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

eire4

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Trump has set the bar so low that a roomful of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters acting as hilarious random number generator connected to a yes/no light for any executive/presidential decision would do a better job of running the US.

Not only is Trump a terrible president he was willfully so. Sort of how premeditated murder is a worse offence than manslaughter

Funny post gave me a good laugh but sadly so very true as well. There was a time when I used to think of the US as a country to look up to and admire. Now I just shake my head and think what a disaster and that is being generous.

Igotadose

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

One thing missed in all the noise is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood with 53% vote

So we now could endup with 52 states (+DC as well)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/06/washington_must_grant_puerto_rico_statehood_finally_144793.html

This is a real big deal, would've been top news in a normal election.

Now, the gaming of the process begins; Congress already approved DC.

That Georgia election has become hypercritical. F*ck the voters of Maine who didn't boot Susan Collins.

Francie Barrett

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

One thing missed in all the noise is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood with 53% vote

So we now could endup with 52 states (+DC as well)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/06/washington_must_grant_puerto_rico_statehood_finally_144793.html

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

prawnsambo

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

It definitely should happen for Puerto Rico if only to give them some status within the USA. Very much treated as a second-class citizen as are the PRs themselves. Not sure of the process, is it like the one for Constitutional amendments?

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

It definitely should happen for Puerto Rico if only to give them some status within the USA. Very much treated as a second-class citizen as are the PRs themselves. Not sure of the process, is it like the one for Constitutional amendments?

As far as I can see , it's just an act of congress - So a Vote passed in each House and it's done.

MJohnston

The Republicans actually had support for Puerto Rico statehood in their 2016 platform (this part of which they didn't modify for 2020). There are probably enough Republican votes in the Senate for it to happen. The problem is, as ever, Mitch McConnell, who won't bring it to a vote.

dogbert27

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

You mean like when the UK government didn't have to act on the Brexit Referendum!

[Deleted User]

Once they're part of the states I wouldn't expect Puerto Rico to be completely Blue. Would have 5 or 6 seats in congress, could well have 2 of them be GOP. Senate might be both Blue at the the start.
GOP have little interest in allowing DC in though.

Brussels Sprout

49/50 states have now certified their results. Missouri is the final one. I cannot think why - it wasn't particularly close. Georgia managed 2 recounts in the same time.

MJohnston

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

49/50 states have now certified their results. Missouri is the final one. I cannot think why - it wasn't particularly close. Georgia managed 2 recounts in the same time.

In general, the less close a state is, the slower it counted. They put less resources into counting because there is less uncertainty about the outcome.

It's why most of the 'safe' red or blue states were called essentially as soon as voting closed, regardless of whether counting had begun or not.

dogbert27

Supreme court rejects Republican demands to overturn Pennsylvania

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9032445/Supreme-Court-REJECTS-Republican-demand-overturn-Joe-Bidens-victory-Pennsylvania.html

I wonder if Ken Paxton is fishing for a pardon!!

dogbert27

BonnieSituation

It just never ends:

The Irish Times wrote:

The state of Texas, aiming to help US president Donald Trump upend the results of the election, said on Tuesday it has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the supreme court, calling changes those states made to election procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic unlawful.

The long-shot lawsuit, announced by the Republican attorney general of Texas Ken Paxton, was being filed directly with the supreme court rather than with a lower court, as is permitted for certain litigation between states. The supreme court has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Mr Trump.

The legal action represents the latest effort intended to reverse the Republican president’s loss to Democratic president-elect Joe Biden in the November 3rd election. Those efforts have so far failed and experts said the Texas suit is also unlikely to succeed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-asks-us-supreme-court-to-help-trump-upend-election-1.4431137

---

The futility of all of this just beggars belief.

When does it end?

MJohnston

Well yesterday was the "Safe Harbor Deadline", which is a bit of a legal deadline in terms of challenging the results in state courts, although pending lawsuits can continue.

Monday December 14th is when the Electoral College will vote. There shouldn't be any hiccups here because all the states have certified, and the states Biden won will send Democrat electors.

January 6th is when Congress counts the electoral votes, more of a ceremonial process than anything. Congresspeople can challenge the count, but both the House and Senate would have to vote to uphold any challenge, and that won't happen.

Igotadose

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It just never ends:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-asks-us-supreme-court-to-help-trump-upend-election-1.4431137

---

The futility of all of this just beggars belief.

When does it end?

With the recent USSC ruling the message is clear - stop wasting the court's time.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-election-fraud-claims-supreme-court-rebuke/index.html

Great quote from that article: "The only questions now are how many more times President Donald Trump wants to lose the election to President-elect Joe Biden "

Quin_Dub

Igotadose wrote: »

With the recent USSC ruling the message is clear - stop wasting the court's time.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-election-fraud-claims-supreme-court-rebuke/index.html

Great quote from that article: "The only questions now are how many more times President Donald Trump wants to lose the election to President-elect Joe Biden "

Hopefully they'll bounce the rubbish from Texas/Paxton very shortly as well.

Carfacemandog

So Texas is suing multi other states in an effort to subvert their democratic systems.

And here I was thinking "states rights" was just a lie Republicans use to try and get away with racist and disciminatory practices...

Quin_Dub

Carfacemandog wrote: »

So Texas is suing multi other states in an effort to subvert their democratic systems.

And here I was thinking "states rights" was just a lie Republicans use to try and get away with racist and disciminatory practices...

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.

They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

Carfacemandog

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.
They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

We're really at a tipping point as to whether the GOP should be considered a criminal enterprise at this point, particularly after the last month. And at this stage, any claims of ignorance their supporters could previously try to hide behind are completely and utterly gone. They know what they are, and they support it anyway, while happily lying about the reasons why daily - "states rights" is today's one. There will be another tomorrow.

serfboard

Carfacemandog wrote: »

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

Manic Moran

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

Bad enough to change your vote?

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Bad enough to change your vote?

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

Tell me how

serfboard wrote: »

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

No. You and Seth Myers just don't get it.

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

It's not complicated, why can't people understand this?

Spanish Eyes

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

First Up

Tell me how wrote:

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

Why?

Jizique

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

Monday Dec 14 I think

Water John

Yeah Monday, we'll see how many GOP then acknowledge Biden as President Elect?

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

Did I say I would? Are you presuming which way I would have voted had I been in the state last time around? Do you mean to suggest that I will always vote for a Republican and not make an informed decision on the merits of the individual candidates?