|
yikes, this election is about to get much nastier i still hate clinton and she really doesn't deserve to be president. but america doesn't deserve trump either
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Quorum posted:Well, no, if there is an official recount and it changes the outcome of the election then Hillary is president. The thing is, I'm not even sure if it's that straightforward. If (and this is the biggest if of the past 100 years or more) widespread electoral fraud did somehow flip those three states to Trump, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case, I'm not sure what the legal process for overturning the selection of electors would be if the state involved had already certified its results. It would likely require some sort of convoluted series of lawsuits, state legislature votes, and/or federal government intervention, and you'd have to go back to, like, 1876 or something to find anything even remotely similar to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
so if this election comes down to the supreme court again, and it goes 4/4, what happens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so if this election comes down to the supreme court again, and it goes 4/4, what happens? lower court decision stands
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so if this election comes down to the supreme court again, and it goes 4/4, what happens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:lower court decision stands But hilariously, it has no binding effect outside that circuit! Comedy option: nine trump versus Clinton cases, Trump gets to be president of the Fifth Circuit and a couple of the others, Clinton gets all the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Either Roberts or Kennedy would flip. I'm not so sure. Alito and Thomas would be #MAGA all the way, but Kennedy and Roberts strike me as the sort of Republicans that would despise Trump and everything he stands for. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though. Anyway it's not gonna go to the Supreme Court, so this is all just theorycrafting.  https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801211439209914369 Quorum posted:But hilariously, it has no binding effect outside that circuit! Comedy option: nine trump versus Clinton cases, Trump gets to be president of the Fifth Circuit and a couple of the others, Clinton gets all the rest. I don't think it would go to a federal circuit since elections are administered at the state level. Everything in 2000 was dealt with by Florida state courts up until Bush v. Gore went to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:lower court decision stands i wasn't aware the recount decision in 2000 ran up the court ladder. so i guess this also solves the problem with split circuits because the supremes would decide on a state by state basis
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
But, but, but, I thought Soros owns all of the voting machines? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'm not so sure. Alito and Thomas would be #MAGA all the way, but Kennedy and Roberts strike me as the sort of Republicans that would despise Trump and everything he stands for. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though. I agree that the specific reason stated in the article I thought was weak. But I also have a feeling there's more complicated reasons they didn't state for the article. Or the article didn't report. I posted evidence that ballot totals weren't adding up in the previous page. Nothing concrete, but it is concerning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'm not so sure. Alito and Thomas would be #MAGA all the way, but Kennedy and Roberts strike me as the sort of Republicans that would despise Trump and everything he stands for. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I finished Means of Ascent on election day, which is the Caro book that covers LBJ in the breathtaking 1948 TX senate election, so I personally am in a mindset to audit this to whatever degree the evidence keeps suggesting. That said I'm sure it's common to have numbers not add up neatly due to human error and elections generally being a pretty large, messy affair even when everyone involved is being fully honest. I've always wondered how they do checks and balances on it. The media wants to call it asap for coverage but why wouldn't you expend the effort to audit and spot check things until you have a high degree of confidence in the results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'm not so sure. Alito and Thomas would be #MAGA all the way, but Kennedy and Roberts strike me as the sort of Republicans that would despise Trump and everything he stands for. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though. The first thing Bush v. Gore states is that it sets no precedent. All bets are off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I'll be frank, the consequences of it turning out that electoral fraud took place seem far worse to me than Trump actually being president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Evidence ballot totals in WI aren't adding up Irrespective of anything else, that is a large discrepency between Clinton and Feingold voters. Who are those people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:The first thing Bush v. Gore states is that it sets no precedent. All bets are off. It's not about precedent, it's about standing and jurisdiction. Disputing an election result is a matter of state law, so it would be filed in a state court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Niton posted:Irrespective of anything else, that is a large discrepency between Clinton and Feingold voters. Who are those people? Protest voters, possibly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
I though about making a joke about the tax returns finally coming out any day now, but I just got sadder because I don't think anything would've changed if they had been released in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
if hillary by some electoral/legislative miracle entered the white house in january, she would do so with a popular vote mandate. congress would hate her, and republicans would hate her, and trump would definitely, definitely hate her, but she would be inarguably supported by the will of the people. she would also be aware that the nationwide response would be insane at worst, and extremely cynical at best. i think it would be worth it; i don't think there's any justification for putting bigots in the white house and i would prefer to fight that outcome on all possible fronts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of the vote audit thing, but the idea of an election hack sends a chill down my spine. It would be a different world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I really hope people can get over this mindset someday, because we're going to have town up to the fact that a lot of people will have to work a lot less thanks to automation and such. America never shook the Protestant work ethic - in fact, it doubled down on it, because the best way to keep people happy under capitalism was to convince them that as long as they kept their heads down, their mouths shut, and their hands busy creating as much value as possible for the absurdly rich oligarch who runs the company, their livelihood and prosperity would be guaranteed forever. No one with any sense said that overturning a system that's entrenched itself over the course of centuries would be easy. Hell, we haven't even managed to stomp out white supremacists yet, despite a century and a half of efforts. Lemming posted:This is because the framing is bullshit and we need to fix the framing. Bringing up minorities or people who are lazy and don't want to work etc only works because we let it. The focus needs to be on the people who are the cause for the suffering. You lost your job because the factory shut down? Bring up that the company that owned the factory is still making money, hand over fist. They gave you an unfair deal where they asked you to invest your time, money, home, your entire life in a job where they invested so little they're just fine with up and leaving. They cheated you out of what you already earned and deserved. They were allowed to get away with it before but they won't now, and we're going to make sure they pay you back what they owe with interest. A revenge narrative like that doesn't sell mincome or welfare. Punishing the CEOs and helping the poor are not necessarily one in the same, and while they very well can be, there's plenty of people out there who support "take money from evil factory owners who screwed over the working class" but still balk at "and then give all that money to poor people for free without even making sure they're trying really hard to deserve it".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so if this election comes down to the supreme court again, and it goes 4/4, what happens? Trial by Combat
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Niton posted:Irrespective of anything else, that is a large discrepency between Clinton and Feingold voters. Who are those people? Do know there have been reports of people casting ballots but not voting for president. Clearly it isn't the case here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Mezzanine posted:I though about making a joke about the tax returns finally coming out any day now, but I just got sadder because I don't think anything would've changed if they had been released in the first place. The right is far, far better at optics and messaging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Trial by Combat You hacked her, you cheated her, you stole her election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Do know there have been reports of people casting ballots but not voting for president. Clearly it isn't the case here. this would be if the number of casts was higher. According to that number the amount of people voting for President is higher then the amount of people who submitted ballots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A revenge narrative like that doesn't sell mincome or welfare. Punishing the CEOs and helping the poor are not necessarily one in the same, and while they very well can be, there's plenty of people out there who support "take money from evil factory owners who screwed over the working class" but still balk at "and then give all that money to poor people for free without even making sure they're trying really hard to deserve it". It's not about revenge. Would you call it "revenge" if you forced a thief to give you back your wallet? The point of capitalism is not to help people, and the rich have only been able to take advantage of the system to their benefit because we've allowed them to. Giving people back what they've earned (see http://i.imgur.com/pBiJPFA.jpg) is not redistribution or punishment or whatever. It's justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:It would not have. My anti-trump family is throwing the trump tower / conflicts of interest / cabinet horror show articles at the pro-trump family members and they understand and accept it. They just don't care. If pressed, their feeling is that hillary would have been just as bad or worse (and for some, that Obama was just as bad anyway). Has anyone pressed further on why she would be worse or what actions she would take?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I just want to see this election get even more insane. At this point, why not go all the way? What've we got to lose? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
The same New York Times reporter wrote an article a while back about how elections could be hacked http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/campaign-stops/the-election-wont-be-rigged-but-it-could-be-hacked.html quote:...Over the years, the team at Princeton, cooperating with other researchers, has managed to disable and tamper with many direct recording electronic systems that use touch-screen computers without a verifiable paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Trump is going to be president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Trump isn't going to have to repeal the overtime rules because they're going to have never gone into effect
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Motto posted:Trump is going to be president. Mods ban this poster please
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:Has anyone pressed further on why she would be worse or what actions she would take?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Niton posted:Irrespective of anything else, that is a large discrepency between Clinton and Feingold voters. Who are those people? Plenty of swing voters like their state-level Republican/Democrat candidates but dislike the national nominees. Combine that with the fact that Johnson had the advantage of incumbency, and it's not too surprising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:I'm skeptical of the vote audit thing, but the idea of an election hack sends a chill down my spine. It would be a different world. The move to go to electronic voting is really just the dumbest considering the only country to really use it on a massive scale is India (a paragon of anticorruption, to be sure). Everybody else rolled it out in limited amounts, found they couldn't secure it, and then got rid of it. Mind you, the reason W. got the presidency was mainly because Sandra Day O'Connor made had no qualms about ruling in a case involving a family she had a long and substantial friendship with. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Either Roberts or Kennedy would flip. One or more of the liberals would sooner flip if it meant avoiding widespread violence and riots. Trump is currently the winner, and the left has a might bigger hurdle to clear. Any lawsuit without some incredibly solid evidence of vote tampering flipping the election would definitely go against Clinton and reinforce Trump's position. I have zero faith in the liberal justices to stand firm and force a showdown if by some miracle this actually went to the courts with solid evidence of massive pro-Trump fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Hillary somehow magicing her way into the Presidency would do way more long term damage than Trump at this point. She would be a guaranteed one-termer with a viciously hostile senate and congress. The Republicans would clean up in 2020. As it is we can hope for a Dem sweep instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Plenty of swing voters like their state-level Republican/Democrat candidates but dislike the national nominees. Combine that with the fact that Johnson had the advantage of incumbency, and it's not too surprising. You have it backwards, I think. Ross Feingold outperformed Clinton, against an incumbent, by a large margin. That's unusual just on its face before you get into the irregularities of the # of votes cast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Niton posted:You have it backwards, I think. Ross Feingold outperformed Clinton, against an incumbent, by a large margin. That's unusual just on its face before you get into the irregularities of the # of votes cast. That's just in one county though. Feingold lost statewide by more than Clinton. At the county level, you're talking sample sizes that are small enough (relatively speaking) for all sorts of weirdos to rear their heads. And anyway, while the bit about Johnson being the incumbent may not apply, it's still the case that there are probably still swing voters (or disaffected leftists) who liked Feingold more than Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:28
|
|