Guest Scott

The election

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

This man had an interesting thought on the election results in my opinion:

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman (sic), have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future or our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."  -- Allen West

https://www.theblaze.com/news/texas-gop-chairman-allen-west-floats-secession-in-reaction-to-scotus-shooting-down-election-suit

I'm not so certain they said that...I was more under the impression that they were stating that Texas cannot dictate to Pennsylvania or any other state beyond Texas what they have to do.  The same would apply to other states.  They cannot dictate to another state what they can or cannot do in regards to choosing their electors.  It's a matter that must come from within those states themselves and then be judged upon the merits and evidence of those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Aaaaaand . . That’s the ball game, folks.

As a lawyer, I'd ask you for your analysis.

As I understood it, the lawsuit was supposed to be basically an amicus brief.  First, can a party submit an amicus as the main complaint of a lawsuit, without a party with standing filing a complaint in the first place?

If they can, how can they be rejected based on having no standing?

BTW, this lends credence to the Ezra's Eagle Prophecy.

The next step is that Biden won't serve a full term.  I believe everyone is already convinced of that as a foregone conclusion.

What happens when Harris is inaugurated is rhe nail in the coffin.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

As a lawyer, I'd ask you for your analysis.

As I understood it, the lawsuit was supposed to be basically an amicus brief.  First, can a party submit an amicus as the main complaint of a lawsuit, without a party with standing filing a complaint in the first place?

If they can, how can they be rejected based on having no standing?

BTW, this lends credence to the Ezra's Eagle Prophecy.

The next step is that Biden won't serve a full term.  I believe everyone is already convinced of that as a foregone conclusion.

What happens when Harris is inaugurated is rhe nail in the coffin.

I believe there were a number of amici, but the Texas filing itself was a lawsuit—the state of Texas was the petitioner.  And yes, anyone can file an amicus brief explaining why SCOTUS should find for the petitioner or the respondent; and my understanding is that the Court will accept the brief so long as it complies with their briefing rules (marginal space, font size, citations in the correct format and so on).  But the petitioner himself has to have standing if he wants to win the case; and lack of standing is grounds for a court to refuse to even grant a hearing.
 

I thought Texas’s standing argument was intriguing (not a slam dunk, but worth a shot); but apparently not a single SCOTUS justice agreed.  So, that shows what I know . . . :D 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe there were a number of amici, but the Texas filing itself was a lawsuit—the state of Texas was the petitioner.  And yes, anyone can file an amicus brief explaining why SCOTUS should find for the petitioner or the respondent; and my understanding is that the Court will accept the brief so long as it complies with their briefing rules (marginal space, font size, citations in the correct format and so on).  But the petitioner himself has to have standing if he wants to win the case; and lack of standing is grounds for a court to refuse to even grant a hearing.
 

I thought Texas’s standing argument was intriguing (not a slam dunk, but worth a shot); but apparently not a single SCOTUS justice agreed.  So, that shows what I know . . . :D 

I am assuming that had the Case come from a Pennsylvania Voter the standing would have been a lot more solid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am assuming that had the Case come from a Pennsylvania Voter the standing would have been a lot more solid?

I think so; but ideally it would have originated with the Pennsylvania state legislature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation."
Gordon B. Hinckley, The Times in Which We Live
Edited by mirkwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My, how quickly the Trumplings have gone from “you must overlook Trump’s flaws, because Judges” to “%#[email protected]€ RINO judges!”

Indeed...  It shows they did not want Justices that ruled based on Law...They wanted Trump to pack the court just like Dems threaten to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is OVER. Trump will NOT have a second term in office, it is not going to happen. He lost the election, the SC was clear and the Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden's presidential victory. And yet something tells me the circus is far from over, because a grown-up man cannot accept defeat. Really sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Suzie said:

1. It is OVER
2. the SC was clear
3. the Electoral College confirmed
4. Joe Biden's presidential victory.

1. It is over once Trump concedes OR we hit the 1/20/21 swearing in of Biden, but I would call it premature to rule Trump out just because someone desperately wants it to be over with now.
2. What exactly was the SC clear about? That Texas didn't have standing.
3. Actual confirmation of the Electoral College doesn't start until 1/6/21, again premature on this point.
4. If Joe Biden accomplished his 'victory' thanks to enough fraud to affect the election outcome... should he become our next president? This really is a simple yes or no answer.

We have a new AG now.
Forensic audit of the Dominion voting machines in Michigan was just completed with 68% error rate.
Trump legal team hasn't presented before the SC yet.
Etc.
Etc.

Trump has been labeled a clown since 2015. That clown went against all the odds and became POTUS.
I don't know what he legally has up his sleeves still, but I hope he uses every bit of it to fight against the Swamp.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NeedleinA,  I respect you and your views but sorry, I think it is very naive to think that Trump has a chance. I'm actually surprised some supporters believe he does. Yesterday was a big day, Biden WILL become the next president, there is no doubt in my mind about it. Honestly, do you truly believe Trump will have a second term in office?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Forensic audit of the Dominion voting machines in Michigan was just completed with 68% error rate.

The inability of the formerly united States to conduct a presidential election perceived by the vast majority of participants to be free and fair is quite puzzling and extremely surprising to this particular outsider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Suzie said:

NeedleinA,  I respect you and your views but sorry, I think it is very naive to think that Trump has a chance. I'm actually surprised some supporters believe he does. Yesterday was a big day, Biden WILL become the next president, there is no doubt in my mind about it. Honestly, do you truly believe Trump will have a second term in office?

No, I do not think he will be president for a second term. I believe every force the Swamp can muster is being used against him despite his best legal efforts, the Swamp simply won't allow a second term to happen.
What I do believe is that he should fight the fight until the very end. In the process of doing so, he will expose more and more of the Swamp. We as a citizens may become more and more aware of how things actually work, hopefully helping us out as a Nation in the long run. Every time fraudulent voting activity and security holes are presented is another chance to address and hopefully solve the issue in the future.

Now that I've answered your questions... will you answer mine?
 

3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

4. If Joe Biden accomplished his 'victory' thanks to enough fraud to affect the election outcome... should he become our next president? This really is a simple yes or no answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NeedleinA, I don't believe anyone should become a president if it isn't fair and square and this is the reason why we have the courts to deal with these matters. And so far, it has been a complete failure for the Trump Team. But now they want to accuse the judges, too? So unless Trump wins, everything is a fraud? (the election, the courts, the judges, the governors, etc). Enough is enough! This is becoming so concerning to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

What happened with the New Year Prediction? 😉

Those were tongue in check as illustrated by my concluding remarks:

On 12/11/2020 at 9:55 AM, NeedleinA said:

Oh... never mind, please disregard my thoughts above. I missed the "best thinkers" part. 😉
I'm really not that pessimistic, BUT if I'm right on any of the points above I'll be sure to quote myself towards the end of 2021 and claim prognosticator status! :twothumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

No, I do not think he will be president for a second term. I believe every force the Swamp can muster is being used against him despite his best legal efforts, the Swamp simply won't allow a second term to happen.
What I do believe is that he should fight the fight until the very end. In the process of doing so, he will expose more and more of the Swamp. We as a citizens may become more and more aware of how things actually work, hopefully helping us out as a Nation in the long run. Every time fraudulent voting activity and security holes are presented is another chance to address and hopefully solve the issue in the future.

I tend to agree with this assessment.  Trump's fighting while for his own interests, he is bringing to light issues that need to be fully investigated not just discarded because people are impatient for the Rule of Law to finish

18 minutes ago, Suzie said:

NeedleinA, I don't believe anyone should become a president if it isn't fair and square and this is the reason why we have the courts to deal with these matters. And so far, it has been a complete failure for the Trump Team. But now they want to accuse the judges, too? So unless Trump wins, everything is a fraud? (the election, the courts, the judges, the governors, etc). Enough is enough! This is becoming so concerning to me.

Then I will ask you the same question other who want to rush this have also not answered.

What do you think will be more damaging and hard to fix...  Letting the Courts continue to shoot down the challenges, or shutting down the challenges and putting in to office a President that roughly half the country thinks did not win the election, but was not allowed to challenge it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I tend to agree with this assessment.  Trump's fighting while for his own interests, he is bringing to light issues that need to be fully investigated not just discarded because people are impatient for the Rule of Law to finish (1)  Then I will ask you the same question other who want to rush this have also not answered. What do you think will be more damaging and hard to fix...  Letting the Courts continue to shoot down the challenges, or shutting down the challenges and putting in to office a President that roughly half the country thinks did not win the election, but was not allowed to challenge it? (2)

 

I thought I would take a crack at these. By way of disclosure, I was one of those Evangelical Christians that voted for Trump to protect religious liberty and place conservative judges. His immigration policies were ineffective, imho. HIs trade approach surprised and changed me. I've been a free trade advocate, but POTUS correctly saw China for the danger it is, and convinced me that trade should be fair, not free. His crude approach was probably needed for the four years he was in.

OK, so here we are. I'm not an expert, an analyst, a pollster, or even one who's taken a Statistics course. My impression is that there were some shenanigans surrounding the election. However, President-Elect Biden won the popular vote by over 4%, and it seems pretty obvious he won the electoral college. POTUS promised to honor the electoral college vote. His campaign repeatedly promised definitive evidence. At this point, he does appear to be the sore loser. He's not exposing a new level of election fraud, he's hyping the typical level and making it appear to be more than it is. The reason that so many (I do not believe it is anywhere near half the country) believe Biden lost is because Trump says so, and they believe him.

It's time for conservatives to cut our loss, and accept our major wins (the House and Senate went much better than expected, and our judges are in). Further, we should be laser-focused on winning the GA senate races, so the Senate can be a bulwark against the radical wing of the Democratic party. Further, I sincerely hope Trump settles for being a voice in the GOP, and does not seek to mount a 2024 run. That ship done left the harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I thought I would take a crack at these.

OK I'll wait for you to answer. 

So part  your answer is that you are okay with fraud as long as it is 'normal'... I think I am misunderstanding you on that point.

The electoral college vote has not happened yet, but everyone is counting as a done deal.  Trump has not conceded, and the vote has not happen but everyone thinks it done.  So of course Trump has to be the one to say it because no one else will.

And you did not answer the question about a President viewed as fraud and the damage that could cause...  You evaded it by saying most people would not view it as fraud while acknowledging a normal level fraud which has me all kinds of confused.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do we feel about the Church officially congratulating " President- elect Biden and Vice-President elect Harris?  I'm feeling very ...something but it isn't warm or happy. Am I the only one? 

Now I have to leave to pick up my daughter from the airport ( carrying all those COVID-19 germs with her from BYU) so I won't be able to check back for many hours. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college

Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect.  Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So how do we feel about the Church officially congratulating " President- elect Biden and Vice-President elect Harris?  I'm feeling very ...something but it isn't warm or happy. Am I the only one? 

Now I have to leave to pick up my daughter from the airport ( carrying all those COVID-19 germs with her from BYU) so I won't be able to check back for many hours. 

For me not an issue.  Its not a "Thus Saith the Lord," it does seem to be the most likely case.  And Leaders are entitled to there own opinions.

None of that bothers me, I'm bothered by those who think Trump is doing something fundamentally wrong with his challenges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college

Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect.  Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

Opps...  Thanks for the correction.  For some reason I thought it was the 20th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

OK I'll wait for you to answer. 

So part  your answer is that you are okay with fraud as long as it is 'normal'... I think I am misunderstanding you on that point. (1)

The electoral college vote has not happened yet, but everyone is counting as a done deal.  Trump has not conceded, and the vote has not happen but everyone thinks it done.  So of course Trump has to be the one to say it because no one else will.(2)

And you did not answer the question about a President viewed as fraud and the damage that could cause...  You evaded it by saying most people would not view it as fraud while acknowledging a normal level fraud which has me all kinds of confused.(3)

 

1. I suspect there will always be a measure of fraud. This side of the heavenly kingdom(s), with 10s of millions of votes, districts and states with heavy party majorities, etc. there will be a measure. Does the fraud rise to a level of significance? Could it have turned several state races, given the numbers. Could the rate of fraud have been higher than the 4% by which Biden won? I suspect far fewer than half the country believes that, even if there had been no fraud at all, Trump would have won.

2. As I understand it, they have reported, and January is the official turn-in. Also, I'm fairly certain that Trump had the December date in mind when he promised to abide. There is a real feeling that he is moving the goal posts.

3. IF the majority truly believes that a president-elect was not truly elected by a fair election then, depending on how skewed people believe the results were, we could see anything from civil war to a "We'll get them back with the next election" approach. In this case, I suspect even a significant portion of Trump-supporters believe the election was super close, and so will eventually look to proving their point in future elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.