Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

2020 US Presidential Election. (LOCKED)

Page 281 of 442 < 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 >

Topic Locked

BlueJay UK 11 Dec 20 5.13pm
Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election - If the justices let Trump join a Texas lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a president asking the top court to decide that the millions of votes did not count - [Link] Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 5.14pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 11 Dec 20 5.13pm

Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election - If the justices let Trump join a Texas lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a president asking the top court to decide that the millions of votes did not count - [Link]

Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 5.14pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.26pm
Originally posted by Spiderman I thought you were a better man than to come out with infantile responses. Still you made me chuckle just when I needed it I am happy for you. We all need a chuckle from time to time. Goodness knows how many I have found here. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.26pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

I thought you were a better man than to come out with infantile responses. Still you made me chuckle just when I needed it

I am happy for you. We all need a chuckle from time to time. Goodness knows how many I have found here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.35pm
Originally posted by W12 "Attorney General William Barr has known about a set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the election campaign" [Link] Edited by W12 (11 Dec 2020 4.06pm) This is old news. Trump was pushing him to release the details prior to the election but Barr suspended the investigation because of the precedent of not allowing such things to be used politically. Trump wasn't happy. It seems that a gap has opened between Barr and Trump, presumably because Barr needs to try to salvage what remains of his reputation. His book will be a very interesting read. The investigation appears to be a bag of nothing anyway. The suggestion seems to centre around a gift that was made by a Chinese businessman and not declared as income because it was given on. If there was any wrongdoing it's likely to be an admin error and not corruption resulting in a slap on the wrist. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.35pm

Originally posted by W12

"Attorney General William Barr has known about a set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the election campaign"

[Link]

Edited by W12 (11 Dec 2020 4.06pm)

This is old news. Trump was pushing him to release the details prior to the election but Barr suspended the investigation because of the precedent of not allowing such things to be used politically. Trump wasn't happy.

It seems that a gap has opened between Barr and Trump, presumably because Barr needs to try to salvage what remains of his reputation. His book will be a very interesting read.

The investigation appears to be a bag of nothing anyway. The suggestion seems to centre around a gift that was made by a Chinese businessman and not declared as income because it was given on. If there was any wrongdoing it's likely to be an admin error and not corruption resulting in a slap on the wrist.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.43pm
Originally posted by BlueJay Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election - If the justices let Trump join a Texas lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a president asking the top court to decide that the millions of votes did not count - [Link] Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 5.14pm) In the unlikely event that the SC decide to even accept the case this will be a very big test for them. How many, if any, would support Trump? Should they do so then their loyalty to the law will come under intense scrutiny and enhance the prospect of Biden increasing the number of Justices. I don't think they will even agree to hear it. They risk too much should they do so. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 5.43pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 5.14pm)

In the unlikely event that the SC decide to even accept the case this will be a very big test for them. How many, if any, would support Trump? Should they do so then their loyalty to the law will come under intense scrutiny and enhance the prospect of Biden increasing the number of Justices.

I don't think they will even agree to hear it. They risk too much should they do so.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 11 Dec 20 6.18pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle In the unlikely event that the SC decide to even accept the case this will be a very big test for them. How many, if any, would support Trump? Should they do so then their loyalty to the law will come under intense scrutiny and enhance the prospect of Biden increasing the number of Justices. I don't think they will even agree to hear it. They risk too much should they do so. I tend to agree, it would be seen to be a circumvention of the democratic process. They're unlikely to support a motion that would throw out millions of perfectly valid votes. Also, allowing one state to interfere in the affairs of others would set a precedent that would upend state rights in a myriad of unpredictable ways, so it would become ludicrous really. Still, no doubt some hold onto this as a preference. Democracy suddenly becomes old hat to them and it becomes about a means to an ends. Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 6.20pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 11 Dec 20 6.18pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I tend to agree, it would be seen to be a circumvention of the democratic process. They're unlikely to support a motion that would throw out millions of perfectly valid votes.

Also, allowing one state to interfere in the affairs of others would set a precedent that would upend state rights in a myriad of unpredictable ways, so it would become ludicrous really.

Still, no doubt some hold onto this as a preference. Democracy suddenly becomes old hat to them and it becomes about a means to an ends.

Edited by BlueJay (11 Dec 2020 6.20pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 11 Dec 20 6.25pm
Eyes should probably be turning to the Georgia run-offs really. From what I hear Republicans are still favoured to win those actually. It'll be interesting to see how they pan out.
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 11 Dec 20 6.25pm

Eyes should probably be turning to the Georgia run-offs really. From what I hear Republicans are still favoured to win those actually. It'll be interesting to see how they pan out.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 6.47pm
Originally posted by BlueJay Eyes should probably be turning to the Georgia run-offs really. From what I hear Republicans are still favoured to win those actually. It'll be interesting to see how they pan out. They really ought to. That Trump lost the electoral college votes there was a direct consequence of him, and not the Republicans. I have also read that him undermining confidence in the electoral process, and especially in postal ballots, could rebound as it's much more likely that Republican voters will decide it's not worth voting than Democratic ones. In a tight race that could prove decisive and should they lose Trump could easily be held responsible by the GOP for them losing the Senate and allowing the Democrats free rein to pass whatever they want. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 6.47pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Eyes should probably be turning to the Georgia run-offs really. From what I hear Republicans are still favoured to win those actually. It'll be interesting to see how they pan out.

They really ought to. That Trump lost the electoral college votes there was a direct consequence of him, and not the Republicans.

I have also read that him undermining confidence in the electoral process, and especially in postal ballots, could rebound as it's much more likely that Republican voters will decide it's not worth voting than Democratic ones. In a tight race that could prove decisive and should they lose Trump could easily be held responsible by the GOP for them losing the Senate and allowing the Democrats free rein to pass whatever they want.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 11 Dec 20 6.58pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle In the unlikely event that the SC decide to even accept the case this will be a very big test for them. How many, if any, would support Trump? Should they do so then their loyalty to the law will come under intense scrutiny and enhance the prospect of Biden increasing the number of Justices. I don't think they will even agree to hear it. They risk too much should they do so. They risk too much! Dont worry about the possible truth then. Shows exactly where the priorities lie.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 11 Dec 20 6.58pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't think they will even agree to hear it. They risk too much should they do so.

They risk too much!
Dont worry about the possible truth then.
Shows exactly where the priorities lie.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 8.08pm
Supporting Texas's case at Scotus will be: -The President himself Donald Trump -21 States -106 US Congressmen -13 Arizona State Legislators -16 Georgia State Senators -15 Michigan State Legislators -24 Pennsylvania State Senators Spicy. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Dec 20 8.08pm

Supporting Texas's case at Scotus will be:

-The President himself Donald Trump
-21 States
-106 US Congressmen
-13 Arizona State Legislators
-16 Georgia State Senators
-15 Michigan State Legislators
-24 Pennsylvania State Senators

Spicy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 8.55pm
Originally posted by cryrst They risk too much! Dont worry about the possible truth then. Shows exactly where the priorities lie. The US Supreme Court has been so compromised by the political nature of the way the Justices are appointed, especially during Trump's time, that you cannot completely rule out the possibility that politics might interfere with their decision. I think that's unlikely as, despite the politics, they are essentially lawyers whose primary loyalty is to the constitution. So of course finding the truth is paramount but as that seems to have already been definitively established at state level it has to be extremely unlikely that any more would be found by the SC. As elections are the responsibility of each state I cannot imagine the SC allowing another state to interfere. Should though they do so it would undoubtedly be viewed as a political act by many and they therefore would be inviting retalitary political action as a response. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 8.55pm

Originally posted by cryrst

They risk too much!
Dont worry about the possible truth then.
Shows exactly where the priorities lie.

The US Supreme Court has been so compromised by the political nature of the way the Justices are appointed, especially during Trump's time, that you cannot completely rule out the possibility that politics might interfere with their decision.

I think that's unlikely as, despite the politics, they are essentially lawyers whose primary loyalty is to the constitution. So of course finding the truth is paramount but as that seems to have already been definitively established at state level it has to be extremely unlikely that any more would be found by the SC. As elections are the responsibility of each state I cannot imagine the SC allowing another state to interfere. Should though they do so it would undoubtedly be viewed as a political act by many and they therefore would be inviting retalitary political action as a response.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 9.13pm
Tim Pool update on the Texas case. [Link] 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 Dec 20 9.13pm

Tim Pool update on the Texas case.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post