[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[SportsJunky]

Just saw a piece on CBS morning news about armed militias in America that fully support Trump and hear every dog whistle coming from him. Scary bunch of folks.

[direwolf]

The major networks still haven't called AZ (WTF are they waiting for?). But it looks like it's over for Trump in that state.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1326726087133581314


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1721629.html

President-elect Joe Biden has finally been announced as the winner in Arizona by one of the last remaining analysts to call the state, days after the Associated Press, Fox News and several other networks projected his victory.

Mr Biden no longer needed to win Arizona’s 11 electoral votes, which take him to a total of 290, after he was declared the winner in the crucial swing state ofPennsylvania on Saturday. But the result in Arizona was still being closely watched, after some analysts suggested the projection of a result in the state on election night itself was a little premature.

The victory in Arizona is a historic one for the Democrats, who last took the seat in 1996 during Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. Before Mr Clinton, the last Democrat to win in Arizona was Harry Truman in 1948.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Wow, bold statement and strongly disagree. Honestly on most topics I agree with you but this one I think you’re out to lunch. At a certain point, and in my opinion we have crossed it, but at a certain point you need to stand up to it. Sometimes there is no negotiation or debating left to do. I know you know what’s right and wrong here.

Historical context is totally different. People love the spectre of nAzI GeRManY because it sounds edgy and serious. Totalitarianism is a big deal and has only popped up in certain places at certain times. Institutions have to be weak and the movement has to be strong.

I could see America sliding into some kind of tin-pot authoritarianism that is short-lived. Something like Italy in the 1930s. Trump reminded me of Mussolini far more than Hitler. The reason being it was mostly show and fell apart rather quickly.

I studied with one of the foremost Canadian experts on tyranny, if that provides context.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Trump lawsuits getting thrown out left and right.

No Self-Respecting Lawyer Should Touch Trump’s Election-Fraud Claims
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ection/617064/

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct—upon which most state bars rely at least in part—stipulates that a lawyer shall not bring an action unless a basis exists in law and fact for doing so. This rule implies that lawyers must do due diligence to inform themselves of the facts of the case and reasonably determine that a good-faith argument can be made in defense of the client’s legal claim. Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—many of which are designed to serve as “gatekeepers” against frivolous lawsuits—requires lawyers to ensure that their arguments are not frivolous, and that factual contentions either have or are reasonably likely to have evidentiary support. Although the courts do not often exercise their discretion to enforce it, Rule 11(c) provides judges with the authority to impose sanctions against lawyers who have violated Rule 11(b).

These due-diligence obligations are of particular importance in the cases Trump and his team are now litigating. Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules identifies certain “special matters” that must be pled with greater specificity and are thus subject to what courts call “heightened scrutiny.” One of these matters is fraud: “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake” (italics added). More than one court has held that the “heightened scrutiny” Rule 9(b) requires also applies to claims of election fraud.

[calumniate]

Hey guys, Mussolini was just tin-pot authoritarianism. No big deal.. more like the flu

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I mean, we're also not allowed to advance suits on frivolous pretenses here, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. I've definitely had to defend more nonsensical garbage than these Trump lawsuits.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, we're also not allowed to advance suits on frivolous pretenses here, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. I've definitely had to defend more nonsensical garbage than these Trump lawsuits.

OT, but how much lawyering goes on in a courtroom like on TV shows? Do most things get settled with a series of emails/letters, or do you actually have to stand up in a court and look for a 'gotcha' moment with a witness in a stand?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Hey guys, Mussolini was just tin-pot authoritarianism. No big deal.. more like the flu

You should read more. It would calm you down.

[calumniate]

Hahaha

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

You should read more. It would calm you down.

You should look for greater comprehension and meaning of those readings. It would bring you to much different conclusions on a number of topics including authoritarianism and the historical significance of such movements.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

I studied with one of the foremost Canadian experts on tyranny, if that provides context.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

You should read more. It would calm you down.

You should post less. Might have the same effect.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

You should look for greater comprehension and meaning of those readings. It would bring you to much different conclusions on a number of topics including authoritarianism and the historical significance of such movements.

What readings?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by peter12

I studied with one of the foremost Canadian experts on tyranny,

You know Rob Anders?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sliver

OT, but how much lawyering goes on in a courtroom like on TV shows? Do most things get settled with a series of emails/letters, or do you actually have to stand up in a court and look for a 'gotcha' moment with a witness in a stand?

I think I speak not only for Corsi and myself, but for every other litigator on this board when I say that our lives are absolutely every bit as glamorous and exciting as you imagine.

Probably more so.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Sliver

OT, but how much lawyering goes on in a courtroom like on TV shows? Do most things get settled with a series of emails/letters, or do you actually have to stand up in a court and look for a 'gotcha' moment with a witness in a stand?

Next to none in private practice. Almost everything settles. Stuff that doesn't takes years to get to court or a hearing. In the rare occasion that it does get there, there are no "gotcha" moments. There's good transcript and bad transcript but no one goes "aha, I've won". It's more like gradually building a list of admissions and facts in evidence over the course of the hearing (which can last for weeks), hopefully in a way that the witness doesn't even clue into the importance of what you're doing.

The only similarity with TV is that they're both scripted - we know what our witnesses are going to say before we ask the question because we've done prep sessions with them (unless they screw up). We know what the other side's witnesses are going to say because we either have transcript of them saying it in discovery (which is the Canadian version of a deposition) or a document to hold them to, like an email where they say what we want the Court to hear them saying. There are rarely any siginificant surprises.

EDIT: This relates to my practice. I assume people who are doing files where the parties are individuals have a lot more chaos to deal with. I would never do family law, for example, for that reason among others.

[peter12]

Guys, I just don’t think this peaceful transition into another democratically-elected Presidency smells like the Third Reich. What is so wild about that?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You know Rob Anders?

No, he was my accounting prof.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would argue the Cold War wasn't won by any nation state, it was ended as a result of many factors beyond the control of the participants. The Americans engaged the Russians in an arms race that greatly contributed to the economic crisis the Soviets would face, but it was the Soviets' foray into Afghanistan and the three consecutive crop failures in the 80s that really caused the end of the Cold War. And don't think for a second the United States won the Cold War. The effects of that arms race is still being felt by the country as Reagan spent those trillions of dollars on the country credit card with 18-21% interest. The impact of that spending will be felt for generations to come and continues to be a drag on the nation. Just like America's incursion into Afghanistan to aid the fight against the Soviets resulted in long term blowback (Al Qaeda), so to does the spending that Reagan engaged in. The Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of the Cold War, but America opened Pandora's Box and still may feel the weight of that period contribute to her own failure.







Completely agree with this. If a demagogue with brains, meaning someone other than Trump (sorry peter12, Trump is an incompetent idiot), was availed this following, America could be turned in a heartbeat. Pulling on the heart strings of "patriotism" can pull America together in a New York minute. If Trump had any brains he would have picked a paper tiger nation, like North Korea, and run a false flag attack against an American asset, with moderate casualties. That would have been his 9/11 moment and he could have got the whole nation whipped into a frenzy and behind him, giving him the greenlight to remove all their civil liberties and really raid the treasury. Fortunately, Trump is an idiot and surrounded himself with idiots, so we only had to out up with the later, but could you imagine Trump with the American support Bush had after 9/11? Terrifying...

Just how feasible do you believe the idea of a "false flag" operation is in reality? I just don't think there is a realistic chance of one ever actually working, and I suspect that is why they don't happen.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Historical context is totally different. People love the spectre of nAzI GeRManY because it sounds edgy and serious. Totalitarianism is a big deal and has only popped up in certain places at certain times. Institutions have to be weak and the movement has to be strong.

I could see America sliding into some kind of tin-pot authoritarianism that is short-lived. Something like Italy in the 1930s. Trump reminded me of Mussolini far more than Hitler. The reason being it was mostly show and fell apart rather quickly.

I studied with one of the foremost Canadian experts on tyranny, if that provides context.

Isn't this really the point though?

People like to say Nazi Germany because its a obvious fascist regime that comes to mind first, but I don't think they're implying America would be an exact replica of them.

Just that the ambitions seem to be there for Trump to take the country into an authoritarian state, and that it's not impossible as some like to believe.