Political Digression Thread -- Save UP! Move the politically focused stuff here

[southslider]

Can't wait for "1990s Republican" Biden to flip Trump's Executive Orders

[Skyybutter]

On 11/6/2020 at 2:54 PM, CLT2014 said:

Suburban counties in Atlanta are starting to go more and more blue each year. Honestly, the Charlotte suburban counties like Union, Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, et. are very red AND growing in population. I'm not sure if this trend will flip soon. Many of the residents from New York, New Jersey, et. that move down to the Charlotte metro can be fairly conservative that settle in areas like Union County. A factor in "fleeing New York" can include moving somewhere more conservative.

The other metro area that has a decent amount of people but is pretty red is Wilmington. 

The Atlanta so-called suburban counties of Cobb, Dekalb and Gwinett are very unique individually.  Clearly the Atlanta area has diversified more then we thought  based on election results. 

  I live in Cabarrus County, and each election it goes more blue! Biden was able to get 44.5% of voters vs Trumps 53.9%. 

  Charlotte metro counties  %  of votes for Trump. 

   Cabarrus- 53.9%

             York- 57.4%

  Lancaster- 60.8%

           Union- 61.2%

         Gaston- 63.2%

            Iredell- 65.5%

           Rowan- 67.2%

          Lincoln- 72.4%

          Stanley- 75%

   I believe Cabarrus will be evenly split or likely blue in 2024 and beyond.

    York, Lancaster and Gaston by 2028 maybe.

   Stanley,  after I'm dead.

   

    

[gman430]

And that is the nail in the coffin. GSA begins transition. 

[Nick2]

[kermit]

Sounds like Jeff Jackson plans to run for Dick Burr’s senate seat. I think he has a good shot (certainly much better than Cunningham). I wish him luck.

why is Burr still in office? What happened to that ethics investigation of his profiteering?

Quote

Friends,

I'll be posting this on social media soon, but I wanted to tell you first.

Since the election, Marisa and I have received a lot of encouragement to seriously consider a run for U.S. Senate in 2022. 

Sen. Burr isn't running again and this would be an opportunity to help our state turn the page and raise our expectations for the type of leadership we deserve in the Senate. 

It's important for the state, and the country.

So here’s what I’m going to do:

Marisa and I will talk about it with our kids over the holiday. 

Family considerations come first - politics is second.

We have three kids - Haden (12), Owen (5), and Avery (2) - so meeting my obligation to them as a dad has to come first.

(Avery is also in the middle of potty training, and folks I can assure you that no one in this family is running for U.S. Senate until that essential task is complete.)

Marisa and I genuinely appreciate all of the support we’ve received in the last few weeks. We’ll update you after our family talks it over.

In the meantime, if you'd like to send me your thoughts on the matter, feel free to just reply to this email. I'll read them all personally.

Best,

Jeff

 

[JRNYP2C]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:34 AM, kermit said:

Sounds like Jeff Jackson plans to run for Dick Burr’s senate seat. I think he has a good shot (certainly much better than Cunningham). I wish him luck.

why is Burr still in office? What happened to that ethics investigation of his profiteering?

 

Unfortunately I still wouldn't be able to vote for him.  I'm stuck with McHenry..........

[elrodvt]

^Why?

[kermit]

Nothing to see here folks, move along...

Six of our congressional representatives have added their names to a lawsuit seeking to overthrow the lawfully-elected  government and end democracy. Its funny because its treason....  

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article247762445.html

Quote

Reps. Dan Bishop, Ted Budd, Virginia Foxx, Richard Hudson, Greg Murphy and David Rouzer joined with 100 other Congressional Republicans in an amicus brief. It’s in support of a lawsuit seeking to allow Republican President Donald Trump to remain president despite losing the election, which the lawsuit claims was tainted.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by kermit

[Exile]

24 minutes ago, kermit said:

Nothing to see here folks, move along...

Six of our congressional representatives have added their names to a lawsuit seeking to overthrow the lawfully-elected  government and end democracy. Its funny because its treason....  

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article247762445.html

 

 

Can a state, i.e., Texas, be guilty of treason?

[kermit]

1 hour ago, Exile said:

Can a state, i.e., Texas, be guilty of treason?

dunno.

But it certainly seems like its the definition of treason for my  Congressional representative to sign on to a lawsuit saying an election should be thrown out because they don't like the result.

Edited December 11, 2020 by kermit

[elrodvt]

I love how the sleezyists of all sleezy opportunists Ted Cruz volunteered to argue the case. And that the TX AG that is bringing the case is under investigation for fraud among many other concerns. This after Trump insults his wife and father. He better watch out though - Lindsey is on his tail for the sleeziest title!

 

I watched the Ga LG talk tonight on the newshour about how  these lawsuits are frivolous and un-american. Yet, at the same time he laments Trump not winning. I mean WTF? No morals at all.

[Exile]

16 hours ago, kermit said:

dunno.

But it certainly seems like its the definition of treason for my  Congressional representative to sign on to a lawsuit saying an election should be thrown out because they don't like the result.

Look. You know full well--or if you don't, you should know--that (while you're correct that these people don't like the result) they are pursuing a specifically constitutional claim.

I get it that you don't think it has any merit. No, more than that, you undoubtedly think it's insane. So does one of my sons. But, insane or not, they're following court procedure. So how is your reasoning any different from what you accuse of them: you're advocating for treason because you don't like the way they're using the Courts.

And anyway, it what way is your rep. making war on the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to the U.S.'s enemies?

A bit difficult to take you seriously on this point.

[kermit]

1 hour ago, Exile said:

Look. You know full well--or if you don't, you should know--that (while you're correct that these people don't like the result) they are pursuing a specifically constitutional claim.

I get it that you don't think it has any merit. No, more than that, you undoubtedly think it's insane. So does one of my sons. But, insane or not, they're following court procedure. So how is your reasoning any different from what you accuse of them: you're advocating for treason because you don't like the way they're using the Courts.

And anyway, it what way is your rep. making war on the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to the U.S.'s enemies?

A bit difficult to take you seriously on this point.

There is absolutely nothing constitutional about one state telling other states how to run their elections. I hear that Josh Stein is firing up a lawsuit to overturn the Texas election results because of their one dropbox per county rule flipflop.

Six congressional reps from NC have signed onto a lawsuit that lacks supporting evidence according to more than 50 previous court decisions as well as public statements by Bob Barr,  Chris Krebs and other republican officials. Based on these past court decisions it is reasonable to say that the purpose of the lawsuit is to disenfranchise voters in four states without cause. Since the vote has been certified in every state, the lawsuit seeks to overthrow a lawfully elected leader. From where I sit, this is treason. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by kermit

[TCLT]

Sedition is the more appropriate accusation for what is being done but the overall point stands.

Edit to add: Refusing to acknowledge the certified results of a duly held election (more accurately refusing to acknowledge only a portion since they’re fine with the local, state, congressional, and senate results) and filing or supporting frivolous and meritless lawsuits is not an appropriate or defensible use of the legal system.

[SMSRedux]

If you read the lawsuit, its quite different than what many seem to believe and portray it as. Attempting to shut down the due process of our judicial system or decry treason of those who pursue lawful means of contest is not the right answer. Let it play out, hopefully the details will be looked into properly and we can move forward with greater confidence which benefits us all. 

 

[kermit]

2 minutes ago, SMSRedux said:

If you read the lawsuit, its quite different than what many seem to believe and portray it as. Attempting to shut down the due process of our judicial system or decry treason of those who pursue lawful means of contest is not the right answer. Let it play out, hopefully the details will be looked into properly and we can move forward with greater confidence which benefits us all. 

 

what is the lawsuit attempting to do?

[SMSRedux]

8 minutes ago, kermit said:

what is the lawsuit attempting to do?

Quoting from it:

"To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX" 

source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

The allegations are an interesting read as well.

Edited December 11, 2020 by SMSRedux
Added source.

[Exile]

37 minutes ago, TCLT said:

Sedition is the more appropriate accusation for what is being done but the overall point stands.

Edit to add: Refusing to acknowledge the certified results of a duly held election (more accurately refusing to acknowledge only a portion since they’re fine with the local, state, congressional, and senate results) and filing or supporting frivolous and meritless lawsuits is not an appropriate or defensible use of the legal system.

How is submitting oneself to the judgment of the courts seditious? If it's truly frivolous, it'll be tossed out. The courts know how to deal with frivolity.

And seriously, treason and/or sedition? As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: how is this substantively different than the variously creative and unremitting attempts to overturn the 2016 election?

[TCLT]

5 minutes ago, Exile said:

How is submitting oneself to the judgment of the courts seditious? If it's truly frivolous, it'll be tossed out. The courts know how to deal with frivolity.

And seriously, treason and/or sedition? As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: how is this substantively different than the variously creative and unremitting attempts to overturn the 2016 election?

And which attempts to overturn the 2016 election might you be referring to? 

[Exile]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

From where I sit, this is treason. 

So, would you advocate the death penalty? It's in play for treason, you know.

And good luck getting a treason conviction on what, 18 states now?

1 minute ago, TCLT said:

And which attempts to overturn the 2016 election might you be referring to? 

Sorry, not going to take that bait. Been down that road too many times to think you don't know exactly what I'm talking about.

[TCLT]

19 minutes ago, SMSRedux said:

If you read the lawsuit, its quite different than what many seem to believe and portray it as. Attempting to shut down the due process of our judicial system or decry treason of those who pursue lawful means of contest is not the right answer. Let it play out, hopefully the details will be looked into properly and we can move forward with greater confidence which benefits us all. 

 

The lawsuits on their own are a problem since they've all been baseless. The public claims of fraud that are so transparently untrue that they won't even carry the same claims into courtrooms and what they are going to court with is being laughed out. Where we get into seditious territory is publicly questioning the integrity of the election and calling for people to reject it.  Sedition is the federal crime of advocacy of uprising or overthrow against the government. Donald and his lackeys are at best toeing that line and some republicans have leapt way over it with death threats, calls for violence, acts of terrorism.

 

[videtur quam contuor]

Laches

[bigacito]

49 minutes ago, SMSRedux said:

If you read the lawsuit, its quite different than what many seem to believe and portray it as. Attempting to shut down the due process of our judicial system or decry treason of those who pursue lawful means of contest is not the right answer. Let it play out, hopefully the details will be looked into properly and we can move forward with greater confidence which benefits us all. 

 

No one is attempting to shut down the due process of judicial system.   I doubt Kermit has that power. And though I agree treason and sedition are over the top terms to use here, Kermit is correct to call out these actors for their actions.

In my opinion and many experts opinion, this suit has no chance of succeeding and likely everyone accept maybe the president knows that.  (I have researched and will debate that if you like but won't go into that here, unless you insist).  Yet the relief they seek, to either strip the defendant states of their electors or to have the Supreme Court appoint pro Trump electors is profoundly undemocratic.

And in spite of what others are implying here, Hilary Clinton accepted her defeat immediately after the election because she understood that these kind of post election protests and continued lies about voter fraud cause immense damage to our democracy. 

Does the president have the right to pursue all his legal options? Of course he does. But at what point, how many more cases does he have to before we also have the right to call him and his supports out for continuing to pursue lawsuits that have no evidence to support them and very little chance of succeeding while eroding confidence in our election system?

[bigacito]

1 hour ago, SMSRedux said:

Quoting from it:

"To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX" 

source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

The allegations are an interesting read as well.

I cannot find that section in the link you sent.  But below find the Prayer for Relief section, which is where the plaintiffs actually tell the court what specifically they would like it to do.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:

A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted. 40

C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.

D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.

E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.

F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.

G. Award costs to Plaintiff State.

H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

[SMSRedux]

12 minutes ago, bigacito said:

No one is attempting to shut down the due process of judicial system.   I doubt Kermit has that power. And though I agree treason and sedition are over the top terms to use here, Kermit is correct to call out these actors for their actions.

In my opinion and many experts opinion, this suit has no chance of succeeding and likely everyone accept maybe the president knows that.  (I have researched and will debate that if you like but won't go into that here, unless you insist).  Yet the relief they seek, to either strip the defendant states of their electors or to have the Supreme Court appoint pro Trump electors is profoundly undemocratic.

And in spite of what others are implying here, Hilary Clinton accepted her defeat immediately after the election because she understood that these kind of post election protests and continued lies about voter fraud cause immense damage to our democracy. 

Does the president have the right to pursue all his legal options? Of course he does. But at what point, how many more cases does he have to before we also have the right to call him and his supports out for continuing to pursue lawsuits that have no evidence to support them and very little chance of succeeding while eroding confidence in our election system?

Thank you for your well thought out response @bigacito. To be clear, I did not  actually allege anyone specifically was attempting to shut down the due process of the judicial system, and agree Kermit does not likely have said power, I did however state that this was not a path to proceed down. Chastising such pursuits of judicial due process as treason or sedition is however an attempt to discredit, condemn and stifle such approaches which in turn could be viewed as an attempt to shut them down.

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely for this to succeed as well.