Hey, remember when one of the only lawsuits that the Trump team actually won was the one where they got the Pennsylvania court to order that they be allowed to stand closer to the vote counters while observing them counting votes?
The one that doesn't actually change any outcomes, but that Trumpists consistently have been trying to suggest should get all of the votes tallied in Philadelphia thrown out summarily?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
If I'm more or less on the mark, then this smacks of just public relations for the Trump base (to make the inevitable losses at the trial court level appear to be "all part of the plan").
I think you're on the mark. Trump's campaign (of deadbeats and snakes) should be stuck with the evidence they marshaled in their initial hearings (which is to say no evidence at all). This leaves them stuck with legal as opposed to factual arguments as they appeal upwards.
That said, part of their tactic is to delay a final outcome, allowing them to continue to push their fabricated narrative so long as they continue to litigate. Even if they can't get anything with a whiff of a chance up to the USSC, they may get one or two remitted for a rehearing, or win the occasional appeal (which they'll claim as proof of the merits of their case).
Basically, I think their plan is twofold: get anything they can before a friendly USSC, and otherwise extend the litigation and their "it was stolen" narrative for as long as possible.
Ultimately, it's still a political rather than legal play IMO.
The democrats won 3 of the last 4 general elections. The one they lost was by the slimmest of margins and with Russian interference.
What's with the post mortems? Shouldnt that be for the GOP?
Landslide victories are not possible. The country is too large and divided. Turning Alabama blue is like asking Blackfalds AB to vote Liberal. Will not happen.
If you only consider presidential races when measuring success...it's still not a great barometer. It's even worse when you at the House, Senate, and State legislatures. The Democrats have been getting creamed by the Republicans for years.
I'm hoping the Republican vote gets split as a result of the Trump cult, as traditional Republicans start to distance themselves from the cult in an attempt to rebrand the GOP. Probably not going to happen though as the Trump cult is too loyal and big now and it wouldn't strategically make sense to abandon those votes to bring the party back to some level of decency, when power is the ultimate motivator in politics.
Apologies in advance for the long post. I find the reactions to these videos kind of funny in a very sad way. I don't expect everyone to watch them, Maher is often insufferable and the Hill's reliance on clickbait trash makes it hard to want to invest the time, but if you actually do watch the two videos, they are illuminating. Both videos are right. Common sense is required, and this is not the fault of the left or the AOC types.
In terms of what Maher is saying, there is nothing quite as grating as disingenuine posturing or victimization. Some of the examples he posits aren't fair, and I disagree with including them, but some of them can't be ignored. This idea that to be "woke" or whatever you have to fall on the sword of every issue and be the party of every single issue, and every single person has to be perfect at all times, is bogus. And as someone who does care about social issues, and has a personal stake in some of them, and does believe in the greater goals they can achieve, it's honestly maddening to read some of the stuff people lump in with this issues, because they inadvertently make the real issues look completely silly and unpressing. Take the "latinx" thing for example. 90% of people I've ever seen write the word were white. And of the few that were actually "latinx," I would categorise them as "deeply far left." To the point where you have to ask, who is this serving? Certainly not people as a whole. If you're white, and you use the word, honestly ask yourself who told you it was the right word to use. And the head kissing article was ridiculous on the deepest level. Actual victims of sexual assault are out there, actual predators are out there, people are really dealing with these things in ways you'll never know about, and ways that have been made public (like some of the more horrific stories coming out of Hollywood, for example). But someone kissed your head and it shook you? You wrote an entire article casting Biden as some sort of questionable actor because of a head kiss? Aziz Ansari gets called out for a bad date? Jesus christ, if these people only knew what these actual issues were like, how they felt, or actually knew someone who experienced them, they would feel embarrassed thinking "this is my story and I'm here to tell about it." It's so frustrating. It's down to common sense and focusing on real issues and the real things that surround them. Not everyone needs their voice heard when they're going to say something stupid, and not every voice needs to be championed as a cause within itself. There ARE issues like that, MANY of them, and the reliance on nonsense dilutes it to the point where if you dare talk about a real issue, you get called an SJW or a snowflake, because people see the nonsense, and they lump it all in together.
And I will say that while broad support on any issue is appreciated, words mean very little. Making sure you use the right words or say you're in favour of the right things is cool, and all, but if you haven't done the work, you haven't done the work, and if you actually have it becomes pretty obvious. You can always tell the difference between someone who is acting a certain way because they heard it's the right way to act, and acting that way because they put in the time to learn why and believe it to be true.
On the flip side, this is not the fault of the left, nor is it the fault of left wing issues. Corruption and corporate issues matter, and even in states the Democrats lost, some of these crazy "left wing socialist" policies were voted in FAVOUR. Most people are of the working class, most people have issues that directly impact them, they will support policies that address these issues in real and sensible ways. Fake posturing does not accomplish that. Corruption and doing more for corporations than the people will not serve you. The Democrats didn't do as well as they hoped because they didn't listen. It's not about saying you support every single social cause and taking a knee. Grow up. It's about doing something meaningful for the people who are actually impacted by those issues, and that can only be achieved by actually LISTENING. And if you listen, and you're a good, sensible person to begin with, you will come up with good, sensible answers that make a difference. The elites in the Democratic party care more about looking a certain way than acting a certain way, and that's on them.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 11-17-2020 at 02:22 PM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
If I'm more or less on the mark, then this smacks of just public relations for the Trump base (to make the inevitable losses at the trial court level appear to be "all part of the plan").
I am not a lawyer, nor do I understand the difference between the Canadian and US Legal systems, but I think there are some.
I watched some documentary before the election and there were references to other court cases where a “lose to get to the Supreme Court” method was used. I’ll try to remember what it was and include a reference.
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
I'm not an American lawyer either, but even here this isn't quite true. There's certainly plenty of latitude for making new and different legal arguments, and fresh evidence can be adduced with leave, particularly in circumstances where it wasn't available when the matter was heard at first instance. So while this is true as a general rule, there are avenues.
The question is likely whether these courts want to slam the door shut or allow every possible argument to be heard and every possible bit of extra evidence to be adduced before throwing out the claims, to eliminate grounds for review if things do proceed to the SCOTUS. That judicial tactic certainly isn't restricted to Canadian courts, by any means.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
We've just spent four years doing nothing but obsessing over what an absolute travesty the Republican party is, barely spending a day without thinking and talking and being upset about it, re-hashing endlessly the seemingly inexhaustible extremes they're willing to go to and the utter lack of decency and shame they've displayed, and what an absolute horror show it all is... and your conclusion is that "no one bats an eye"?
But yet after all this Trump barely lost. McConnel is still in charge. Graham is still around. The supreme court got 3 justices via Trump. So maybe 'no one bats an eye' was a bad choice of words. It was more in reference to there being no actual consequences to these actions. How many times Did Steve King of Iowa have to be an absolute jackwagon before anything happened? How bad of a person did Roy Moore have to be to barely lose a special election? How many things did Trump do that would have ended any previous politicians entire career?
Yet, here we have an election where democrats won the presidency, made small gains in the senate, but lost a handful in the house, and we have all this handwringing about the democratic party being too extreme?
73 million people voted for Trump. And this isn't like 2016 where you can say people just didn't like Clinton or were trying to start fresh with an outsider. As you mention, we all know what Trump is. And that's where I am coming from when saying the republican party can do just about whatever they want without consequence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
But yet after all this Trump barely lost. McConnel is still in charge. Graham is still around. The supreme court got 3 justices via Trump. So maybe 'no one bats an eye' was a bad choice of words. It was more in reference to there being no actual consequences to these actions. How many times Did Steve King of Iowa have to be an absolute jackwagon before anything happened? How bad of a person did Roy Moore have to be to barely lose a special election? How many things did Trump do that would have ended any previous politicians entire career?
Yet, here we have an election where democrats won the presidency, made small gains in the senate, but lost a handful in the house, and we have all this handwringing about the democratic party being too extreme?
73 million people voted for Trump. And this isn't like 2016 where you can say people just didn't like Clinton or were trying to start fresh with an outsider. As you mention, we all know what Trump is. And that's where I am coming from when saying the republican party can do just about whatever they want without consequence.
The unfortunate truth is that the Democrats are held to a different standard by their supporters than the Republicans are held to by their supporters. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Something that would inflame Democrat supporters is met with a shrug from Republican supporters, and this would not matter which member actually did the action or said the word.
Until the Republican supporters tighten up in what they consider to be acceptable, this will continue... and I don’t see any change anytime soon.
Yet, here we have an election where democrats won the presidency, made small gains in the senate, but lost a handful in the house, and we have all this handwringing about the democratic party being too extreme?
The logic you're advancing here is that because the other side is excessively extreme, just completely awful, that there shouldn't be any concern if the democrats want to follow suit.
The response from a principled position is, someone has to continue to stand for sanity. Don't hold up a mirror to this garbage. Your response to one side veering off into utter crazytown shouldn't be to veer off in precisely the opposite direction. Even if the democratic version of "going to the extreme" is far milder and less bad than the republican version, it's still bad.
The response from a pragmatic position is, who gives a crap what the other side is or isn't doing? The question should be, "how do we beat them". And that's the argument that's playing out right now. Certain centrist democrats are arguing that cowtowing too much to certain fringe elements of the party has made it harder to beat the republicans. Whining about that, complaining that it shouldn't be this difficult to beat them because they're completely insane, is meaningless and serves no purpose. The debate is over the strategy going forward, and from the perspective of at least a lot of people, that strategy involves shutting the #### up about defunding the police and intersectional wokeness and how half the country is racist or condones racism, and focusing on what will actually win votes. Because ultimately, all this griping about how the republicans and their base are awful and stupid and evil does not appear to help do that.
Since we're posting clips from The Hill, this is completely on point.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This one hit me as really sad. Poor teacher, probably already at wits end dealing with a bunch of snot-nosed kids during coronavirus, now has to get chewed out by a crazy Karen for not explaining to third graders that Trump's campaign has filed a couple frivolous lawsuits. Worse if she's in Trump country and might have actual fears for her career.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
The logic you're advancing here is that because the other side is excessively extreme, just completely awful, that there shouldn't be any concern if the democrats want to follow suit.
The response from a principled position is, someone has to continue to stand for sanity. Don't hold up a mirror to this garbage. Your response to one side veering off into utter crazytown shouldn't be to veer off in precisely the opposite direction. Even if the democratic version of "going to the extreme" is far milder and less bad than the republican version, it's still bad.
The response from a pragmatic position is, who gives a crap what the other side is or isn't doing? The question should be, "how do we beat them". And that's the argument that's playing out right now. Certain centrist democrats are arguing that cowtowing too much to certain fringe elements of the party has made it harder to beat the republicans. Whining about that, complaining that it shouldn't be this difficult to beat them because they're completely insane, is meaningless and serves no purpose. The debate is over the strategy going forward, and from the perspective of at least a lot of people, that strategy involves shutting the #### up about defunding the police and intersectional wokeness and how half the country is racist or condones racism, and focusing on what will actually win votes. Because ultimately, all this griping about how the republicans and their base are awful and stupid and evil does not appear to help do that.
All I am advancing is that I think there is a lot of over reaction on how the democrats need to make significant changes. My comment was that it is sad that democrats have to constantly disavow woke culture but republicans can embrace racism with little consequence. I guess the tl;dr is that it sucks that there is a double standard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I understand the difference between the Canadian and US Legal systems, but I think there are some.
I watched some documentary before the election and there were references to other court cases where a “lose to get to the Supreme Court” method was used. I’ll try to remember what it was and include a reference.
Of course, they're happy to certify the rest of the county... Just not Detroit.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
When I moved to Ireland and saw him on TV, he gave me the creeps in a big way.
I simply couldn’t understand how anyone could watch him or why he was popular.
Even more puzzling was why my grandparents (both sides) would think I’d want to watch that obvious nonce.
we all knew he was a nonce, but once or so a month he presented Top of the Pop's and you had to watch that, I never liked or watched Jim'll Fix It as it was creepy as all hell, Saville's brother was a hospital DJ at an institution my mates mum was the volunteer organizer at, huge long term care hospital in South London, this was mid seventies and she warned us to not allow any girls near him back then
