing of the Worst Case Scenario Crystal Ball accomplishes nothing

    outside of giving yourself ulcers and panic attacks

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
    AuralynxHahnsoo1PreacherHeirMunkus BeaverjdarksunDonnictonAegeriRedTideGyralCantidoShadowfireQuidTicaldfjamjmcdonaldadmanbMartini_PhilosopherDidgeridoozagdrobFencingsaxHappylilElfGennenalyse RuebenViktor WaltersTaranisboogedyboojoshofalltradesKnight_N1tSt4lkerRaijuNobeardCantidenever dieArdolmanwiththemachinegunLord_AsmodeusSanguinius666264EinzelChaosHatFoolOnTheHillFleur de AlysA Kobold's KoboldmRahmaniPixelated PixieshrykeRehab
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    The @US_FDA and the Democrats didn’t want to have me get a Vaccine WIN, prior to the election, so instead it came out five days later – As I’ve said all along!
    When does this become an argument for why he should get to stay in power despite losing the vote?
    They held it back to hurt Trump. There is no fact that wingnuts can't fold into their worldview and use as proof of liberal bias.

    Quoting myself, but I'm not proud. All this shows is that I can really get inside the head of a selfish simpleton, which reflects poorly on me.

    TicaldfjamShadowhopeAbsoluteZeroRaijuElvenshaeMorganVLord_Asmodeus
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean if they took up that PA case and threw out the mail-in ballots on constitutional grounds you've just invalidated every mailin ballot in the country.

    that's not accurate. The argument is that each State legislature can decide the way the election is conducted, and the State Supreme Court does not have the power to review the legislature's decision, because power flows directly from the Constitution to the Legislatures, rather than through each State's Constitution (at which point the state's judicial branch could review Constitutionality).

    This is a nonsense argument but it's part of Bush v Gore and at least 3 SCOTUS Justices agree with it. So agreeing that the PA Legislature is within its rights to run the election however the fuck it wants would not invalidate a different State's different rules.

  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    There is literally nothing he can do to prevent losing by trying to get mail ballots thrown out. He still loses Nevada and Arizona, costing him the election. The only hope he has is trying to argue, in some ridiculous way, that postal ballots in those two states are valid while everywhere else they are invalid.

    It's not going to work. He's lost. These ridiculous lawsuits, which nobody - even many republicans - think have merit is about showing fight to his base. Not staging a competent well thought out coup.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    BloodySlothadmanbjoshofalltradesRaijujdarksunMild Confusion
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    He also already lost the case about observing votes as well, with a PA Judge basically ruling they could have people there - but it had Trumps lawyers mendaciously trying to argue that they had nobody observing the count. They were forced, under oath, to admit they did actually have people observing the count.

    There is no road out of this that leads to the Supreme Court being able to reverse hundreds of thousands of valid votes against the orange dictator.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Raiju
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    if SCOTUS hands this election to Trump it is the literal end of our democracy

    this isn't screwing over a powerless middle class for tax cuts

    the country will be completely illegitimate in the eyes of the entire world

    they aren't going to do that

    this isn't Florida in 2000. this is a clearly decided election being overturned against the governments of several states. it would take more than PA to pull this off

    they simply are not going to do that

    This ain't even in the same sport as Florida 2000. Throwing out tens of thousands of votes across 3-4 states would make Florida 2000 look like a small claims suit over a broken tail light.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    PreacherMunkus Beaverspool32Dark_SideGennenalyse RuebenjoshofalltradesmonikerN1tSt4lkerTofystedethRaijuArdolMan in the Mistsjdarksun
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    I mean I'll send you a draft of my SCOTUS dystopian fiction but I'll warn you, the first line is "Cyborg Robojudge Hitler-Kavanaugh 2.0 stepped out of his chambers and peered out of his 700-story penthouse window at the grim landscape of a world he helped destroy, while the sky was the color of an 8K 75" LG television, tuned to a dead channel. He took a breath, or at least the robotic equivalent, and grinned at his own robot reflection before thinking about last night's accomplishments: God was dead."

    Also, it's a musical.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238
    Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
    Playing: Persona 5 Royal (PS4), Animal Crossing (SW), FF7remake (PS4)
    spool32TicaldfjamHappylilElfTetraNitroCubaneAlazullmanwiththemachinegunCelestialBadgerDoctor DetroitTheDrifterGilgaronHavelock2.0OrcaBrodyN1tSt4lkerRaijuNobeardCantideMonwynArdolkimeburboElJeffeElvenshaeRhesus PositiveMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusStarZapperSanguinius666264DhalphirQuantum TigerEinzelSwampFoxjdarksunFoolOnTheHillMild ConfusionFleur de AlysA Kobold's KoboldMosatiForarKlytussilence1186Rehab
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Florida was also over multiple aspects of voting suppression, recounting and similar with a margin of only 500 or so votes. Democrat arguments were also about people being confused by a butterfly voting ballet, which confused thousands of people into voting for a third party independent instead of Al Gore due to the layout. The Supreme Court basically decided the result by preventing anyone from trying to cure or figure out what the intent of the voters were.

    There was actual logic and reason for why the election went it did. Trump currently only has "Because I lost" and that won't get you to the SC.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    spool32zagdrobRozFencingsaxDoctor DetroitSiskaGennenalyse RuebenN1tSt4lkerRaijuLord_Asmodeus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    I am going to have hope for the next two days or so that this is just McConnell and Barr doing "something" and that they don't plan on destroying our country yet.

    But I've been wrong before

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Commander ZoomTicaldfjamdurandal4532RaijuJaysonFour
  • admanbadmanb unionize your workplace Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eddy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Maybe? But I said for months Trump has no legit path to winning. So I was never really scared Tuesday. This is what I’ve been afraid of and we needed an overwhelming mandate to stop it.

    I THINK we got enough? But I’m not remotely confident in that fact

    We’re relying on the good graces of the most partisan court ever to save us.

    we're not. Even if the Court rules that State Legislatures are the sole arbiter of how an election can be conducted and no Court can speak against them, we still win in PA.

    The fear is that SCOTUS isn't going to base this on legality and precedent

    Given who is now on the court and what they've written about the election so far, it's not an unfounded fear

    I know the fear, but like

    blue sky it in the most bullshit sense you can think of. What's the legal argument that gives Trump a win? How do you do that and remain consistent with actual votes cast on or before election day?

    Again, I wouldn't even bother dressing it up in a legal argument. All that has to happen is that five justices (Alito, Thomas, Kav, ACB, Gorsuch) come out in support of Trump without even bothering to buttress it with anything - no original jurisdiction justification, no worrying about the number of votes, no anything.

    Why are you worried about consistency or force of argument? It's clear that everyone who calls themselves a Repub in this day and age don't (and honestly, if you're a fan of jurisprudence, since *ever*) .

    No really game it out for me.

    How do they "come out in support"? Lemme hear your wildest SCOTUS dystopian fiction.

    The 5 justices hold a press conference? They just say "We, the 5 conservatives, think Trump is President. No questions at this time!"

    SCOTUS doesn't say anything except in the context of a court case. Which case is going to give them the justification to throw out several state votes completely?

    Let's flip this and just have the fantasyland reverse coup. SCOTUS comes out and does exactly this. McConnell says "well my hands are tied, guess Trump is prez!"

    Biden-and-co set up a government in exile, but not really in exile because all of military leadership except a guy who got the job of Defense Secretary this morning agrees that Biden is the president. Government doesn't magically flow through the white house so Biden just continues what he was already working on and sets up a full federal apparatus. Most state governors, including the ones responsible for 90% of the country GDP, agree that Biden is president and start working with him.

    After a short period of awkward split governance they realize they can't have a civil war when the whole military is on the same side and Trump is ejected from the white house. All the justices that participated in a blatant coup are impeached and removed from office (made easy by the fact that half the Republican legislative branch also had to be forcibly removed.) There's some very unfortunate random violence from the far-right loons, but the right largely loses any grip it had on federal power.

    Gyralspool32SmurphGennenalyse RuebenHavelock2.0RaijuNobodyNobeardElvenshaeMan in the MistsMorganVLord_AsmodeusMillEinzeljdarksunChaosHatFleur de AlysKlytus
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Florida was also over multiple aspects of voting suppression, recounting and similar with a margin of only 500 or so votes. Democrat arguments were also about people being confused by a butterfly voting ballet, which confused thousands of people into voting for a third party independent instead of Al Gore due to the layout. The Supreme Court basically decided the result by preventing anyone from trying to cure or figure out what the intent of the voters were.

    There was actual logic and reason for why the election went it did. Trump currently only has "Because I lost" and that won't get you to the SC.

    Still top-10 (arguably five, but DAMN are there some bad ones) worst SCOTUS decisions of all time.

    By pretty much any standard.

    Like I've said - letting SCOTUS overturn this election means Roberts signed Americas death certificate. And will be remembered for that and that alone.

    Not gonna happen.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html
    Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times
    Mr. Pilger, a career prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section who oversaw voting fraud-related investigations, told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role working on corruption prosecutions.

    “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications … I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch,” he wrote. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Mr. Pilger’s message.
    That is not a good sign that it won't be a witch hunt

    Couscous on
    rahkeesh2000JragghenEddyspool32TetraNitroCubanePhoenix-DMunkus BeaverXaquinRichyHavelock2.0AbsoluteZeroRaijuNobeardArdolOrcaElvenshaeJaysonFourMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusjdarksunA Kobold's KoboldLabelshryke
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    EddywobblyheadedbobTicaldfjamrahkeesh2000Jragghenspool32Munkus Beaverdurandal4532XaquinHavelock2.0RaijuProhassOrcaElvenshaeJaysonFourMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusElki
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html
    Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times
    That is not a good sign that it won't be a with hunt

    System working as it should when someone tries to break it. People refuse to participate.

    The Saturday Night Massacre wasnt successful specifically because people resigned rather than participate. It's one of the most powerful statements you can make.

    Not ideal, but better than the alternative and a good sign that whatever asshole Barr digs up from the bowels of whatever department to do his dirty work is yet another clueless incompetent boob in over their head.

    TicaldfjamFencingsaxMrMisterN1tSt4lkerRaijushryke
  • wobblyheadedbobwobblyheadedbob Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html
    Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times
    Mr. Pilger, a career prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section who oversaw voting fraud-related investigations, told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role working on corruption prosecutions.

    “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications … I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch,” he wrote. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Mr. Pilger’s message.
    That is not a good sign that it won't be a witch hunt

    I continue to be terrified.

    GSMXaquinAbsoluteZeroRaijuOrcaElvenshaeJaysonFour
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    He has to be seen to be doing something to keep the GA Senate races from depressing GOP turnout. He doesn't give a shit about Trump, he's thinking about January and the Senate.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Sleep
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Trump already tried "Widespread voter fraud from curbside voting" in Texas. It didn't even make it past a partisan hack judge.

    If a coup is performed it's not going to be through the judicial system. The supreme court isn't going to throw out millions of mail in ballots just because Trump asked.

    SleepRaiju
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Just an aside.

    I will be very disappointed if Vindman doesn't get a Presidential Medal of Freedom in the next four years.

    jmcdonaldmonikerRaijuCantideMan in the Mistsjdarksunshrykesilence1186
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    He has to be seen to be doing something to keep the GA Senate races from depressing GOP turnout. He doesn't give a shit about Trump, he's thinking about January and the Senate.

    OK but this could end up like Obama (supposedly) did in Libya. He just wanted to provide enough aide to stop a massacre but oops now there's a regime change. Stringing your base along with the illegitimacy of elections is playing with a bonfire that could engulf even them in the long run.

    rahkeesh2000 on
    SleepFencingsaxGennenalyse Ruebenautono-wally, erotibot300
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    Gilgaron wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    White House reporter for @Ap:

    NEW: The Trump administration threw the presidential transition into tumult, with AG Barr authorizing probes of allegations of voter fraud and President Trump firing the Pentagon chief and blocking government officials from cooperating with Biden’s team
    So the only reason the government doesn't consider this an attempted coup is because the government wants to pretend it isn't one, right?

    They're not technically required to yet, so technically that is still just being sore losers.

    And if it was a less experienced person coming into the office, this would worry me more.

    But Biden has been part of government at one level or another (8 of those years being near the very highest levels) for 5 decades.

    I have a good amount of faith in him to already be putting things together outside of the WH (like his pandemic team) and I'm confident that he will hit the ground running when he's finally handed the keys to the castle.

    Watch him pick someone like Abrams to be his Chief of Staff or some other higher-level administrator position. He'll whip that place into shape in a hurry.

    That comes with having actual competence.

    Color me unworried about the long-term ramifications of our current POTUSs' hissy fit.

    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
    jmcdonaldRaijuMorganV
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    edited November 2020
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Even if Trump gets the results of 1 state flipped (he won’t!), Biden is still president

    Even if Trump gets the results of 2 states flipped (fucking lolzers), Biden is still President

    Literally the only way Trump walks away from this with a W is if SCOTUS declares all votes for Biden are actually nega-votes and so by law he actually is further away from being president than when he started

    Looks like he basically is taking that tack in Pennsylvania:



    Tweeter is some lawyer, but links the full filing.

    Who in their right mind, after having gone to PA and fucked around - and then subsequently found out as a consequence - decides to then fuck around again?

    Mark my words, Gritty will eat these fools in their sleep.

    TetraNitroCubane on
    VuIBhrs.png
    SmurphMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxTicaldfjamGennenalyse Ruebenspool32N1tSt4lkerTofystedethRaijuElvenshaeRhesus PositiveMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusjdarksunmRahmani
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    He has to be seen to be doing something to keep the GA Senate races from depressing GOP turnout. He doesn't give a shit about Trump, he's thinking about January and the Senate.

    Undermining the President-Elect for two whole fucking months to try and win a Senate race is insane. He's playing with fire in a barn full of hay.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    wobblyheadedbobJragghenrahkeesh2000RaijuOrcaElvenshaeMan in the Mistsautono-wally, erotibot300jdarksun
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    Just gonna point out that SCOTUS doesn't even have to rule in Trump's favor in order to hand him the Presidency, they just have to hold up enough electoral votes for long enough that Biden doesn't get 270 in time and we get the "House votes as states" tiebreaker, which will choose Trump.

    SCOTUS could then rule that the ballots were all fine and Biden probably should have won, but Trump will already be President via House election, oh well I guess we just have to let the system work the way the founding fathers intended.

    This is not what I think is gonna happen, but it seems like the easiest path to a Trump victory. Much easier than Trump actually winning in court.

    DisrupterJaysonFour
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    He has to be seen to be doing something to keep the GA Senate races from depressing GOP turnout. He doesn't give a shit about Trump, he's thinking about January and the Senate.

    Undermining the President-Elect for two whole fucking months to try and win a Senate race is insane. He's playing with fire in a barn full of hay.

    Two senate races, and control of the chamber.

    Still deplorable. But those are actually very, very high stakes.

    zagdrobSleepFencingsaxmonikerRaijuArdol
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    Just gonna point out that SCOTUS doesn't even have to rule in Trump's favor in order to hand him the Presidency, they just have to hold up enough electoral votes for long enough that Biden doesn't get 270 in time and we get the "House votes as states" tiebreaker, which will choose Trump.

    SCOTUS could then rule that the ballots were all fine and Biden probably should have won, but Trump will already be President via House election, oh well I guess we just have to let the system work the way the founding fathers intended.

    This is not what I think is gonna happen, but it seems like the easiest path to a Trump victory. Much easier than Trump actually winning in court.

    I don't see how they're going to bring the total below 270 for any length of time though. The race wasn't that close.

    SmurphMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxOremLKmonikerN1tSt4lkeradmanbRaijuCantideMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusMilljdarksunA Kobold's Kobold
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Y'all. Even as the grand master of doom and gloom I gotta tell you. We fuckin won. The whole election dealy, we won that. There's just not enough legal fuckery that can be done to undo that at this point. Our non centralized, state controlled elections, while maybe not the best system, is keeping this solidly in the win column for us because there'd have to be too many individual, successful, legal challenges to undo the change in presidency, and actually doing that would fuck up a bunch of other races as well. So as far as the current election results those are probably the results we're gonna have.

    This isn't to say we still won't see an outright coup at this point, but it will not be a clean easily handwaved legal quagmire like Florida in 2000. If we see any kind of overturn in this election it's gonna be a big dirty undeniable shit show kind of deal, like faithless electors, or the government just trying to exclude whole states, or just not fuckin accepting certification of the results. It'll be some full and obvious banana republic shit. Which like yeah, as the grandmaster of doom and gloom, that's a possibility. However it's not really relevant to the election itself cause we won that, anything going wrong at this point is full on naked power grab that definitely results in violent reprisal, and like I guess we'll talk about the civil war when it's happening and not a moment before that.

    In the context of the election... we're seemingly done here, sure there's some final tabulations and recounts to do of course, but there really shouldn't be any major surprises in there, and if there are that should be investigated specifically because there shouldn't be any major swings between count and recount but until then all this shit the pubs are doing, it's petulant flailing, and McConnell being one of the most evil fucks that's ever existed. Outside a full bloody civil war instigated by that flailing, and executed by completely shit head militias, we're probably good here.

    zagdrobFencingsaxXaquinOremLKRaijuIncenjucarCantideSanguinius666264jdarksunmRahmaniRehab
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    At first this was funny because of how poorly planned this was but McConnell taking this seriously is fucking scary.

    He has to be seen to be doing something to keep the GA Senate races from depressing GOP turnout. He doesn't give a shit about Trump, he's thinking about January and the Senate.

    Undermining the President-Elect for two whole fucking months to try and win a Senate race is insane. He's playing with fire in a barn full of hay.

    Two senate races, and control of the chamber.

    Still deplorable. But those are actually very, very high stakes.

    If the situation were reversed in 2016, we would expect Schumer to pull out every last stop to hold onto some sort of speed bump. And second guess every decision if he failed.

    I mean they are desperate because if we get a VP tie in the Senate and the John Lewis VRA goes through, they may be done and out of power while we enact our whole agenda. Then they spend 30 years trying to unwind it.

    They suck and are wrong, but it's a mirror image in a lot of ways.

    Commander Zoom
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    No Evidence of Systematic Fraud in U.S. Elections, International Observer Mission Reports
    A team of international observers invited by the Trump administration has issued a preliminary report giving high marks to the conduct of last week’s elections--and it criticizes President Trump for making baseless allegations that the outcome resulted from systematic fraud.

    A 28-member delegation from the Organization of American States followed events in several locations across the U.S., including in the battleground states of Georgia and Michigan, both remotely and with observers at polling stations and counting centers.

    “While the OAS Mission has not directly observed any serious irregularities that call into question the results so far, it supports the right of all contesting parties in an election, to seek redress before the competent legal authorities when they believe they have been wronged,” the report said. “It is critical however, that candidates act responsibly by presenting and arguing legitimate claims before the courts, not unsubstantiated or harmful speculation in the public media.”

    The OAS assessment followed similar findings by an election observation team from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    “Baseless allegations of systematic deficiencies, notably by the incumbent president, including on election night, harm public trust in democratic institutions,” said fundamental obligation for all branches of government,” said Michael Georg Link, leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission, said last week.

    So a team of impartial international observers invited by Trump to oversee the election think it was fair, and that Donny should shut the fuck up.

    VuIBhrs.png
    Martini_PhilosopherwobblyheadedbobFencingsaxZibblsnrtGennenalyse RuebenCommander ZoommonikerAbsoluteZeroN1tSt4lkeradmanbRaijuIncenjucarCantidenever dieArdolMetzger MeisterThegreatcowJaysonFourRhesus PositiveElvenshaeMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusSanguinius666264jdarksunFoolOnTheHillA Kobold's KoboldLabelshrykeKlytusRehab
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I hope yall like executive orders, even if the Democrats win both Senate seats.



    Senator Joe Manchin
    @Sen_JoeManchin

    "Let me be clear: I will not vote to pack the courts & I will not vote to end the filibuster. The U.S. Senate is the most deliberative body in the world. It was made so that we work together in a bipartisan way. If you get rid of the filibuster, there's no reason to have a Senate."


    At this point I would not even bet on Manchin voting for a Democratic Majority Leader

    SleepEddyJragghenAistanCommander ZoomBrodyIncenjucarMorganVMan in the MistsCelestialBadgerLabel
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    I got yelled at for theory crafting trump dictator paths before

    But yes so key al of them involve baseless fraud claims causing the electors to be thrown out and it going to the house

    It isn’t scotus declares Trump President but in all practicality it’s the same thing

    616610-1.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    The US government in in Washington DC. A city of 700k he lost 94-5. Serviced by a metro that barely functions as is, with awful traffic on normal days. If Trump/SCOTUS want to try some shit, you won't need the country wide general strike it would undoubtable cause to end it. DC as a functional place where things happen will just stop.


    Honestly, if you're that worried. Go outside, Go for a walk around your neighborhood, and maybe just note in your head all the houses with TBL or back the badge shit. That information will not be relevant at all, except as a nice general list of who in your area is an irredeemable prick, but now you can tell yourself that if it all goes to hell in the next 70 days, you're that much more prepared.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    Zek wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    Just gonna point out that SCOTUS doesn't even have to rule in Trump's favor in order to hand him the Presidency, they just have to hold up enough electoral votes for long enough that Biden doesn't get 270 in time and we get the "House votes as states" tiebreaker, which will choose Trump.

    SCOTUS could then rule that the ballots were all fine and Biden probably should have won, but Trump will already be President via House election, oh well I guess we just have to let the system work the way the founding fathers intended.

    This is not what I think is gonna happen, but it seems like the easiest path to a Trump victory. Much easier than Trump actually winning in court.

    I don't see how they're going to bring the total below 270 for any length of time though. The race wasn't that close.

    Yeah it was a worry if it hinged on one state, but they would need to do all of PA, GA and AZ or MI. Very unlikely.

  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know Texas booniesRegistered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    I hope yall like executive orders, even if the Democrats win both Senate seats.



    Senator Joe Manchin
    @Sen_JoeManchin

    "Let me be clear: I will not vote to pack the courts & I will not vote to end the filibuster. The U.S. Senate is the most deliberative body in the world. It was made so that we work together in a bipartisan way. If you get rid of the filibuster, there's no reason to have a Senate."


    At this point I would not even bet on Manchin voting for a Democratic Majority Leader

    Fuck Joe Manchin

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
    SleepUndead ScottsmanTetraNitroCubaneFencingsaxZibblsnrtXaquinJragghenAistanMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomOremLKMegafrostjoshofalltradesArteenCptHamiltonAl_watAbsoluteZeroKetarDoctorArchMarty81Mr FuzzbuttTofystedethProhassRaijuIncenjucarArdolkimeJaysonFourRhesus PositiveElvenshaeNobeardMorganVMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusMillAlexandierjdarksunFoolOnTheHillMild ConfusionFleur de AlysA Kobold's KoboldForarLabelKlytus
This discussion has been closed.