Page 71 of 83 FirstFirst ... 5767697071727375 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 821

Thread: The Biden Presidency

  1. Quote Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
    Al Gore challenged after the election all the way to the Supreme Court. Stop with this nonsense.
    Al Gore's challenge was based on how ballots that were mis-counted due to malfunctioning equipment should be calculated. It was basically about whether ballots that hadn't been properly perforated because the machine was gummed up should still be calculated if the voter's intent could be determined (dimple ballots or hanging chads). It wasn't something that was or could have been ruled on in advance, so the doctrine of laches obviously doesn't apply. Obviously anyone would expect to ask the courts to rule on something that is genuinely ambiguous under the law like that.

    Do I have to back up and explain laches here? Are you not following what that means?

    (Also again you make a false equivalence between a suit that was arguing for legal votes to be counted and a suit asking for millions of legal voters to have their votes erased over procedural grievance, and saying "both of these things are equally bad." They are not.)

    Mostly blue as in they voted for Biden, yes.
    You recognize how this is circular, right? Trump isn't going to challenge states that he won... It doesn't mean executives and courts in other states didn't also make election rules (they did), Trump just didn't sue over them because he won those states...

    And, again, the Supreme Court of that state re-wrote election law after the fact and it's seriously debatable if they even have that power.
    No, they didn't. They set election rules BEFORE the election, not after. Afterwards they simple declined to hear grievances about those rules that hadn't been raised when a remedy was still possible.

    And, yes they can, unfortunately.
    Anyone can file a suit for anything, but it's not going to get a trial if they file that suit after the election takes place, particularly when the remedy they're asking is to throw out the results of the election entirely, ignore the will of the people, and give it to Donald Trump for no reason other than he's the one suing.
    Last edited by Frogacuda; 06 Nov 2021 at 02:36 PM.

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    Al Gore's challenge was based on how ballots that were mis-counted due to malfunctioning equipment should be calculated. It was basically about whether ballots that hadn't been properly perforated because the machine was gummed up should still be calculated if the voter's intent could be determined (dimple ballots or hanging chads). It wasn't something that was or could have been ruled on in advance, so the doctrine of laches obviously doesn't apply. Obviously anyone would expect to ask the courts to rule on something that is genuinely ambiguous under the law like that.

    Do I have to back up and explain laches here? Are you not following what that means?

    (Also again you make a false equivalence between a suit that was arguing for legal votes to be counted and a suit asking for millions of legal voters to have their votes erased over procedural grievance, and saying "both of these things are equally bad." They are not.)
    And once again you turn a general discussion into micromanaging facts and arguing against a case that I have not made. This is why I should really choose not to even have these discussions with you at all. I am NOT being specific, I am merely saying that one side or the other has presented legal challenges after an election without getting into specifics but merely providing examples of those cases. Al Gore wanted recounts in only four counties in Florida, all of which were very blue and it was determined unconstitutional for a variety of reasons by the Supreme Court. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST THE MERITS OF ANY OF THESE CASES MERELY THAT EACH PARTY HAS BROUGHT FORTH LEGAL CHALLENGES TO LOST ELECTIONS. Do you understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    You recognize how this is circular, right? Trump isn't going to challenge states that he won... It doesn't mean executives and courts in other states didn't also make election rules (they did), Trump just didn't sue over them because he won those states...
    And?



    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    No, they didn't. They set election rules BEFORE the election, not after. Afterwards they simple declined to hear grievances about those rules that hadn't been raised when a remedy was still possible.
    After the fact isn't talking about the election, it's talking about modifying election law(s) that have been set by the legislature. Ie... if the legislature makes elections law(s) and the Supreme Court modifies those laws they are doing so AFTER the fact and the legislature has no say unless re-writing the election law again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    Anyone can file a suit for anything, but it's not going to get a trial if they file that suit after the election takes place, particularly when the remedy they're asking is to throw out the results of the election entirely, ignore the will of the people, and give it to Donald Trump for no reason other than he's the one suing.
    And? I said the Republicans are wasting their money doing this so I think we're on the same page here...

  3. Quote Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
    And once again you turn a general discussion into micromanaging facts and arguing against a case that I have not made. This is why I should really choose not to even have these discussions with you at all. I am NOT being specific, I am merely saying that one side or the other has presented legal challenges after an election without getting into specifics but merely providing examples of those cases.
    Ok, you're getting heated, but you're also handwaving away what you actually said, which was "both parties have done this throughout the years in various forms" followed by "Stop this nonsense."

    That statement is CLEARLY insinuating that these two things are equivalent and that I'm being unreasonable to criticize one while ignoring the other. By using the word "this" you're putting these two very different lawsuits in the same category. And you're also completely ignoring the substance of what I said about the Trump lawsuits. That's an obvious false equivalence, of course I am not going to ignore that.

    I know you like to retreat to this "I wasn't making a point, I was just saying," position when contradicted, but in this case you were very explicitly comparing these two things which are not equivalent in any way that was relevant to my argument. Go back and read your post, and be fair, ok?

    Al Gore wanted recounts in only four counties in Florida, all of which were very blue and it was determined unconstitutional for a variety of reasons by the Supreme Court. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST THE MERITS OF ANY OF THESE CASES MERELY THAT EACH PARTY HAS BROUGHT FORTH LEGAL CHALLENGES TO LOST ELECTIONS. Do you understand?
    You brought up the Al Gore lawsuit specifcally to refute what I said about the Trump lawsuits, and said "Stop this nonsense." So you actually ARE very clearly insinuating that both of these cases lack merit for similar reasons. Your all caps ranting here is totally unearned, you have to own what you said.

    You can get me to buy into a certain degree of both-sidesism, but this is a genuinely awful point of comparison.

    After the fact isn't talking about the election, it's talking about modifying election law(s) that have been set by the legislature.
    So by "after the fact" you mean judges rule on laws after they're written... As opposed to before they're written?

    Judges don't change the law, they interpret it and reconcile conflicts when someone brings a suit based on that kind of ambiguity. They don't just sit on the bench and make up rules, nor can they outright contradict the law except when they feel two laws contradict each other (in this case constitutional voting rights taking precedence).

    And again, you're free to disagree with that ruling, but to say the Supreme Court should not be able to rule on their own laws is to argue against the entire institution of judicial review. There's no real basis for this argument.

    And?
    Right, you brought it up "mostly blue" for no reason, I guess, so it doesn't matter that it's entirely misleading. As ever, I am the villain for assuming you had a point in the first place.
    Last edited by Frogacuda; 06 Nov 2021 at 05:30 PM.

  4. This is just really tiresome and I'm done with it.

    You're CONSTANTLY litigating and comparing from a leftist perspective when all I'm saying is that both sides are guilty of dirty politics. You can't seem to wrap your head around that without breaking out the magnifying glass for examples used. I said, specifically, the Dems "have their own shenanigans" - which, in and of itself, implies that they have brought lawsuits against elections which are THEIR OWN and, thereby, different.

    I didn't bring up the Gore lawsuit to REFUTE anything, dude. I brought it up to provide and example of the Democrats using lawsuits to challenge an election that hasn't gone their way. I have in no way argued the validity of the Gore lawsuit, the Trump lawsuit(s), the Republican lawsuits, etc... You're constantly arguing against points and positions that I haven't made and I haven't taken. This is the same circular nonsense shit that quagmired our last conversation and, frankly, I'm over it.

    And, finally, if the judicial branch sets postmark dates and specifies and makes changes to law instead of ruling on the validity of the law and allowing it to be rewritten by the branch that's, you know, supposed to write the laws then they are in fact LEGISLATING. You're certainly entitled to your judicial review perspective on this as I am entitled to my more rigid constitutional perspective on it. It doesn't make your opinion any more correct than mine just because you say so.

    Anyway, I will no longer engage in these conversations with you. I'm tired of it, it does nothing to make my day any better and we're clearly on opposite sides of the fence and don't/won't understand each other's perspectives. Nothing against you but it's just not worth my time.

  5. https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBC/stat...26114198544391

    White House tells businesses to proceed with vaccine mandate despite court-ordered pause.


    Haha. Wait. What?

  6. Man that fucking shit right there. If this was Trump ordering this type of shit, the media would be all over his ass like white on rice. The double standard here is fucking breathtaking.
    6-6-98 - 6-6-18 Happy 20th Anniversary TNL

  7. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/cons...x-october.html

    ECONOMY

    U.S. consumer prices jump 6.2% in October, the biggest inflation surge in more than 30 years

    This is a problem.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by MVS View Post
    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/cons...x-october.html

    ECONOMY

    U.S. consumer prices jump 6.2% in October, the biggest inflation surge in more than 30 years

    This is a problem.
    What do you think should be done and who do you think would do it?

    From where I sit a lot of this is a crisis created by decades of reckless deregulation across the entire economy, which has created multiple points of failure that we're struggling to correct for. We have a supply crisis stemming from a reliance on just in time manufacturing , we have an energy crisis stemming from selling off all out natural resources to the highest bidders abroad, we have a labor crisis stemming from a weakening of worker rights, we have a housing and rent crisis stemming from private capital and consolidating wealth.

    All of which stems from a crisis of governance, and leadership that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. An electorate that thinks billionaires are men of the people. And completely unregulated dark money sponsoring our elections. Even now, we have two Senators with For Sale signs over their head making it impossible for anyone to pass anything that might make it a little better.

    Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

  9. I think Joe Biden should address, plan and start to solve it. That's his job and he is a man who can go to Washington and get things done, according to Joe Biden.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by MVS View Post
    I think Joe Biden should address, plan and start to solve it. That's his job and he is a man who can go to Washington and get things done, according to Joe Biden.
    You can't in one post complain about Joe Biden overreaching his authority and in the next claim that he should have the expansive authority to address every one of these issues.

    If you see the government as a single person, eventually that's what we end up with; people will vote for the man who says "I Alone Can Fix It," and back him when he consolidates power under those auspices. That's how you get dictatorship.

    That's probably what we're going to end up with. Real reform involves recognizing systemic problems as a concept and holding leaders in all positions of government to account for fixing those, and I just don't think we're there.

    This is why people elect Strongman leaders with dictatorial leanings, they just can't wrap their heads around the idea that problems don't always have a single face, or that solutions are more complicated than changing that face.

    Luckily dictatorships and consolidating power always work out for the people. Sounds like a good plan.
    Last edited by Frogacuda; 10 Nov 2021 at 12:23 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo