This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Biden's Cascade of Failure!  (Read 31225 times)

Battlemaster

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #300 on: June 29, 2022, 06:28:49 PM »
Good God, could we get some actual competence in our opponents for once?

The January 6th show trial and ritual castigation just slid headlong into absurdity, with that silly bint Cassidy Hutchinson blathering about how Trump attacked his Secret Service detail and tried to take the wheel of the vehicle he was in.

Except the Secret Service is saying, 'Uh, no, that never happened and we'll testify under oath it didn't'.

There were so many logical errors in this story, it's like they sat around and cooked up the dumbest thing they could throw at the mean ol' Orange Man, and then ran with it.

Uh, no.

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1014743/trump-secret-service-agent-corroborated-main-elements-of-bombshell-jan-6-fight
Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #301 on: June 29, 2022, 06:30:03 PM »
Good God, could we get some actual competence in our opponents for once?

The January 6th show trial and ritual castigation just slid headlong into absurdity, with that silly bint Cassidy Hutchinson blathering about how Trump attacked his Secret Service detail and tried to take the wheel of the vehicle he was in.

Except the Secret Service is saying, 'Uh, no, that never happened and we'll testify under oath it didn't'.

There were so many logical errors in this story, it's like they sat around and cooked up the dumbest thing they could throw at the mean ol' Orange Man, and then ran with it.
Even before every person who was there agreed to testify under oath it didn't happen, even before the person who supposedly told her the story agreed to testify under oath he didn't tell her that, even before someone looked up video footage from the day and realized it showed Trump in a completely different vehicle, it was still hearsay.

Why did every "news" organization run with it, as if it were an established fact and the Doom that Came to Trumpnath?

I think you're right and part of the problem is that the nature of political hearings is not as properly codified nor as genuinely valid as say a real court hearing according to our nation's laws and there-encoded values. Hearsay would not have made it into court to that degree. Not to say that our justice system's procedure is perfect, but still.

I also think that while they didn't want to legitimize it moreso than they did by appointing members of their own party to the committee and having them all be accepted, the Republicans could have made it a bipartisan inquiry and cross-examined, say, this witness and the validity of hearsay testimony. Or called for the Secret Service to be contacted and interviewed, though I will admit to some degree that they might have a conflict of interest. 

I was still pretty impressed up until this point that while the hearings were a political circus in nature (what do you expect, it's Congress), it arguably didn't slide fully into absurdity until around that point. I was actually surprised by a lot of things, and I now have to question whether a lot of people who asked for pardons on the hill were genuinely convinced the election was stolen. I even am starting to doubt Trump didn't understand things like the alternate elector plans and Pence changing the vote count were to some degree illegal and invalid given the legal advice and pardon requests he received. Which in turn could make me question whether the election fraud alleged to have so widely taken place by him was a lie. Which would make me very angry. On which note, we have many accounts of him having no statistical inference to point to during calls with folks on the hill we have dialogue on, and which more than 20 judicial reviews including the supreme court, especially given that many were ones he appointed, claimed he had no legitimate evidence. While some claims that were made against corporate products said corporations were able to find evidence of slander for potentially, and did not get their lawsuits just thrown out.

 I know it's not a popular opinion, but while this was a shit throwing circus act, with no real legal bearing because it's not a real court of law... I dunno, I'm glad it was shown most everywhere (yes, liberals, even Fox apart from day 1), even though I think media commentary was biased as ever. Because it gave me information and insight I didn't have, including much I feel can help inform the American public one way or another. Apart from relevant things I said I learned earlier, I think it showed there's not enough evidence to go to court, for one thing, either on the election being stolen or Trump trying to "incite insurrection". Both seem like political lies meant to divide America and sow mistrust in our democracy. Kinda like how maybe the Russians did help Trump a little in his first election with targeted email timing releases doing critical things to approval ratings, some blue voters *maybe* being kicked off digital voting waitlists in swing states, and troll farms and social media being brought into play... But that sure as hell doesn't make the win illegitimate. We pull that crap all the time, and in the end the voters decided by vote. And the electoral college exists for a reason, part of which is to protect state rights. I hate how both sides seem to love to smear not only each other but the democratic process our founders designed and so many damned people actively strive to monitor and protect to such a degree. I think we need stuff like Voter ID reform now, regardless of real impact on voter fraud, if only just to restore faith in the system on the right, where it's arguably most damaged in the moment. I also think the left needs to man up, comprehend, and deal with the good parts of the electoral college, states rights, the Constitution, and many other things. But that probably won't happen, because politicians in the establishment benefit from continuing to fling shit. Especially, I feel, on the left, because most of their platform these days is indeed "orange man bad".

That said the media also loves to stir up drama when it serves them, and is constantly pretending that this next thing is really what's going to sink political enemy whoever, because that's what viewers are willing and wanting to watch and hear. Sad that there's not as big an audience for relatively honest and unbiased news sources, but I guess consumers do admittedly have confirmation bias, this is a polarized time, and if folks really want some of the bigger picture they can at least try to shop around. Not to say it excuses some of the stuff that is pulled, admittedly on both sides.

Personally I like how you blame Russia for helping to get Trump elected even though Muller spent 2 years investigating it and failing to find any evidence while at the same time trusting the Supreme Court claims of no election fraud after they spent 0 days looking at the evidence.

Thumbs up!

Mueller was looking to see if Trump and co. took any illegal actions. He didn't, they didn't, apart from "having connections", so they found jack shit.

 Also pointed to Hillary email releases as things that hurt her candidacy, especially given the solid timing and effect on approval ratings. Would you say that hurt her and potentially helped Trump? Then even discounting some of the more complex operations or legal social media ones (and remember we do the same in various countries for a reason) I alluded to... Russia helped him get some votes.

 Who cares. It's perfectly legal to benefit from.

Also didn't like 7 major intelligence agencies including the findings of the Mueller Report say that the preponderance of evidence favored Russian interference in the election? (Which again, not illegal to benefit from, we interfere in a lot of elections, and many of those are still valid, and for those that aren't it has nothing to do with our interference, I'd say.)

 When we deny it and act like something like that both didn't happen and would be legally wrong to at all benefit from or would somehow invalidate our beliefs and the election outcome, I feel like the left wins its disingenuous ploy to make something that happened but was not at all wrong and illegal, out to somehow invalidate the election and be illegal.

It seems strange that Putin ran out of money before the 2020 election.

Must have been saving it up for the Ukraine invasion.

I mean, a lot of intelligence agencies still think he tried to do election stuff. Though a lot of it was no longer directly in support of Trump, even if some still seemed to be? Dunno, maybe he wanted a weak NATO but Trump actually was making progress for the US along some lines more broadly, so he started backing away from Trump support as "What a great plan!" That said I'm not him so I'll leave it to the analysts.

Like, according to them there also apparently may have been and probably were attempts to push polarization and also radical left wing candidates like Bernie Sanders. Possibly to weaken the US. That said, for this one I'm less informed, so this somewhat sketchy site and its sources may need to suffice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections

I think it's a waste, though, to pretend like it would tarnish the legitimacy of any election even if Trump had somehow won in part thanks to Russian assistance. Or to refuse to concede what seem like legit points in order to prove wrong something that wouldn't be illegal for happening. Because then the left has the fact that it happened, but we don't get to present that it doesn't matter, because by trying to deny some of the likely facts we make it seem like there's reason to be invested in whether or not it happened, and that reason is somehow related to our legitimacy and the legitimacy of Trump's first term in office.

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #302 on: June 29, 2022, 06:34:15 PM »
Good God, could we get some actual competence in our opponents for once?

The January 6th show trial and ritual castigation just slid headlong into absurdity, with that silly bint Cassidy Hutchinson blathering about how Trump attacked his Secret Service detail and tried to take the wheel of the vehicle he was in.

Except the Secret Service is saying, 'Uh, no, that never happened and we'll testify under oath it didn't'.

There were so many logical errors in this story, it's like they sat around and cooked up the dumbest thing they could throw at the mean ol' Orange Man, and then ran with it.

Uh, no.

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1014743/trump-secret-service-agent-corroborated-main-elements-of-bombshell-jan-6-fight
Did you even read the article?
Quote from: The article you just cited
An unidentified Secret Service official told CNN that Ornato, who works for the Secret Service again and has disputed sworn testimony involving Trump before, denies telling Hutchinson that story, and that agents involved are prepared to testify under oath that the incident, as described, didn't happened.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #303 on: June 29, 2022, 06:40:07 PM »
Alright, I admit to being misinformed on that. I was totally wrong on that section. Hopefully I didn't screw up the rest quite as badly. (I heard Trump was angry at McCarthy for not doing a bipartisan panel and not putting pro-Trump folk on the committee. Didn't understand it was really Pelosi.)
In the next paragraph, you claimed there were judicial reviews, and they were thrown out due to lack of evidence. No, nearly all were thrown out due to lack of standing, without making any judgment on the evidence.

I feel like they were looked at and from what I understand found wanting, in presentation and in some cases with reference to substance and lack of evidence or solid claims as stated by some judges. (Which is not just all standing, I feel.) They also have had plenty of time to figure out standing and the like, I'd guess, and the results have been more or less the same in the 60+ total in like the entire year+ following. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/11/30/trumps-judicial-campaign-to-upend-the-2020-election-a-failure-but-not-a-wipe-out/ So that to me indicates that perhaps there were content issues as well.

I do not believe I made any reference to standing or where within the process precisely these attempts were thrown out originally, but if you lack evidence, whether of standing to present a case or that something happened... That's lacking evidence, to my mind. That said, maybe I'm using the definition poorly, and not doing a good job with it, in which case yeah, now that I think of it that's on me. EDIT: Looked back and my phrasing would affiliate with Pat's use of the term more than mine currently, so that actually was a bad statement on my part.

Regardless, I think my point is that it seems to me unlikely that so many courts, so many red or Trump affiliated too, would counter that many lawsuits, even after they had time to figure out how to bring standing, if the majority were not false or did not have proper and vigorous legal legs to stand on. And I do admittedly feel, even if all had been standing, standing matters. Especially when the right leaning judges in many cases had a political reason to rule in favor if they could, and assumably did not because they cared about the letter of the law among other things, which determines in part whether an election may be declared invalid or illegal or altered through court of law. From my perspective and admittedly pretty sketch legal understanding.

Not an expert, but that is my understanding.

Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 08:12:07 PM by KindaMeh »

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #304 on: June 29, 2022, 06:43:52 PM »
Good God, could we get some actual competence in our opponents for once?

The January 6th show trial and ritual castigation just slid headlong into absurdity, with that silly bint Cassidy Hutchinson blathering about how Trump attacked his Secret Service detail and tried to take the wheel of the vehicle he was in.

Except the Secret Service is saying, 'Uh, no, that never happened and we'll testify under oath it didn't'.

There were so many logical errors in this story, it's like they sat around and cooked up the dumbest thing they could throw at the mean ol' Orange Man, and then ran with it.

Uh, no.

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1014743/trump-secret-service-agent-corroborated-main-elements-of-bombshell-jan-6-fight
Did you even read the article?
Quote from: The article you just cited
An unidentified Secret Service official told CNN that Ornato, who works for the Secret Service again and has disputed sworn testimony involving Trump before, denies telling Hutchinson that story, and that agents involved are prepared to testify under oath that the incident, as described, didn't happened.

Yeah, I didn't really get it either. Maybe he meant the random Twitter link towards the end on "both corroborated"? https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1541922719603666944 Allegedly Trump and Engel confirmed some of what was said, but not the lunge or I think possibly also key details like the ride(?!), according to random twitter people we maybe shouldn't trust or use as a primary news source. So IDK, kinda questionable, though it may be what he meant.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 07:29:11 PM by KindaMeh »

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #305 on: June 29, 2022, 08:15:44 PM »
Yeah, I didn't really get it either. Maybe he meant the random Twitter link towards the end on "both corroborated"? https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1541922719603666944 Allegedly Trump and Engel confirmed some of what was said, but not the lunge or I think possibly also key details like the ride(?!), according to random twitter people we maybe shouldn't trust or use as a primary news source. So IDK, kinda questionable, though it may be what he meant.
The article seems to have decided Trump is guilty, and is going to proclaim that regardless of the evidence the rest of the article provides.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #306 on: June 29, 2022, 08:29:46 PM »
Yeah, I didn't really get it either. Maybe he meant the random Twitter link towards the end on "both corroborated"? https://twitter.com/JustSchmeltzer/status/1541922719603666944 Allegedly Trump and Engel confirmed some of what was said, but not the lunge or I think possibly also key details like the ride(?!), according to random twitter people we maybe shouldn't trust or use as a primary news source. So IDK, kinda questionable, though it may be what he meant.
The article seems to have decided Trump is guilty, and is going to proclaim that regardless of the evidence the rest of the article provides.

Sadly true. I'll concur/concede. I think partisan media in general sometimes ignores the implications/the holistic rammifications of the very facts they peddle. Generally once they decide to vilify they will vilify by using what they have. And the left hates the color orange with a passion. Just associate yourself with it a little bit and in comes the contagion heuristic. It's kind of a failure, the extent to which Biden has to rely on Trump hate over genuine love of his agenda. Or yanno, having a sensible and cohesive agenda that actually does what he says it does.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 08:34:19 PM by KindaMeh »

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #307 on: June 29, 2022, 08:36:14 PM »
Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)
On a scale of 1 to 10 of assholery on this site, I doubt you rated higher than a 1.01.

Incidentally, "standing" in a legal sense basically means "shut up, this doesn't affect you". It doesn't involve weighing the evidence, just whether you specifically are allowed to bring the suit.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #308 on: June 29, 2022, 08:42:56 PM »
Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)
On a scale of 1 to 10 of assholery on this site, I doubt you rated higher than a 1.01.

Incidentally, "standing" in a legal sense basically means "shut up, this doesn't affect you". It doesn't involve weighing the evidence, just whether you specifically are allowed to bring the suit.

Well, thanks for being kind about it. You didn't have to be.

Kinda like deciding if you're a legit plaintiff/alleged victim or whatever. So not the evidence of did it happen, but rather the evidence of were you (specifically and in a way that is reparable to the court (?)) harmed. If I get that right.

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #309 on: June 29, 2022, 08:55:49 PM »
Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)
On a scale of 1 to 10 of assholery on this site, I doubt you rated higher than a 1.01.

Incidentally, "standing" in a legal sense basically means "shut up, this doesn't affect you". It doesn't involve weighing the evidence, just whether you specifically are allowed to bring the suit.

Well, thanks for being kind about it. You didn't have to be.

Kinda like deciding if you're a legit plaintiff/alleged victim or whatever. So not the evidence of did it happen, but rather the evidence of were you (specifically and in a way that is reparable to the court (?)) harmed. If I get that right.
I revise my previous rating. On a scale of 1 to 10, you're about a -5.

It's not evidence. It's basically whether you're the party who the lawsuit claims was harmed. You (normally) can't sue someone for harming a third party, for instance, and if you try they'll throw it out without looking at whether anyone was actually harmed. For instance, the recent case where Texas challenged the elections in Pennsylvania and a couple other states was "denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot." They didn't look at whether there were problems with the elections, they just said you haven't explained why it's any of your business, Texas.

Standing is a pre-emptory dismissal, and in a lot of the election fraud lawsuits, you could argue the judges just didn't want to touch the lawsuits, so they dismissed them inappropriately, or on weak grounds. But either way, the cases weren't decided on their merits.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #310 on: June 29, 2022, 09:03:07 PM »
Edit: I was kind of an ass in the first draft of this, and it shows even after I've tried to clean it up to be less hostile and jerkish over being called out on what was at a bare minimum somewhat my own mistake. What's worse, when you were calmly and reasonably pointing out a mistake I genuinely made in the statements I gave, after I more or less, looking at what you quoted there, asked what else I screwed up after point number one you rightfully called me out on. Anyway I don't think the kind of hostility and occasional language I used in emphatically "making my points" was needed, or deserved. But I was also an asshole, and that should be preserved through this edit, even as I issue an apology. (For the specifics, I used "and shit" instead of and the like, as an example, was a lot more emphatic in my stances and certain/thereby self-righteous in my assertions. Spammed capital letters, to give an idea of how obnoxious I was. That said... Never cussed you out, insulted you personally or the like, but was still unpleasant and not very diplomatic. Trust when I say that annoying though what I have may be, it reads better without the emphasis.)
On a scale of 1 to 10 of assholery on this site, I doubt you rated higher than a 1.01.

Incidentally, "standing" in a legal sense basically means "shut up, this doesn't affect you". It doesn't involve weighing the evidence, just whether you specifically are allowed to bring the suit.

Well, thanks for being kind about it. You didn't have to be.

Kinda like deciding if you're a legit plaintiff/alleged victim or whatever. So not the evidence of did it happen, but rather the evidence of were you (specifically and in a way that is reparable to the court (?)) harmed. If I get that right.
I revise my previous rating. On a scale of 1 to 10, you're about a -5.

It's not evidence. It's basically whether you're the party who the lawsuit claims was harmed. You (normally) can't sue someone for harming a third party, for instance, and if you try they'll throw it out without looking at whether anyone was actually harmed. For instance, the recent case where Texas challenged the elections in Pennsylvania and a couple other states was "denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot." They didn't look at whether there were problems with the elections, they just said you haven't explained why it's any of your business, Texas.

Standing is a pre-emptory dismissal, and in a lot of the election fraud lawsuits, you could argue the judges just didn't want to touch the lawsuits, so they dismissed them inappropriately, or on weak grounds. But either way, the cases weren't decided on their merits.

So the states with allegedly the voter fraud would basically need to bring the lawsuit against themselves or the vote counters or whoever is being accused. Which they likely wouldn't do in the first case cuz if they did the counting they probably think they did it right. Even though it would allow the nation some peace for them to let the judicial system take a look. Or Trump would need to bring it. Or it would need to be like enough states to argue a compelling interest for a lot of the nation being harmed, or something. Or the federal government, for whatever reason, or at least the former trump administration, would need to say that either in the first case they felt harmed by electoral fraud lies or in the latter case electoral fraud. Why don't they do this, then? Ignorant though that question may perhaps be.

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #311 on: June 29, 2022, 10:09:10 PM »
So the states with allegedly the voter fraud would basically need to bring the lawsuit against themselves or the vote counters or whoever is being accused. Which they likely wouldn't do in the first case cuz if they did the counting they probably think they did it right. Even though it would allow the nation some peace for them to let the judicial system take a look. Or Trump would need to bring it. Or it would need to be like enough states to argue a compelling interest for a lot of the nation being harmed, or something. Or the federal government, for whatever reason, or at least the former trump administration, would need to say that either in the first case they felt harmed by electoral fraud lies or in the latter case electoral fraud. Why don't they do this, then? Ignorant though that question may perhaps be.
It's clear the judges don't want to touch it. They've basically deferred their authority to the executive branch.

Though looking over the cases (it's been a while), standing was only one of the reasons used to dismiss cases without looking at the evidence. There were also dismissed for timing (laches), lack of jurisdiction, and because it wasn't enough to make a difference.

KindaMeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 143
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #312 on: June 29, 2022, 11:13:27 PM »
So the states with allegedly the voter fraud would basically need to bring the lawsuit against themselves or the vote counters or whoever is being accused. Which they likely wouldn't do in the first case cuz if they did the counting they probably think they did it right. Even though it would allow the nation some peace for them to let the judicial system take a look. Or Trump would need to bring it. Or it would need to be like enough states to argue a compelling interest for a lot of the nation being harmed, or something. Or the federal government, for whatever reason, or at least the former trump administration, would need to say that either in the first case they felt harmed by electoral fraud lies or in the latter case electoral fraud. Why don't they do this, then? Ignorant though that question may perhaps be.
It's clear the judges don't want to touch it. They've basically deferred their authority to the executive branch.

Though looking over the cases (it's been a while), standing was only one of the reasons used to dismiss cases without looking at the evidence. There were also dismissed for timing (laches), lack of jurisdiction, and because it wasn't enough to make a difference.

That mostly checks out, I guess. Pity few wanted to at least try a broad review. But I guess is what it is, and some may have felt like they were doing what they were legally supposed to do all things considered.

Speaking of failures, maybe Biden should have wound up doing more to look into or rather have neutral judicial reviews look into, the alleged fraud and that kind of thing. Especially if some are deferring authority and initiative towards his direction. Guess it might have politically backfired, but I feel like there could have actually been some degree of reconciliation if they found in his favor. And if not, who wants to be an illegitimate president? (Rhetorical question, though probably a lot of politicians these days.)

Hell, could have at least tried to rule more as a moderate/from the center all things considered. I blame a lot of the lack of bipartisan cooperation on him not living up to his original aisle-crossing portrayal, and rather doing the opposite.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 11:22:52 PM by KindaMeh »

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17777
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #313 on: June 29, 2022, 11:37:54 PM »
Good God, could we get some actual competence in our opponents for once?

The January 6th show trial and ritual castigation just slid headlong into absurdity, with that silly bint Cassidy Hutchinson blathering about how Trump attacked his Secret Service detail and tried to take the wheel of the vehicle he was in.

Except the Secret Service is saying, 'Uh, no, that never happened and we'll testify under oath it didn't'.

There were so many logical errors in this story, it's like they sat around and cooked up the dumbest thing they could throw at the mean ol' Orange Man, and then ran with it.

Uh, no.

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1014743/trump-secret-service-agent-corroborated-main-elements-of-bombshell-jan-6-fight

And once again, you step on your dick. Flattening it even more.
"I do not want to create a story, I want to create a stage. The player characters will perform on that stage and interact with the setting. When the players talk to their friends about what their characters did, then there will be a story."

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Reply #314 on: June 30, 2022, 01:09:34 AM »
Incidentally, "standing" in a legal sense basically means "shut up, this doesn't affect you". It doesn't involve weighing the evidence, just whether you specifically are allowed to bring the suit.

"Standing" in a legal sense means the Judge just does not want to hear your case.

Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus