US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2020 05:06PM

fr336 wrote: »

WTF is going in with trump packing the pentagon with his picks? Very worrying.

I'm really not sure.

Do they get some kind of lump sum payment if they are part of an outgoing administration?

"Ministerial Pension" as it were?

astrofool · 11-11-2020 05:17PM

They're changing from political appointments to civil servants, which makes it harder for them to be moved on (or sit on their tod for years collecting a top salary).

serfboard · 11-11-2020 05:41PM

Robert2014 wrote: »

Everyone was fed up with it before it went to the Supreme Court and Gore accepted its verdict.

Donald Trump is not Al Gore. As someone said, Donald Trump will go to his grave not accepting the verdict.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here for example when we're all pissed off at the Big Parties , we vote Green or Independent etc. as a "protest" vote of sorts.

Indeed, but we can do that here because we have PR. There is a push in some quarters in the US to get "Ranked Choice" voting (as the Americans refer to it), more widely adopted.

Here, in the last election, the alternative to the big two that we voted for - Sinn Fein - could have ended up being more than a protest vote if they had fielded more candidates.

BlitzKrieg · 11-11-2020 06:39PM

serfboard wrote: »

Donald Trump is not Al Gore. As someone said, Donald Trump will go to his grave not accepting the verdict.

or is able to bury the verdict that no one notices or cares.

He has lost in the past (Trump University being a prime example) and he's buried under a bunch of legalize and just does not talk about it. Same with the Russia investigation, he latches on to one specific aspect and drowns out all the other results with the one point.

Until he gets a similar out he that he can use to drown out the sheer deafless euphoria that his defeat he'll keep on throwing tantrums.

Depressingly its a tactic that has worked for him far too much.

everlast75 · 11-11-2020 07:23PM

Today's "there's always a tweet"...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805486509914779649?s=19

MJohnston · 11-11-2020 07:38PM

Anyone know any good tweeters who are covering the lawsuits closely?

I wish Arizona would hurry up and count their ****ing votes - the sooner there’s an insurmountable Electoral College gap between the two candidates the better.

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 07:52PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Anyone know any good tweeters who are covering the lawsuits closely?

I wish Arizona would hurry up and count their ****ing votes - the sooner there’s an insurmountable Electoral College gap between the two candidates the better.

This guy probably. Seems to have a pretty close eye on proceedings and tweeting snippets of affidavits like this.

TomOnBoard · 11-11-2020 08:20PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Anyone know any good tweeters who are covering the lawsuits closely?

I wish Arizona would hurry up and count their ****ing votes - the sooner there’s an insurmountable Electoral College gap between the two candidates the better.

I find @lawcrimenews and @KlasfeldReports good and fairly up to the minute.

If you really want to get into the legal/filing weeds on a variety of shenannigans, take a look at @File411

extra gravy · 11-11-2020 08:27PM

https://twitter.com/MaxMMarin/status/1326536652215316481?s=19

Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt gave an interview earlier where he dismissed claims of voter fraud stating "I can't comprehend how hungry people are to consume lies and to consume information that is not true,"

He also stated that his office had received death threats. The toddler-in-chief was obviously watching and posted this crap afterwards. He is inciting those death threats and putting the lives of American election workers and officials at risk. The sooner this dangerous, pathetic loser is out of the White House the better.

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 08:41PM

Also Dave Wasserman is tweeting as states certify their results. Four have certified so far: Delaware, Wyoming, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Manic Moran · 11-11-2020 08:51PM

Just on the point in regards the National Guard, am I mistaken or can they be 'Federalized' by Executive Order (or whenever the president so desires?) - I seem to have vague recollections of that happening at some point during the Civil Rights Era, as a means of undercutting one of the states ability to cause a fuss. Adjunct to this, National Guard and active service Army are different kettles of fish I presume; this may be outside your wheelhouse but is there much in the way of distinctions between the two in terms of political affiliation or demographic makeup? Again, I recall hearing the term weekend-warrior somewhere and I'm left with the enduring view of it being something for suburban householders to do in their spare time - but then I'm near certain a few of those units were deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan so I don't want to commit to an ill-informed pisstake without getting the facts straight.

