Page 70 of 90 FirstFirst ... 566668697071727484 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 891

Thread: The Biden Presidency

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Bringing in "independent" companies to "audit" the election, like Arizona? I don't think Democrats ever did that. They ranted and raved about it for a while but moved on when no one bought their bullshit, just as they did with Bush/Gore. I haven't seen any DNC CyberNinjas yet. In constrast, it's a year after the election and MORE Republican legislatures are trying to overturn the 2020 election. Only happens when they lose, though. I doubt Trump will be railing for an audit in Virginia.
    Oh stop it. The Dems have their own shenanigans - like trying to convince electoral college voters to go against their state's voters wishes. Has Stacy Abrams conceded her election loss yet? How about changing voting procedures a few months before election(s)? This nonsense goes both ways always.

    And, if all the votes and the elections were legit then the Republicans are just wasting their future campaign war chest and ending up proving the elections were fair and just in the process. Sounds like idiocy to me.

  2. I agree that refusing to concede and changing voting procedures is bullshit (so is gerrymandering, like in Texas), but it's a far cry from bringing in some crazy company to audit the results looking for traces of bamboo. You don't see Democrats actively working to overturn election results in several states. They're hardly on the same scale and you're giving Democrats too much credit.

  3. Where's the Democrat Skinner out of touch meme when you need it?

    By all means, continue the whataboutisims and do not address any of the issues the democrats currently have. Neither Virginia nor NJ should have been this close at all.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    You don't see Democrats actively working to overturn election results in several states. They're hardly on the same scale and you're giving Democrats too much credit.
    You mean like when Gore wanted recounts in only four Florida counties that were all decidedly blue?

    There's no fraud that's been proven - I have zero problems with either party making sure that the election(s) were fair - it can only help reduce fraud in the future. And, yes, personally I think they should drop it, but it's their money.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
    How about changing voting procedures a few months before election(s)? This nonsense goes both ways always.
    If both parties agree to the rules in advance, why does this matter? And if both parties agreed to them, then why should we listen when the loser wants to throw out the results and just... win by default? It's a blatant attempt to just try to game the system, and it has zero legal standing because of laches. Let this one go.
    Last edited by Frogacuda; 05 Nov 2021 at 09:59 AM.

  6. There's a lot of bad takes about the results of the elections this week as if they somehow show nostalgia or support for Trump resurging.

    On the contrary it shows that Trump was the only thing holding back a huge red wave. These candidates outperformed Trump by double digits, not just his performance is the last election but his current approval rate in those states. Almost any Republican will win in 2024 EXCEPT Trump. It's time for the party to move on from the personality cult.

    Also a big part of this that is not being talked about is the extremely low turnout. Trump motivated turnout on both sides, but probably moreso on the opposition side. And both MacAuliffe and Murphy basically focused their campaign on tying their opponents to Trump, and that doesn't work very well when Trump is out of office.

    A lot of Democrats are exhausted from four years of toxic politics and with Darth Vader vanquished they just checked out.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    If both parties agree to the rules in advance, why does this matter? And if both parties agreed to them, then why should we listen when the loser wants to throw out the results and just... win by default? It's a blatant attempt to just try to game the system, and it has zero legal standing because of laches. Let this one go.
    Did both parties agree to judges extending (ie.. modifying) postmark dates of ballots? This happened in a multitude of states, mostly blue. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court changed voting rules, due to a Democratic Party lawsuit, despite their constitution mandating this task to the legislature. I'm not even debating the merits of this or that, merely that both parties are culpable when it suits their particular purpose. And, like I said, if the Republicans want to litigate and deplete their war chest, why the fuck do I care? These laws/election rules were changed BECAUSE of lawsuits so it's part of the process.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    There's a lot of bad takes about the results of the elections this week as if they somehow show nostalgia or support for Trump resurging.

    On the contrary it shows that Trump was the only thing holding back a huge red wave. These candidates outperformed Trump by double digits, not just his performance is the last election but his current approval rate in those states. Almost any Republican will win in 2024 EXCEPT Trump. It's time for the party to move on from the personality cult.

    Also a big part of this that is not being talked about is the extremely low turnout. Trump motivated turnout on both sides, but probably moreso on the opposition side. And both MacAuliffe and Murphy basically focused their campaign on tying their opponents to Trump, and that doesn't work very well when Trump is out of office.

    A lot of Democrats are exhausted from four years of toxic politics and with Darth Vader vanquished they just checked out.
    I'm with you on at least some of this - Trump motivated Trump haters more than he could've imagined and that's why he lost. And, he'll probably run again and that won't help the Republicans at all.

    A 12 point turn around, though, is something more than Trump hate. It's also that some of these Democratic soccer moms are being talked at about their kids by politicians and they aren't having it.

    I'd argue, too, that toxicity is alive and well into its fifth year. Biden has done nothing to unite the country and polls actually show Americans feel even MORE divided.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
    Did both parties agree to judges extending (ie.. modifying) postmark dates of ballots?
    They didn't file a single challenge to any of them until after the election. That's not how the law works. By not issuing a challenge before the election they are essentially agreeing, because the doctrine of laches will invalidate any of these sort of challenges after the fact, which is the main reason all those stupid lawsuits got thrown out withour going to trial.

    This happened in a multitude of states, mostly blue.
    If by "mostly blue" you mean whether or not they voted for Trump, but all of these states had Republican legislatures and most of them Republican governors.

    Pennsylvania's Supreme Court changed voting rules, due to a Democratic Party lawsuit, despite their constitution mandating this task to the legislature.
    Again, the Republican controlled legislature could have easily overridden this by passing legislation clarifying it. They chose not to.

    The idea that judicial review doesn't apply to election law is batshit insane, and undermined by the very existence of election lawsuits after the fact. But the way government works, if the legislature is unhappy with how a law is interpreted by the judiciary they may rewrite the law.

    But if the body who sets the rules doesn't object to how the law is ruled on and applied they can't try to overturn the result afterwards.

    I'm not even debating the merits of this or that, merely that both parties are culpable when it suits their particular purpose.
    It's hard to argue that fighting for access to voting and fighting to restrict voting are equally bad just because they advantage one side or the other. I hope we never get that cynical that we can't see the difference.

    Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    They didn't file a single challenge to any of them until after the election. That's not how the law works. By not issuing a challenge before the election they are essentially agreeing, because the doctrine of laches will invalidate any of these sort of challenges after the fact, which is the main reason all those stupid lawsuits got thrown out withour going to trial.
    Al Gore challenged after the election all the way to the Supreme Court. Stop with this nonsense. I'm not sure why this is even a hill to die on for you - both parties have done this throughout the years in various forms which DOES NOT mean that I condone any of it. It's just a fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    If by "mostly blue" you mean whether or not they voted for Trump, but all of these states had Republican legislatures and most of them Republican governors.
    Mostly blue as in they voted for Biden, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    Again, the Republican controlled legislature could have easily overridden this by passing legislation clarifying it. They chose not to.
    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. What the fuck are we arguing about here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    The idea that judicial review doesn't apply to election law is batshit insane, and undermined by the very existence of election lawsuits after the fact. But the way government works, if the legislature is unhappy with how a law is interpreted by the judiciary they may rewrite the law.

    But if the body who sets the rules doesn't object to how the law is ruled on and applied they can't try to overturn the result afterwards.
    Separation of powers is a cornerstone of our form of government. I don't necessarily disagree with the above but it's certainly a matter for debate and certainly not "batshit insane".

    And, yes they can, unfortunately. Litigiousness is a permanent state of being in the United States and, honestly, I wish they would adopt more of European model when it comes to that kind of stuff but our Congress is largely run by lawyers and very unlikely to legislate limits on these practices.

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