Message from @nachik
Discord ID: 780237945868124220
I actually want to hear R & R ‘s take on this
Does he ever come here and take suggestions?
Oh a tweet...
General Flynn’s favorite lawyer
Yes, they had quite the run. Lol
I'm still giggling about 'go rogue'. Struck me funny.
I actually do hope she finds something. It would be interesting
@james j, you just advanced to level 9!
I hope she thinks she finds something, at the very least. Got my popcorn.
I don't want an excuse to not have to put her money where her mouth has been, so to speak.
Same for Giuliani.
@nachik, you just advanced to level 2!
You do you, States.
Morality question: If these lawsuits are just a tactic, because Trump's team is not able to prove fraud, is this a worthy and honorable way to attain the Presidency? My whole life, people have said that we may not have voted for the president, but we treat him with respect because of the dignity afforded the office. In exchange, President's were publicly held to a higher standard in maintaining the dignity of the office (I know it is hard to remember, but it's a real thing. At least, it was.). So... is it in keeping with the office if Trump is actively trying to prevent states from certifying the vote under the claim of fraud that he knowingly is unable to prove? If you think it is, I would love to hear why you think that way. And, if it is not, why isn't every American making it clear to the President right now that it is NOT acceptable? If Trump can PROVE fraud, every American should stand behind him - regardless of having voted for him. If he cannot, then stop trying to subvert the will of the people and clear the way for Biden.
It gets tricky insofar as, for me, it depends on whether he actually believes there was fraud. I don't know whether he did or still does. Good question but I demur in deference to my ignorance of the aforementioned.
Take out 'knowingly' and my answer is it is not in keeping with the office. @TaLoN132
And I imagine, if proven, all Americans would stand behind any measures to protect eclections. I don't think that requires standing behind Trump, per se.
As we have seen how well his election integrity efforts played out
Nonexistent, by his own professed assessment.
we live in an age when basic decency and fair play cannot be assumed, the election system needs to be reinforced to reflect that
concerted fraud efforts are totally a possibility, the incentives are very strong
No doubt.
If this is a tactic and lawsuits are knowingly false, that is an awful thing to do and should lose Trump the respect of the entire nation. I personally think that there are irregularities where fraud could be an explanation but there could be other answers as well. It needs to be investigated to the fullest extent. There will be big issues with our country if they are not.
In Canada, you have to show ID and proof of address to vote in Federal elections
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
That's racist here.
if States are to run their elections independently, the federal gov should run pen testing on each of them, trying to sneak in fake votes to test each State's system
I think people are misrepresenting what constitutes “proof” and that has confused the whole debate. People act like nothing shy of a video of someone filling out 100,000 Biden votes and then adding them to the count is enough.
The problem is a the legal burden of proof. You can have strong evidence that something bad happened but not strong enough to convince a judge or jury.
sadly the courts will be under huge pressure so yea, I expect them to err on the side of not upsetting the election
you need very strong stuff
This is a civil case so they only need a preponderance of evidence no?
@liftandstudy Yet, something of that magnitude will be necessary to throw out hundreds of thousands of American voters' votes with the bathwater.
we've all seen video of Philly boarding up windows and blocking observers from entry, but PA's court just dismissed all that
I do understand the human element, the judges will be hesitant to do anything without a smoking gun. But I’m saying if we ignore that and look only at the legal rules
In theory yes. I would imagine that it is probably closer to beyond a reasonable doubt in reality. There is too much risk for judges to rule otherwise without having a good defense of undeniable evidence.
regarding preponderance of evidence: a lot of the allegations are about things that Dems scored BEFORE the election, this has a huge weight. Waiting until after the election is tacitly having accepted all the rigging done in the open before.
I agree, that was my concern from the beginning. Imagine we had the exact same circumstances, but this was an off year race for a House seat or something, I do not believe this would even be controversial.
What wouldn't be controversial?
someone linked me this