You are correct, the National Guard (Not the State Guard, but they're smaller and less well armed. Normally if one says "The Guard" it means National Guard) can be federalised into Title 10 Status, at which point they become in effect members of the Regular Army subject to all the laws of the regular force, and removed from the State chain of command. But it also means that there are limits as to what they can do. In the case of 1957 (the Civil rights era instance to which you refer), yes, it was conducted under the Insurrection Act, however, the Act requires "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." In 1957, there was a Supreme Court ruling being ignored by the State authorities. In this Trump case, there is no particular reason for it to apply so although he can 'invoke' the act, there's little saying that an order under it is not clearly unlawful in most circumstances. (Thats' the trigger. It has to be obviously unlawful to be refused, not just questionable)

I guess there was one big loophole I missed. The prohibition on using the Federal Army in domestic law enforcement actually does not apply to Marines in the law. It does in practice because of regulations, but regulations can be changed. The end result, though, would be absolutely the same as for the DC Guard. On 20 January, the Marines go home. And, of course, there's the question of "If they're enforcing the law, what laws are they enforcing?" Being ordered to do something blatantly illegal (eg seize a vote counting center) is going to be refused, there has to be some legitimate purpose to do it.

In terms of demographic makeup, yes, there would be a difference as the Guard is locally recruited. Some 90%+ of the PA Guard, for example, would be from PA. Most Guard units would have deployed, the concept is "The Total Army Force". Unlike the Irish or British reserves, we all go to the same schools and have the same equipment. My Basic Training unit in Fort Knox was about split Army/Guard/Reserve:40/40/20. I'm currently assigned to the HQ of 1st Armored Division, a regular army unit, and I go whenever they go.

CrabRevolution · 11-11-2020 08:53PM

https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
Been following this for the latest counts.

Gets frustrating when you see there's been an update and think it could be a decisive move in one of the remaining states, but when you check it out it shows something like 1 vote being tallied in Georgia. Bit of a letdown!

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 09:10PM

South Dakota now certified. That makes five. Tick tock.

TomOnBoard · 11-11-2020 09:12PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
Been following this for the latest counts.

Gets frustrating when you see there's been an update and think it could be a decisive move in one of the remaining states, but when you check it out it shows something like 1 vote being tallied in Georgia. Bit of a letdown!

I dunno how you're going to get through the next fortnight or 3 weeks in GA, so! The Secretary of State said today it going to a complete MANUAL recount... That's 5 million votes, designed to be read/counted by machine that are not going to be counted by machine.... :eek:

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 09:21PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

South Dakota now certified. That makes five. Tick tock.

Six with Vermont. I suspect that these will continue through the day and then slow down as the others continue their counts.

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 09:45PM

And here's the first one that gets to the heart of the matter. Not sure how that can get any traction in court.

Irish Praetorian · 11-11-2020 09:45PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are correct, the National Guard (Not the State Guard, but they're smaller and less well armed. Normally if one says "The Guard" it means National Guard) can be federalised into Title 10 Status, at which point they become in effect members of the Regular Army subject to all the laws of the regular force, and removed from the State chain of command. But it also means that there are limits as to what they can do. In the case of 1957 (the Civil rights era instance to which you refer), yes, it was conducted under the Insurrection Act, however, the Act requires "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." In 1957, there was a Supreme Court ruling being ignored by the State authorities. In this Trump case, there is no particular reason for it to apply so although he can 'invoke' the act, there's little saying that an order under it is not clearly unlawful in most circumstances. (Thats' the trigger. It has to be obviously unlawful to be refused, not just questionable)

I guess there was one big loophole I missed. The prohibition on using the Federal Army in domestic law enforcement actually does not apply to Marines in the law. It does in practice because of regulations, but regulations can be changed. The end result, though, would be absolutely the same as for the DC Guard. On 20 January, the Marines go home. And, of course, there's the question of "If they're enforcing the law, what laws are they enforcing?" Being ordered to do something blatantly illegal (eg seize a vote counting center) is going to be refused, there has to be some legitimate purpose to do it.

In terms of demographic makeup, yes, there would be a difference as the Guard is locally recruited. Some 90%+ of the PA Guard, for example, would be from PA. Most Guard units would have deployed, the concept is "The Total Army Force". Unlike the Irish or British reserves, we all go to the same schools and have the same equipment. My Basic Training unit in Fort Knox was about split Army/Guard/Reserve:40/40/20. I'm currently assigned to the HQ of 1st Armored Division, a regular army unit, and I go whenever they go.

Intriguing, and I'm glad I held fire on my weekend-warrior quip, because from what you describe it really sounds like the National Guard is a lot more capable as a fighting force than most people might realize. I would almost be concerned given the kind of regional affiliation you describe, but I presume from what you say and don't say, that the NG has, like the Army, a bit of a Republican lean in its membership.

In any case, I appreciate the insights; you're an utter wellspring of knowledge on the topic. You know if you had the time, you should get yourself a YT channel, do some videos on this kinda stuff.

BonnieSituation · 11-11-2020 09:52PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

South Dakota now certified. That makes five. Tick tock.

With Wyoming, Oklahoma and South Carolina all certified as well I'm surprised he hasn't shouted "Stop the Certifications".

Irish Praetorian · 11-11-2020 09:53PM

Blowfish wrote: »

It's possible alright that they'd be uncomfortable with it, but from everything I've seen (even as someone who often disagrees majorly with how the US military is used), the US military would be extremely unwilling to involve themselves and would always defer to the courts as the ones responsible for resolving any disputes or issues with elections.

Now, the one caveat is that the military will obey all legal orders from the president and while I'd agree with Manic that they'd quite happily down tools on Jan 20th if instructed to, there are still plenty of 'legal' orders that would cause havok before then. Hypothetically (though I'm no lawyer so could be way off), Trump could state that the 'election fraud' is depriving people of their constitutionally protected rights, hence under the Insurrection Act (third bullet point here) he is mobilising the National Guard and ordering them to 'secure' the counting locations. I don't envy the situation that'd stick the top end of the US military in were that to happen.

That would, from what I've seen and from what I'm hearing on here, be what I'm inclined to believe as well, although I'm not sure to what extent a court ruling could sway matters, unless its taken seriously at the highest levels. Of course, in a tense situation, what exactly constitutes the highest levels would be up for interpretation.

Ultimately, I'm not sure how pleasing it is to know that the US military would tend, in most circumstances, towards non-intervention. It doesn't seem like much of an issue when things are working well, and what becomes of Trump might well serve as a forceful reminder of that. However, some of the deeper structural issues like a Senate which is by design non representative, an Executive branch which can (and has) quite easily be obtained by the smaller vote tally, a Judiciary which relies on the former two and a lower legislative branch that has it's own issues with gerrymandering and loss of respect, when combined with a strictly neutral military, seem to provide a recipe for a very dangerous situation. The kind of pressures that can build up when a government cannot represent the people it purports to and leave no response but violence available, could lead to the kind of civil-military conflict which the policy of neutrality would purport to avoid. One might really hope that the US tries to make some progress in modernising some of its political structures in the near future, before another popular vote loss for example, causes more strain.

everlast75 · 11-11-2020 10:03PM

A link to one of the court hearings.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1326624975655215108?s=19

It is *not* going well for Trump.

"Attorney David Fink for Detroit is up:

"By now, we've seen this before..."

"It's starting to feel a little bit like Groundhog Day, but unlike Groundhog Day, this isn't funny at all."

Itssoeasy · 11-11-2020 11:27PM

The transcript of one of other cases does really show how much they’ll try and twist themselves in knots. The one where the answer was “non zero people” beats all. Someone should get the board from father Ted with reality and imagination on it. And throw in the small and far away line to try for him and his supporters get the message.

It’s over and he won’t be president past January 20th of next year. I also don’t believe he’ll run again in 2024, because as bad as he is now mentally, he’s not getting better so four more years won’t improve his mental state.

Itssoeasy · 12-11-2020 12:20AM

I have to laugh and also shake my head at the progressive wing of the Democratic Party scrolling through Twitter. They are highlighting measures passed in several states on Election Day which should be welcomed, but how did the progressive wing do in house and senate races ? They struck out when you compare it to the pre election predictions.

I’m someone who would be in favour of most of what they stand for, but their messaging is awful at times. If they ever want to bring about the change they want at a national level they need to be willing to adapt their message to fit the electorate they are trying to get votes from. They are too easy for the conservative media and GOP to lump together. And it would seem that “centrist” is a term of derision amongst them. Nothing wrong with being a centrist imo. They criticise the GOP and rightly so on many issues but they need to look in the mirror and realise not being the GOP isn’t a good policy position.

So, this post and my last few shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of the democrats as a whole or any one part of it, but more annoyance at the fact that America as a whole seems to be moving towards the left but that can’t lead to complacency from the left. And for Christ sake can they stop the purity test they do. As was pointed out the GOP while having a shrinking base, will vote for a brick if it’s got an R next to it’s name. The democrats don’t do that and they need to do it more.

listermint · 12-11-2020 12:26AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I have to laugh and also shake my head at the progressive wing of the Democratic Party scrolling through Twitter. They are highlighting measures passed in several states on Election Day which should be welcomed, but how did the progressive wing do in house and senate races ? They struck out when you compare it to the pre election predictions.

I’m someone who would be in favour of most of what they stand for, but their messaging is awful at times. If they ever want to bring about the change they want at a national level they need to be willing to adapt their message to fit the electorate they are trying to get votes from. They are too easy for the conservative media and GOP to lump together. And it would seem that “centrist” is a term of derision amongst them. Nothing wrong with being a centrist imo. They criticise the GOP and rightly so on many issues but they need to look in the mirror and realise not being the GOP isn’t a good policy position.

So, this post and my last few shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of the democrats as a whole or any one part of it, but more annoyance at the fact that America as a whole seems to be moving towards the left but that can’t lead to complacency from the left. And for Christ sake can they stop the purity test they do. As was pointed out the GOP while having a shrinking base, will vote for a brick if it’s got an R next to it’s name. The democrats don’t do that and they need to do it more.

They won all but 1 seat.

They are better at reaching out to their base than any other group in the dem party.

eire4 · 12-11-2020 12:30AM

listermint wrote: »

They won all but 1 seat.

They are better at reaching out to their base than any other group in the dem party.

I would also add that poor messaging is a Democratic wide problem. Whether its actual left leaning Democrats or right leaning corporate Democrats it has long been a big Democratic weakness. Made even worse because coming up with catchy slogans and phrases that stick and work for them sadly has long been a Republican strength.

Itssoeasy · 12-11-2020 12:30AM

listermint wrote: »

They won all but 1 seat.

They are better at reaching out to their base than any other group in the dem party.

So I’m completely wrong then.

listermint · 12-11-2020 12:32AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I’m completely wrong then.

Pretty much. The statistics don't back up the claim unfortunately.

These will be a very powerful force in getting the numbers for Georgia. Tactically they've been excellent. Getting people energised at the doors etc

eire4 · 12-11-2020 12:36AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I’m completely wrong then.

Yes the progressives in the Democratic party did well retaining almost all their seats.

eire4 · 12-11-2020 12:40AM

listermint wrote: »

Pretty much. The statistics don't back up the claim unfortunately.

These will be a very powerful force in getting the numbers for Georgia. Tactically they've been excellent. Getting people energised at the doors etc

That is correct they played a big role in places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee and many other urban areas. What worries me is that the Corporate Democrats who control the party will now start demonizing them in their own form of purity test. Plus on top of that they will do little of any note to fundamentally reform the police in the US and thus lose a good portion of the black vote which was very energized in this election following on from the protests against police brutalities and murders throughout much of 2020.

Itssoeasy · 12-11-2020 12:43AM

listermint wrote: »

Pretty much. The statistics don't back up the claim unfortunately.

These will be a very powerful force in getting the numbers for Georgia. Tactically they've been excellent. Getting people energised at the doors etc

Well then I’ll stop making posts on them. No point in being wrong. Well it’s clear we disagree not on what they do but how they do it. I will say that the democrats as a whole didn’t have a good night and lost seats in the house and may take control of the senate but as a whole(which is where we have confusion over the all bar one line) which includes the progressive wing didn’t perform like they wanted to or needed to.

listermint · 12-11-2020 12:46AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well then I’ll stop making posts on them. No point in being wrong. Well it’s clear we disagree not on what they do but how they do it. I will say that the democrats as a whole didn’t have a good night and lost seats in the house and may take control of the senate but as a whole(which is where we have confusion over the all bar one line) which includes the progressive wing didn’t perform like they wanted to or needed to.

Perhaps if the rest of the party particularly the whingers that are going on about the lost seats connected with their voters the same way ?

Because they're doing something wrong entirely and blaming half your own party for your complete ineptitude isn't going to win 2024.

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Comments