2020 Presidential Race

#88,301
#88,301
luthervol said:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans - CNNPolitics

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit Saturday night from US Rep. Mike Kelly and other Republicans, after they had tried to invalidate absentee voting and block the certification of votes in recent weeks.
Click to expand...

From the decision:

Kelly, Parnell, Frank, Kierzek, Magee, Sauter, Kincaid, Logan vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pa General Assembly, Wolf and Boockvar | Election 2020 | Cases of Public Interest | News & Statistics | Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania

whatever the merits of Petitioners’ claims regarding the constitutionality of Act 77,1 their request for
retrospective relief as to the 2020 General Election is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Click to expand...

This was already forecast by @Serene and @RockyTop85.

Also:

Accordingly, to persist in seeking to overturn the result of any election by legislative putsch is a fool’s
errand—and an arguably unconstitutional one at that.
Click to expand...

In short, any remedy would need to be in the law books before an affected election. Writing laws in arrears of an election when you don't like the result is not the founders' intent.

And the death blow:

Having delayed this suit until two elections were conducted under Act 77’s new, no-excuse mail-in voting system, Petitioners—several of whom participated in primary elections under this system without complaint—play a dangerous game at the expense of every Pennsylvania voter. Petitioners waived their opportunity to challenge Act 77 before the election, choosing instead to “lay by and gamble upon receiving a favorable decision of the electorate.” Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians. It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters. Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Terrells Bay88, titansvolsfaninga, luthervol and 6 others
#88,302
#88,302
USAFgolferVol said:
See, I respect those that support him and acknowledge that he's a classless POS and don't care, although claiming he's a street fighter of sorts isn't an accurate characterization of him. He's much too thin skinned for that label. Down and dirty street fighters are generally honest souls. We know for a fact Trump is anything but honest
Click to expand...


Trump is a coward just as many of his supporters are. Bullies are cowards. Trump is a bully
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85, ohhbother, Rifleman and 1 other person
#88,303
#88,303
Orange_Crush said:
Your argument assumed the truth of the conclusion without supporting it. However you want to argue against it, you begged the question of the EC's failure.
Click to expand...
Ouch, just missed. Begging the question involves arguing for a conclusion based on the premise of the conclusion being correct. My argument is essentially "The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent candidates without certain merits from being president. A candidate without merits became president anyway, therefore the electoral college does not function correctly." Notice that the premise supporting my claim ("Donald Trump does not have the 'proper' merits to become president and became president anyway") does not rely on the claim itself being true ("The electoral college does not function correctly"), so it is not an instance of petitio principii. That I did not lay out a list of evidence supporting my premise does not change this fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard, RockyTop85 and Rifleman
#88,306
#88,306
Serene said:
Ouch, just missed. Begging the question involves arguing for a conclusion based on the premise of the conclusion being correct. My argument is essentially "The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent candidates without certain merits from being president. A candidate without merits became president anyway, therefore the electoral college does not function correctly." Notice that the premise supporting my claim ("Donald Trump does not have the 'proper' merits to become president and became president anyway") does not rely on the claim itself being true ("The electoral college does not function correctly"), so it is not an instance of petitio principii. That I did not lay out a list of evidence supporting my premise does not change this fact.
Click to expand...
Point taken.

You're yet to support the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serene
#88,307
#88,307
PointGuard said:
Read. We know that. But popular vote does express the will of the majority of people who voted

It can only be denied for some time. Trump and before him W
Click to expand...
Well, I do think that more people hate Trump than like him. But can you not agree or at least acknowledge that the majority of his hatters are in densely populated cities and most of his supporters are in rural/flyover America? Are you at least willing to admit that this country has two different extremes of people? Should people in rural areas be subjugated to the rules of city folk? And vice versa, should the cities be driven by the rules of the flyover country folk?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a system that empowered the local politicians of these specific areas and met those specific needs instead of having a cookie-cutter, one size fits all centralized govt that may be to the benefit of one large segment of the population, but adversely affects another? At the very least, shouldn't power be more concentrated in these governors and sheriffs' in the counties than some blowhard on Twitter in Washington DC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, midnight orange, AM64 and 1 other person
#88,310
#88,310
Orangeslice13 said:
See this is where I disagree. I do not like the idea of faithless electorate. If fraud is proven (big if) or elections are set aside because of states not following the law (possible but not likely) then this goes to the state legislature to decide. That’s what the constitution says.
If I’m understanding it correctly it becomes one state one vote. My personal view is it should still be EC votes determined by the legislature but I don’t get to change the constitution.
As I’ve said many times let’s follow the constitution and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...
Each states house member gets 1 vote.
 
#88,312
#88,312
Rifleman said:
From the decision:

Kelly, Parnell, Frank, Kierzek, Magee, Sauter, Kincaid, Logan vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pa General Assembly, Wolf and Boockvar | Election 2020 | Cases of Public Interest | News & Statistics | Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania



This was already forecast by @Serene and @RockyTop85.

Also:



In short, any remedy would need to be in the law books before an affected election. Writing laws in arrears of the election when you don't like the result is not the founders' intent.

And the death blow:
Click to expand...

I'm glad this went the way it did regardless of the candidates. It would have been extremely disconcerting to see so many votes thrown out by a court after people had been told the way they were voting is acceptable and the representative that brought the suit had participated in the election without filing suit beforehand.
 
#88,314
#88,314
Orange_Crush said:
Point taken.
Click to expand...
I honestly respect that. For all the combativeness from both sides, it does take a certain strength of character to acknowledge a point that you've missed on. Everyone makes missteps sometimes; when that happens, it's best for both sides to admit it, rethink their position, and move on instead of clutching to an increasingly tenuous argument. I know this probably comes across as facetious or condescending, but I'm being completely genuine--I think a lot of people on this board would either twist things to continue to argue the point or stop replying. I make mistakes, and I will also do my best to acknowledge them if you point out flaws in my arguments.

Orange_Crush said:
You're yet to support the argument.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I don't have time to lay out arguments tonight--I need to get the child to bed and then have things to do after. But I'm definitely open to debating it at a later point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol and Orange_Crush
#88,316
#88,316
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, I do think that more people hate Trump than like him. But can you not agree or at least acknowledge that the majority of his hatters are in densely populated cities and most of his supporters are in rural/flyover America? Are you at least willing to admit that this country has two different extremes of people? Should people in rural areas be subjugated to the rules of city folk? And vice versa, should the cities be driven by the rules of the flyover country folk?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a system that empowered the local politicians of these specific areas and met those specific needs instead of having a cookie-cutter, one size fits all centralized govt that may be to the benefit of one large segment of the population, but adversely affects another? At the very least, shouldn't power be more concentrated in these governors and sheriffs' in the counties than some blowhard on Twitter in Washington DC?
Click to expand...

It has distilled down to There are Trumpers and Never Trumpers

Tough for a new President to bridge the divide in mind sets exhibited on this Forum
 
#88,317
#88,317
Serene said:
I honestly respect that. For all the combativeness from both sides, it does take a certain strength of character to acknowledge a point that you've missed on. Everyone makes missteps sometimes; when that happens, it's best for both sides to admit it, rethink their position, and move on instead of clutching to an increasingly tenuous argument. I know this probably comes across as facetious or condescending, but I'm being completely genuine--I think a lot of people on this board would either twist things to continue to argue the point or stop replying. I make mistakes, and I will also do my best to acknowledge them if you point out flaws in my arguments.


Fair enough. I don't have time to lay out arguments tonight--I need to get the child to bed and then have things to do after. But I'm definitely open to debating it at a later point.
Click to expand...
No need. It was throw-away smart-assery.

I hope he/she sleeps and dreams well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serene
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top