BravoBravo

2020 Election Fuckery

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dog said:

All true

Observers were not obstructed.  That information has been shared with you. 

It seems you refuse to take the word of those who were charged with investigating the allegation.

Share this post


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

But, But, we appointed them didn't we???

The law suit seeks to have the court compel the defendant states select their electors in a constitutional manner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The law suit seeks to have the court compel the defendant states select their electors in a constitutional manner.

They did.  I’m pretty confident SCOTUS will see that. The question is, will you accept the outcome?

Share this post


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

They did.  I’m pretty confident SCOTUS will see that. The question is, will you accept the outcome?

Yes.

Share this post


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

The law suit seeks to have the court compel the defendant states select their electors in a constitutional manner.

The Supreme Court does not appoint the president. Whoever thought that was a possibility was a fool, but you already knew that right? There is nothing in those 55 lawsuits that passes muster for changing the minds of any federal jurist. It will not pass, and you should get used to that. I look forward to your concession post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

You guys still running with this one?

"Kevin Feeley, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia City Commissioners, which is in charge of elections in the city, told PolitiFact that what happened in the video was "a mistake" on behalf of the people running the polling site.

"It was a misunderstanding of the law," Feeley said. However, the man eventually went to another polling site, where staff who better understood the law let him inside, Feeley said.

Feeley said this is what happened: the poll watcher went to a polling site in Philadelphia this morning, but the judge of election (the person who runs that particular polling place) thought that the watcher could not be let into that particular location, because a ward and division number on the watcher’s certificate did not correspond with that site. That used to be an old rule — that a watcher could only be admitted to a specific ward and division.

"That is no longer the law," Feeley said.

The judge of election was eventually told the watcher could be admitted into that location. "We corrected the problem with the judge of election, we addressed it," Feeley said.

Feeley said that the poll watcher left the site shown in the video and went to another site, "and the judge there correctly understood the law and (the poll watcher) was admitted into that site."

"We regret that it happened, it was an honest mistake," Feeley said. "It appears to be the only mistake of its kind."

...

Tweets claimed that poll watchers in Philadelphia were prevented from entering polling places.

A poll watcher was denied access to one polling site in Philadelphia because the person in charge of that particular polling place was not up to date on the law, which allows watchers to enter any site, not just the ward and division site specified on the watcher’s certificate, said Feeley, a spokesperson for Philadelphia City Commissioners. The same poll watcher went to another site and was allowed to go in, according to Feeley.

Feeley said that the judge of election who had inaccurate information was updated on the new rules, and that there is "no evidence that it was a systemic problem."

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-was-a-pennsylvania-poll-worker-turned-away/19370900/

 

It was clearly just a mistake.  And isolated.  Give it the fuck up already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a law professor from Orange, CA is suing on behalf of Texas and Trump personally against Penn, GA and WI?  That seems legit.

The 11th Amendment to the US Constitution says that US courts cannot hear cases and make decisions against a state if it is sued by a citizen who lives in another state or a person who lives in another country. ... Without this permission, the 11th Amendment stops courts from hearing cases if a state is sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

The law suit seeks to have the court compel the defendant states select their electors in a constitutional manner.

Lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, benwynn said:

It was clearly just a mistake.  And isolated.  Give it the fuck up already.

He was denied access, that someone called it a mistake doesn't change the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2020 at 8:15 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Trump needs more of your money Bullshitters. Give till it hurts in Daddy’s time of need!

The money is ROLLING in. Pure profit for Trump. Why should he stop???? This is the most money he's EVER made!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, benwynn said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

You guys still running with this one?

"Kevin Feeley, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia City Commissioners, which is in charge of elections in the city, told PolitiFact that what happened in the video was "a mistake" on behalf of the people running the polling site.

"It was a misunderstanding of the law," Feeley said. However, the man eventually went to another polling site, where staff who better understood the law let him inside, Feeley said.

Feeley said this is what happened: the poll watcher went to a polling site in Philadelphia this morning, but the judge of election (the person who runs that particular polling place) thought that the watcher could not be let into that particular location, because a ward and division number on the watcher’s certificate did not correspond with that site. That used to be an old rule — that a watcher could only be admitted to a specific ward and division.

"That is no longer the law," Feeley said.

The judge of election was eventually told the watcher could be admitted into that location. "We corrected the problem with the judge of election, we addressed it," Feeley said.

Feeley said that the poll watcher left the site shown in the video and went to another site, "and the judge there correctly understood the law and (the poll watcher) was admitted into that site."

"We regret that it happened, it was an honest mistake," Feeley said. "It appears to be the only mistake of its kind."

...

Tweets claimed that poll watchers in Philadelphia were prevented from entering polling places.

A poll watcher was denied access to one polling site in Philadelphia because the person in charge of that particular polling place was not up to date on the law, which allows watchers to enter any site, not just the ward and division site specified on the watcher’s certificate, said Feeley, a spokesperson for Philadelphia City Commissioners. The same poll watcher went to another site and was allowed to go in, according to Feeley.

Feeley said that the judge of election who had inaccurate information was updated on the new rules, and that there is "no evidence that it was a systemic problem."

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-was-a-pennsylvania-poll-worker-turned-away/19370900/

 

It was clearly just a mistake.  And isolated.  Give it the fuck up already.

At least he's given up on that bullshit story about observers being kicked out. They weren't.

And, that bullshit story about ballots being hidden under a table. They weren't, either.

But, he sure does have a boner for mistakes.  And, he calls mistakes "fraud".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

At least he's given up on that bullshit story about observers being kicked out. They weren't.

And, that bullshit story about ballots being hidden under a table. They weren't, either.

But, he sure does have a boner for mistakes.  And, he calls mistakes "fraud".

I look forward to seeing this video again later.   Then again.  Then again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dog said:

He was denied access, that someone called it a mistake doesn't change the fact.

What is the appropriate remedy for one person in one polling location making a mistake in disallowing immediate access by one poll watcher. Disenfranchise 7 million voters? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LenP said:

What is the appropriate remedy for one person in one polling location making a mistake in disallowing immediate access by one poll watcher. Disenfranchise 7 million voters? 

If that's what it takes to keep President Trump in office.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2009 the TEA Party was the rebranding effort to cleanse the W from The Party. We are already seeing the bullshit rebranding this time. If The Party doesn’t win, it’s fraud, even if other GOP candidates win on the same ballot. 

Share this post


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

So a law professor from Orange, CA is suing on behalf of Texas and Trump personally against Penn, GA and WI?  That seems legit.

The 11th Amendment to the US Constitution says that US courts cannot hear cases and make decisions against a state if it is sued by a citizen who lives in another state or a person who lives in another country. ... Without this permission, the 11th Amendment stops courts from hearing cases if a state is sued.

Well, it doesn't even get down to the amendments at all. One of the original articles in the US Constitution says that states have to respect & give credence to the laws ... "and Public Acts" ... of all other states.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

In 2009 the TEA Party was the rebranding effort to cleanse the W from The Party. We are already seeing the bullshit rebranding this time. If The Party doesn’t win, it’s fraud, even if other GOP candidates win on the same ballot. 

Yep.  Those Devious Democrat Defrauders were so damned good at rigging the election, they stole it from President Trump while (on the same ballots) failed to flip the Senate, lost seats in the House, and state legislatures in a year when Districts will be redrawn.

That is some double-secret probation type shit, there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

He was denied access, that someone called it a mistake doesn't change the fact.

Then he was given access.

So, no. He was not denied access, in truth. That is the fact.

Unless you add the word "temporarily" to the same sentence.

But that would be failing to lie for your Chosen 1

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Witnesses like this one?

 

They would have used The Mutt for that but they thought he was too stupid and fanatical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Yep.  Those Devious Democrat Defrauders were so damned good at rigging the election, they stole it from President Trump while (on the same ballots) failed to flip the Senate, lost seats in the House, and state legislatures in a year when Districts will be redrawn.

That is some double-secret probation type shit, there.

Yeah! What are the odds of that! Can someone compute the astrocomical fourth-power odds of Dem legislators failing to riding in on Biden's coattails at 3am? HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for the results from the massive fraud in the 2016 election.  Patient I am. Doggedly patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

You guys still running with this one?

"Kevin Feeley, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia City Commissioners, which is in charge of elections in the city, told PolitiFact that what happened in the video was "a mistake" on behalf of the people running the polling site.

"It was a misunderstanding of the law," Feeley said. However, the man eventually went to another polling site, where staff who better understood the law let him inside, Feeley said.

Feeley said this is what happened: the poll watcher went to a polling site in Philadelphia this morning, but the judge of election (the person who runs that particular polling place) thought that the watcher could not be let into that particular location, because a ward and division number on the watcher’s certificate did not correspond with that site. That used to be an old rule — that a watcher could only be admitted to a specific ward and division.

"That is no longer the law," Feeley said.

The judge of election was eventually told the watcher could be admitted into that location. "We corrected the problem with the judge of election, we addressed it," Feeley said.

Feeley said that the poll watcher left the site shown in the video and went to another site, "and the judge there correctly understood the law and (the poll watcher) was admitted into that site."

"We regret that it happened, it was an honest mistake," Feeley said. "It appears to be the only mistake of its kind."

...

Tweets claimed that poll watchers in Philadelphia were prevented from entering polling places.

A poll watcher was denied access to one polling site in Philadelphia because the person in charge of that particular polling place was not up to date on the law, which allows watchers to enter any site, not just the ward and division site specified on the watcher’s certificate, said Feeley, a spokesperson for Philadelphia City Commissioners. The same poll watcher went to another site and was allowed to go in, according to Feeley.

Feeley said that the judge of election who had inaccurate information was updated on the new rules, and that there is "no evidence that it was a systemic problem."

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-was-a-pennsylvania-poll-worker-turned-away/19370900/

 

It was clearly just a mistake.  And isolated.  Give it the fuck up already.

Troubling that these mistakes should happen.  It's clear that the relaxation of election standards by democrats caused this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

They would have used The Mutt for that but they thought he was too stupid and fanatical.

If nothing else, Melissa seems to have quite a rack.

 

Share this post


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

Then he was given access.

So, no. He was not denied access, in truth. That is the fact.

Unless you add the word "temporarily" to the same sentence.

But that would be failing to lie for your Chosen 1

- DSK

"Let's go to the video tape"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LenP said:

What is the appropriate remedy for one person in one polling location making a mistake in disallowing immediate access by one poll watcher. Disenfranchise 7 million voters? 

Who said there was just one or that that was the only thing problematic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By rights she should have red hair.

That is one MoFo'n crazy bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

If nothing else, Melissa seems to have quite a rack.

 

Did Rudy accidently bring one of Trump's adult movie actresses after paying her off?

Share this post


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

For fuck's sake, Sidney...

Eo2j0QmW4AAKs-X?format=png&name=medium

Make up things and use them to prove your point?

Sounds like this place.

 

Share this post


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

Who said there was just one or that that was the only thing problematic?

Nobody.  I doubt anybody is under the false impression that poll workers are faultless robots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Make up things and use them to prove your point?

Sounds like this place.

 

In federal district court, they tried to pull this shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Election Fuckery....  Can the feds allow the sorting equipment back into the Post Offices now that the mail-in ballots are done?   I would think fucking up the Postal Service has outlived it's usefulness.   I'm tired of getting my mail at 6 or 7 at night. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In federal district court, they tried to pull this shit.

How is it that Sidney is still practising law? Anyone else but one of Trump's crack legal team pulling this shit would have  been disbarred months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

How is it that Sidney is still practising law? Anyone else but one of Trump's crack legal team pulling this shit would have  been disbarred months ago.

Apparently it’s really hard to get disbarred.  That’s odd,  there are way too many lawyers you’d think the Bar would like to cull the herd

Share this post


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

Bar Associations are a fucking joke, is what I've come to learn.

All of the bars that I associate with treat me well.  Of course they know how I tip.

Share this post


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

Bullshitting the judge in such a fashion will get someone’s attention. 

But just like your constant virtue signaling it gets old and you end up making a fool of yourself! Give it a rest, Rosy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Venom said:

But just like your constant virtue signaling it gets old and you end up making a fool of yourself! Give it a rest, Rosy. 

 

I have a friend since undergrad.  Her name is Rose.  Finally a song about Rose, Jackson.  Wear yourself out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, benwynn said:

 .   I'm tired of getting my mail at 6 or 7 at night. 

Fan mail can wait... go to online banking for the bills and royalty checks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

I have a friend since undergrad.  Her name is Rose.  Finally a song about Rose, Jackson.  Wear yourself out.

No emoticon from him this time.   He probably had his head close to a toaster while using it this morning and it jarred a couple of synapses temporarily back into play. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

No emoticon from him this time.   He probably had his head close to a toaster while using it this morning and it jarred a couple of synapses temporarily back into play. 

Nothing like getting a flaming Pop Tart in the ear to start your day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Fan mail can wait... go to online banking for the bills and royalty checks...

Fan mail from BravoBravo can't wait.  But last night he sent me pictures of his mother's tits which I thought was kinda odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

Fan mail from BravoBravo can't wait.  But last night he sent me pictures of his mother's tits which I thought was kinda odd.

Did she have one or three?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Did she have one or three?

Two, I think.  But there was a salami in the way...  You know what?....  I don't want to talk about this anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, warbird said:

Fan mail can wait... go to online banking for the bills and royalty checks...

O/K for you - nobody is going to want to steal your identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas lawsuit slimes along. A bunch of anti-democracy fans signed onto the Bullshit Express.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The Texas lawsuit slimes along. A bunch of anti-democracy fans signed onto the Bullshit Express.

 

It is simply astounding how one man can fuck things up this badly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, benwynn said:

 

It is simply astounding how one man can fuck things up this badly.

There is apparently no shortage of Quislings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, benwynn said:

 

It is simply astounding how one man can fuck things up this badly.

A Trump dictatorship is still possible.  We ain't out of the woods yet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

It is simply astounding how one man can fuck things up this badly.

Especially a person such as Trump.  I just don't get it.  He is an awful person!  Pretty much everything your parents beat out of you before you were 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Especially a person such as Trump.  I just don't get it.  He is an awful person!  Pretty much everything your parents beat out of you before you were 10.

Hillary was right.  50% of his supporters fit in a basket of deplorables.  Probably more.  They might become somewhat better if he dies soon but that shitty part of their essence will be there when the next wanna be grifting despot comes along.  Best hope is 12 years of total DemocRAT political control.  Most of them will die off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Imagine... being the lawyers who forgot to go back and fill in the blanks, on your brief in support of a motion to intervene... at the SUPREME COURT.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163392/20201210150121416_SCOTUS Brief for Intervention Final 12-10-20.pdf

 

www.supremecourt.gov_DocketPDF_22_22O155_163392_20201210150121416_SCOTUS%20Brief%20for%20Intervention%20Final%2012-10-20.pdf.png

Crack legal team.

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dog said:

The Texas suit holds that four states acted unconstitutionally when they failed to abide by election rules established by their respective legislatures.

Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections.

Texas does not seek to have the court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. 
 

It is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this court permitting one state to enlist the court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states. 

That which  Texas is seeking  would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that the States are sovereigns, free to govern themselves.

 

Share this post


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

Imagine... being the lawyers who forgot to go back and fill in the blanks, on your brief in support of a motion to intervene... at the SUPREME COURT.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163392/20201210150121416_SCOTUS Brief for Intervention Final 12-10-20.pdf

 

www.supremecourt.gov_DocketPDF_22_22O155_163392_20201210150121416_SCOTUS%20Brief%20for%20Intervention%20Final%2012-10-20.pdf.png

Imagine being the rube who pays  for those lawyers.

Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PHIRKIN said:

Imagine being the rube who pays  for those lawyers.

Oh, wait...

How much is he going to burn through after he is out??  200mm. Aint gonna cover 1 court case let alone all of them on this scale with the retarded lawyering group.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shaggy said:

How much is he going to burn through after he is out??  200mm. Aint gonna cover 1 court case let alone all of them on this scale with the retarded lawyering group.  

Things are going to change when he doesn't have the taxpayer and the rubes paying for this amazingly inept level of bullshit.

Share this post


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

Imagine... being the lawyers who forgot to go back and fill in the blanks, on your brief in support of a motion to intervene... at the SUPREME COURT.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163392/20201210150121416_SCOTUS Brief for Intervention Final 12-10-20.pdf

Heh...is that blank better or worse than Sidney ‘Shit4Brains’ Powell claiming in her filing:

”...took more than 2.5% of the votes from Mr. Biden and flipped them to Mr. Trump...”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PHIRKIN said:

Imagine being the rube who pays  for those lawyers.

Oh, wait...

Rubes, plural:

Ronald H. Heuer, John Wood, Angelic Johnson, Dr. Linda Lee Tarver, Kristina Karamo, Gary Eisen, John Reilly, Julie Alexander, Matt Maddock, Daire Rendon, Beth Griffin, Douglas Wozniak, Michele Hoitenga, Brad Paquette, Rodney Wakeman, Greg Markkanen and Jack O'Malley, Joe Bellino, Luke Meerman, Brianna Kahle, Daryl D. Metcalfe, Mike Puskaric, Chris E. Dush, Thomas R. Sankey III.

Near as I can tell  -  websearched a few random names from the list  -  it's a hodge-podge of plaintiffs from previous election cases in MI and WI.  

The lawyers are Erick G. Kaardal and Allan E. Parker, Jr.; previously known for anti-abortion and "religious liberty" lawsuits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun game:

Make a list of the States that made up the Confederacy.

Make a list of the States suing, or amiciing in support.  

Ponder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lin Wood... managed... to mis-spell... his own name.

In a filing to the Supreme Court.

 

Eo7N3DbXYAIU0Wd?format=jpg&name=medium

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Lin Wood... managed... to mis-spell... his own name.

In a filing to the Supreme Court.

 

Eo7N3DbXYAIU0Wd?format=jpg&name=medium

He always reminds me of somebody on Laugh-In.

4f2f20637453269fa4722b9d26fa72b8

This could be the worst legal team in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone more astute than I, on twitter, has solved it. 

I spoke too soon. 

Note the latin: "amici", not "amicus".  Lyn thinks he's plural...!

 

I won't even get into the amicus brief / petiton for cert thing.  His table of contents treats it as: 

4-page amicus brief, with is 52-page petition for cert (to the 11th) as... evidence?  appendix, anyways.  

but he asks leave to file the petition for cert AS his brief. 

So it's a 4-page... intro?... AND the 52-page petiton... that together, add up to his brief?

My brain hurts.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163470/20201210212807008_Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae with Brief and Appx A attached.pdf

 

www.supremecourt.gov_DocketPDF_22_22O155_163470_20201210212807008_Motion%20for%20Leave%20to%20File%20Amici%20Curiae%20with%20Brief%20and%20Appx%20A%20attached.pdf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

That which  Texas is seeking  would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that the States are sovereigns, free to govern themselves.  Stites Rats!

FIFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections.

Texas does not seek to have the court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. 
 

It is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this court permitting one state to enlist the court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states. 

That which  Texas is seeking  would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that the States are sovereigns, free to govern themselves.

 

Nonsense...Texas is not trying to dictate how other states conduct their election. They are saying that the method they are using to select their electors is unconstitutional. It's not that hard to understand.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actor Edward Norton went off on Trump yesterday in an epic Twitter thread... I think he’s spot on.

Norton used a poker analogy to compare Trump's actions to that of a mobster with no cards left to play. MaxNewsToday assembled these 7 tweets and reprinted them as one easy-to-read op-ed:

Edward Norton: Call Trump's Bluff

"I’m no political pundit but I grew up with a dad who was a federal prosecutor, and he taught me a lot.

I’ve also sat at a fair amount of poker tables with serious players, and l’ll say this: I do not think Trump is trying to ‘make his base happy’ or ‘laying the groundwork for his own network’ or that ‘chaos is what he loves’.

The core of it is that he knows he’s in deep, multi-dimensional legal jeopardy, and this defines his every action.

We’re seeing 1) a tactical delay of the transition to buy time for a coverup and evidence suppression 2) above all, a desperate endgame, which is to create enough chaos and anxiety about a peaceful transfer of power, and fear of irreparable damage to the system, that he can cut a Nixon-style deal in exchange for finally conceding.

But he doesn’t have the cards. His bluff after ‘the flop’ has been called in court. His ‘turn card’ bluff will be an escalation and his ‘river card’ bluff could be really ugly. But they have to be called. We cannot let this mobster bully the USA into a deal to save his ass by threatening our democracy.

THAT is his play. But he’s got junk in his hand. So call him.

I will allow that he’s also a whiny, sulky, petulant, Grinchy, vindictive little 10-ply-super-soft bitch, who no doubt is just throwing a wicked pout fest and trying to give a tiny-hand middle finger to the whole country for pure spite, without a single thought for the dead and dying.

But his contemptible, treasonous, seditious assault on the stability of our political compact isn’t about 2024, personal enrichment or anything else other than trying to use chaos and threats to the foundation of the system as leverage to trade for a safe exit.

Call. His. Bluff.

Faith in the strength of our sacred institutions and founding principles is severely stretched, but they will hold. They will. He’s leaving, gracelessly and in infamy. But if we trade for it, give him some brokered settlement, we’ll be vulnerable to his return.

We can’t flinch."

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"10 ply super soft bitch"    :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Republicans feel free to ignore >3000 deaths per day a couple months after the election doesn’t mean Americans weren’t concerned about the risks of in-person voting during the pandemic. These Republicans assert that local officials “violated” election laws needlessly in order to protect voters against imagined dangers. They do so without evidence and without claims of fraud or evidence that said actions changed the electoral results.

Unlike the other parties to this suit, PA GOP reps might have standing because they live in a state that was named in the lawsuit.

But they are the very ones who passed the laws applicable to elections in the state and did not bring this suit to the court’s attention in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, actions by the courts would not provide redress for any harms caused by the complaints listed: disenfranchising all the authorized voters in the states named in no way creates a different process to be used in the election. That outcome is impossible, since the courts are not permitted to turn back the sands of time.

Finally, state and local elections were decided by these same elections, and the plaintiffs make no mention of how these results would be handled or if they need correction.

In short, these charlatans are engaged in signaling, nothing more.

The legal action has no chance of success, but once again GOP representatives are engaged in fruitless activity, wasting the courts time and stirring up voter emotions and avoiding their responsibilities to support American democracy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Crack legal team.

I see what you did there. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...Texas is not trying to dictate how other states conduct their election. They are saying that the method they are using to select their electors is unconstitutional. It's not that hard to understand.

How states run their elections are dictated by each state individually. Paxton's suit infringes on state sovereignty, he cannot do that. Also it is too late to complain, he should have filed before the election. Bluntly, there is no Constitutional question for the Supreme court to address. Paxton is asking a political question, and it is improper to ask the court for a decision in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

How states run their elections are dictated by each state individually. Paxton's suit infringes on state sovereignty, he cannot do that. Also it is too late to complain, he should have filed before the election. Bluntly, there is no Constitutional question for the Supreme court to address. Paxton is asking a political question, and it is improper to ask the court for a decision in this matter.

No....The constitution requires that the state legislatures establish the procedures for elections in their state. The suit claims that election official ignored the legislature's constitutionally promulgated rules and used new procedures which were not promulgated constitutionally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

So when does the SCOTUS make a ruling on the Texas thing?

Whenever they choose. They, and only they, determine their docket, their schedule, and what bases in the law and Constitution they decide cases. They could, if they choose to, as someone else pointed out, determine that this is a political and not a judicial question.  Thus the remedy to be sought is not for the Court to decide but for the legislatures and courts of the affected states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

No....The constitution requires that the state legislatures establish the procedures for elections in their state. The suit claims that election official ignored the legislature's constitutionally promulgated rules and used new procedures which were not promulgated constitutionally.

Exactly, the states have autonomy establishing election procedures in their own states. The Supreme Court cannot be expected to address issues concerning states rights to conduct their own business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

How states run their elections are dictated by each state individually. Paxton's suit infringes on state sovereignty, he cannot do that. Also it is too late to complain, he should have filed before the election. Bluntly, there is no Constitutional question for the Supreme court to address. Paxton is asking a political question, and it is improper to ask the court for a decision in this matter.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

Exactly, the states have autonomy establishing election procedures in their own states. The Supreme Court cannot be expected to address issues concerning states rights to conduct their own business.

The suit does not tell the defendant states how to run their elections, only that they follow their own constitutionally enacted rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites