nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Quin_Dub

Continuation thread from here

All existing rules still stand.

Everyone will want to be active in this thread over the next few days , but there will be zero tolerance for Forum rule breaches.

Keep it Sensible , Civil and Polite please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Good to see over estimation of the numbers attending trump events hasn't changed in 4yrs.

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1327646530103369728?s=19

Inquitus

DubInMeath wrote: »

Good to see over estimation of the numbers attending trump events hasn't changed in 4yrs.

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1327646530103369728?s=19

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

Brussels Sprout

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

She's interviewing for a role on Trump TV. Only thing that makes any sense.

pixelburp

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

Don't forget there's an entire industry of conservative think tanks, "institutes", charities, universities and so on. McEnany will not starve for a lack of jobs, she'll find herself in a cushy number trotting out scaremongering in some deep Red neck of the country.

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

Every country is subservient to International higher bodies including the United States of America. The difference with States like Texas or Countries like Wales, Scotland is that the "higher body" is a NATIONAL one in which the State is fully integrated.
Ireland, The US etc. are subservient to International bodies and International Laws. As I remember the US military swears allegience to the US constitution. Who does this Texas military you mentioned swear allegience to?

Texas Government Code Chapter 431.
"I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the
United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will
obey the orders of the governor of Texas, and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to the laws, rules, and
articles for the government of the military forces of the State of
Texas."

The US does not accept that it is subserviant to any higher bodies than the US. This has been settled in the US Supreme Court, it merely chooses to comply with the agreements it makes.

Again, the bottom line is that there is almost nothing in terms of policy which a State cannot do that any other independent nation can, from healthcare to education, should it choose to do so. And there are various things that the higher body (US federal government) are specifically prohibited from doing at the State level, which is a restriction most national governments don't have.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Texas Government Code Chapter 431.
"I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the
United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will
obey the orders of the governor of Texas, and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to the laws, rules, and
articles for the government of the military forces of the State of
Texas."

The US does not accept that it is subserviant to any higher bodies than the US. This has been settled in the US Supreme Court, it merely chooses to comply with the agreements it makes.

Again, the bottom line is that there is almost nothing in terms of policy which a State cannot do that any other independent nation can, from healthcare to education, should it choose to do so. And there are various things that the higher body (US federal government) are specifically prohibited from doing at the State level, which is a restriction most national governments don't have.

So no federal laws can kick in within states then . ? As this is the picture you are painting. You are making out that stated are effectively countries seperate completely and with their own personal military.

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .

Intriguing.

Brussels Sprout

For my sins I had a look at NewsMax TV earlier. They have a ticker at the bottom of the screen that shows all of the close swing states in both the Presidential election and the Senate. A couple of things I noticed:

They have not called the Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada or Wisconsin races for President. An abundance of caution you ask? Well no, because they have called North Carolina for Trump which has a closer margin then Nevada. the overall effect of this is that in NewsMax land Biden is not the projected winner.
They have the Georgia Senate race result displayed as: Purdue 50% Ossoff 48%. This is subtle since they have basically just rounded up Purdue's actual result of 49.7%. There's a big difference psychologically though between those 2 numbers and makes it look like Purdue has already won a majority of the vote.
In the Senate Races they show the name of candidate who is leading first. However in the Presidential election races Trump's name is always shown first, even in the states where he's several % behind.

jamule

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

For my sins I had a look at NewsMax TV earlier. They have a ticker at the bottom of the screen that shows all of the close swing states in both the Presidential election and the Senate. A couple of things I noticed:

They have not called the Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada or Wisconsin races for President. An abundance of caution you ask? Well no, because they have called North Carolina for Trump which has a closer margin then Nevada. the overall effect of this is that in NewsMax land Biden is not the projected winner.

They have the Georgia Senate race result displayed as: Purdue 50% Ossoff 48%. This is subtle since they have basically just rounded up Purdue's actual result of 49.7%. There's a big difference psychologically though between those 2 numbers and makes it look like Purdue has already won a majority of the vote.

In the Senate Races they show the name of candidate who is leading first. However in the Presidential election races Trump's name is always shown first, even in the states where he's several % behind.

well done, thats great work, v brave. wouldn't have it jn me to click on it

fly_agaric

listermint wrote: »

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .

Intriguing.

Well it is the Brexiter conception of the EU. A federation ("EUSSR") run out of Brussels or Berlin (whichever is the target of the 2 minutes hate) where the "states" have lost their national sovereignty.
Suppose the new look US conservatives/republicans have now fully absorbed these beliefs from their UK pals (& media) by osmosis.

jill_valentine

eire4 wrote: »

Thanks for that correction. I was not aware that Mississippi had finally replaced their racists state flag with a modern non racist one. Pity they had to impose religion on the new one but a step forward so that at least is a positive.

It is, but I have to say it is a particularly lovely flag otherwise.

Tired Gardener

Just seen the Trump supporters march, quite worrying that such a large gathering went ahead during a pandemic of a highly contiguous virus. Not the best move.

I do get the feeling that Trump will leave as much chaos and civil unrest as he possibly can. If he is going to run again in 2024, he may see it advantageous to let Biden inherite as much damage as he (Trump) can muster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does a false flag to get his more fanatical followers into action on a large scale.

Biden, sadly could be about to face one of the most difficult transactions of administration. We may not be clear of Trump's disaster just yet.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

So no federal laws can kick in within states then . ? As this is the picture you are painting. You are making out that stated are effectively countries seperate completely and with their own personal military.

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .

Intriguing.

Pretty much, though I never said Ireland wasn't a country. I am taking that you're attempting to be satirical, but you're pretty much correct about Nevada.

There are very few domestic policies which can be enacted by Ireland which cannot be enacted by Nevada with full force of law completely independent to what happens elsewhere in the Union, no other State has any legal rights or jurisdiction within the borders of Nevada. And the Feds have very specific limits on what they can or cannot do. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the fifty states are sovereign entities, most recently in 2018 (Gamble v United States), and retain sovereign immunities in Federal courts (see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida). The State and the Union are two separate jurisdictions, which happen to geographically overlap, it's why State courts cannot prosecute Federal crimes and federal courts cannot prosecute state crimes, it is also why the Fifth Amendment protections in the US constitution against double jeopardy does not apply to a single act prosecuted by both State and Federal judicial systems. See also Printz v United States: The US Government cannot force a State agency to enforce Federal laws (The States can choose to do so, but the US government has no authority to order them to). Printz was a gun control case, but these days the distinction is most public with reference to immigration and 'sanctuary cities'. After all, if California and San Francisco were subject to the control of D.C., they would not be able to make such a declaration, right? Sanctuary cities did not make SCOTUS, they didn't take the case and let the Ninth Circuit holding in US v California (2019) stand, which also relied on Printz, saying "the federal government was free to expect as much as it wanted, but it could not require California’s cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment"

Again, the bottom line here actually relevant to this thread is that the politicians can enact pretty much any subject of their policy agendas, from healthcare to police reform to pollution control at the State level, without caring about whether people in other States object to them or not.

MJohnston

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, the bottom line here actually relevant to this thread is that the politicians can enact pretty much any subject of their policy agendas, from healthcare to police reform to pollution control at the State level, without caring about whether people in other States object to them or not.

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

prawnsambo

MJohnston wrote: »

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

Also states can't enact laws that are contrary to the US constitution. So they can have their own laws and constitutions, but always subservient to the US constitution and federal law/decisions by SCOTUS. ANd of course there are federal taxes and federal subsidies. Which are enormous in some cases.

Windmill100000

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Just seen the Trump supporters march, quite worrying that such a large gathering went ahead during a pandemic of a highly contiguous virus. Not the best move.

I do get the feeling that Trump will leave as much chaos and civil unrest as he possibly can. If he is going to run again in 2024, he may see it advantageous to let Biden inherite as much damage as he (Trump) can muster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does a false flag to get his more fanatical followers into action on a large scale.

Biden, sadly could be about to face one of the most difficult transactions of administration. We may not be clear of Trump's disaster just yet.

It wouldn't be in his best interests to do that. It will be highlighted at every opportunity and look terrible.

looksee

Windmill100000 wrote: »

It wouldn't be in his best interests to do that. It will be highlighted at every opportunity and look terrible.

It doesn't seem to matter what he does or how bad it looks, his followers will support him anyway. In fact what many of us see as 'bad' his followers see as 'strong' or 'owning the libs' or other nonsense ideas.

Windmill100000

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't seem to matter what he does or how bad it looks, his followers will support him anyway. In fact what many of us see as 'bad' his followers see as 'strong' or 'owning the libs' or other nonsense ideas.

Not everyone that voted for him believes every word he says is Gospel. It's those that he will need and it's those that he will lose.

MJohnston

It’s not about what Trump will do, it’s what the GOP will let him away with. So far the answer has been “anything” but if he’s causing trouble and they’re looking at these January runoffs, the calculus may change.

Brussels Sprout

jill_valentine wrote: »

It is, but I have to say it is a particularly lovely flag otherwise.

In fairness to them, as a state known for its low levels of educational attainment, they actually followed the guidelines laid out by the flag experts

The commission also added that suggestions would need to be unique and adhere to principles of the North American Vexillological Association: that the design should use only two or three basic colors, be simple enough for a child to draw, and have meaningful symbolism.

link

The vast majority of US State flags do not meet those criteria meaning that this flag is automatically already one of the best in the country.

Foxtrol

Whether it was intended or just another case of his ongoing battle with the English language, Trump has finally admitted that he lost the election. Baby steps but at least they're going in the right direction.

https://twitter.com/business/status/1327976171552829441?s=20

Manic Moran

MJohnston wrote: »

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

Assuming they're all not pulling in different directions. Kinda pointless trying to do something like combatting climate change if half the states don't bother and the other half do the heavy lifting. Pollution and climate don't do state boundaries.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

Assuming they're all not pulling in different directions. Kinda pointless trying to do something like combatting climate change if half the states don't bother and the other half do the heavy lifting. Pollution and climate don't do state boundaries.

True, and Congress can set a minimum level. It should not, however, and need not, prevent a State from setting a higher level should it wish to. I believe the EU works on a similar basis. Most other policies can be quite happily regional.

Congress is supposed to remove barriers between states and co-ordinate between them, not do the job of state governments. So, again, I ask the question, what policy proposals, from education to healthcare to policing, to public transport to water quality to pensions to unemployment to (whatever) are beyond the capability or authority for the States to control for themselves within their borders? If they can be, then why doesn't Congress simply remove any limitations, and let the States who want them implement them?

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

I'm totally confused as to what is actually being argued in this rabbit hole anymore.

In other news, the failure to accept the outcome of the election continues to foment Proud Boy activity. I'm no longer sure whether they're standing by, standing down or standing up after their football-hooligan style attempt to taunt and Boogaloo through a DC street overnight. They seemed shocked that people didn't just pretend they weren't there or vacate the streets to let them do what they wanted. And of course the Trump cult had a field day with selective editing of video to portray the poor, innocent Trump supporters as being set upon by 'Antifa'.

Trump has sown the seeds of a winter of vicious dis-content in his pre- and post- election denials of democracy and the Will of the People. Who can be surprised when the seeds come into bloom?

TomOnBoard

Rudey, who is now Donald's lead legal resource for post-election challenges, was in full flight on Fox News this morning with his last-ditch effort to get the Courts to throw out the results in multiple States. The focus is now the Smartmatic voting machines.

Let's hope this ****e gets brought into Court immediately, so that Rudey can get his Ass handed to him by a judge. As it stands, the Courts have thrown out 19 of the 20 cases brought so far. I eagerly await No. 20.

MJohnston

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

If you're asking why states do not have full legislative autonomy then the answer is that it's because it's not in the interests of any political party in the US to actually let that happen, save for perhaps truly committed members of the Libertarian Party.

astrofool

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Rudey, who is now Donald's lead legal resource for post-election challenges, was in full flight on Fox News this morning with his last-ditch effort to get the Courts to throw out the results in multiple States. The focus is now the Smartmatic voting machines.

Let's hope this ****e gets brought into Court immediately, so that Rudey can get his Ass handed to him by a judge. As it stands, the Courts have thrown out 19 of the 20 cases brought so far. I eagerly await No. 20.

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

TomOnBoard

astrofool wrote: »

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

I dont really know what Rudey is arguing at this stage. I just want it to get into Court where someone has to give evidence to support whatever claim is currently in vogue in Q- world. Then I'll be able to follow the 'logic' if such exists..

Gunmonkey

astrofool wrote: »

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

Ive been wondering that myself; just what is Rudy's "angle" here?

"Your honour, these machines can be easily hacked and fake votes added to the tally. You need to dis-avow all the votes for Sleepy Joe Biden as the Democrats faked all his votes!"
"Ok, so these CAN be hacked to produce fake votes but can you prove the Democrats actually DID this?"
"Errrr no!"

It boggles the mind

BlitzKrieg

Maybe his position is that it didnt count a bunch of trump votes?