|
Ynglaur posted:I ran some quick napkin-math and we're losing ~3M boomers a year right now. So the demographic which votes more Republican and is poisoned by Fox propaganda is losing more Republican voters than they're gaining. Meanwhile, young people who register to vote are skewing 3:1 Democrat to Republican. I don't know if these country-wide demographics are enough to get past the electoral college, though. Too bad that in America, it's land that votes.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I ran some quick napkin-math and we're losing ~3M boomers a year right now. So the demographic which votes more Republican and is poisoned by Fox propaganda is losing more Republican voters than they're gaining. Meanwhile, young people who register to vote are skewing 3:1 Democrat to Republican. I don't know if these country-wide demographics are enough to get past the electoral college, though. There's still a (slim) hope of the interstate voting compact getting activated
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 02:37
|
|
|
The Bible posted:If they go ahead and serve as electors anyway, could Trump pardon them if he won? Electors are a state thing. The states decide who the electors are and what penalties there are for falsely claiming the status. Hence they are being charged by the states. So, no. Trump could not pardon them. The GA elector’s argued that they were federal and the federal courts denied that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
The Bible posted:We are in an endless hell cycle where none of this ever ends. Like Sisyphus except with lawsuits
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Like Sisyphus except with lawsuits constantly trying to submit affidavits but getting sent to the back of the line every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:There's still a (slim) hope of the interstate voting compact getting activated I have pretty much zero faith in that even if it gets activated, what's to stop any red state on from just saying "lol, no" if it would keep change the outcome in their favor to break the compact, and then in a 6-3 decision... Angry_Ed posted:constantly trying to submit affidavits but getting sent to the back of the line every time. One must consider Sysiphus legally "happy", unless the court approves this injunction...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:what's to stop any red state on from just saying "lol, no" if it would keep change the outcome in their favor to break the compact, and then in a 6-3 decision... Causality. The only laws that can affect the outcome of an election are the laws that were in place before the election. If they try changing their laws after they know the results of the election, it won't affect the results of that election, only the elections going forward. And all of these vote compact laws specify that they have no effect until and unless the compact includes enough states to meet the required the winning electoral vote margin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 06:58
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:The fact that these people thought they could get away with this is baffling. I guess if you're participating in a coup you kind of have to assume you'll get away with it. Most of the time going for a coup is a fully death-or-glory kind of affair, like the losing side is lucky if they escape to exile or get released to house arrest after 27 years in prison, but I guess in the modern US you can just pinky swear that you're sorry and you won't do it again, and it's pretty much all good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 09:11
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I guess if you're participating in a coup you kind of have to assume you'll get away with it. Most of the time going for a coup is a fully death-or-glory kind of affair, like the losing side is lucky if they escape to exile or get released to house arrest after 27 years in prison, but I guess in the modern US you can just pinky swear that you're sorry and you won't do it again, and it's pretty much all good? Or "your plane randomly blows up on your way home"...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 10:03
|
|
|
If the us government was actually feeling threatened by these people I feel they would all have vanished mysteriously by now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 10:25
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Or "your plane randomly blows up on your way home"... Hey, the plane that the head of Wagner was on didn't "randomly" blow up. It blew up because the pilot had a heart attack as a result getting the Covid vaccine. You know, a totally believable explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:If the us government was actually feeling threatened by these people I feel they would all have vanished mysteriously by now. Maybe you missed the part where the vast majority of the insurrectionist were white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Causality. The only laws that can affect the outcome of an election are the laws that were in place before the election. If they try changing their laws after they know the results of the election, it won't affect the results of that election, only the elections going forward. I think it's more like, what if a state just decides to ignore their own law entirely. What mechanism is in place to force a state that is in the compact to actually do what they say? It would probably require the federal courts to mandate they send the correct electors based on the compact law, but then you always run the chance of the supreme court saying the state can do whatever it wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
The interstate voting compact will never become law. Even if all the needed states approve it Congress will never, as required by the Constitution's Compact Clause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Causality. The only laws that can affect the outcome of an election are the laws that were in place before the election. If they try changing their laws after they know the results of the election, it won't affect the results of that election, only the elections going forward. I think the concern isn't that they change the law, it's that they ignore it. As in, the compact is in effect in an election where some red state votes for the Republican but the country votes for the Democrat so the red Secretary of State or somebody just says "nah I don't care, our electors are gonna vote for our guy." Personally I think any political environment in which the compact is in effect would be so alien compared to the status quo that I don't think we can usefully hypothesize about it either way, but I'm sympathetic to concerns about whether laws actually would bind a Republican who thinks they have a chance to steal an election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The interstate voting compact will never become law. Even if all the needed states approve it Congress will never, as required by the Constitution's Compact Clause. Isn’t the whole point that it doesn’t need to be a federal law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I ran some quick napkin-math and we're losing ~3M boomers a year right now. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Isn’t the whole point that it doesn’t need to be a federal law? Compacts aren't federal law as they do not require the president to sign or a veto bypass. However they do require Congress approval according to the Constitution. There's an argument to be made that the voting compact doesn't need this because it's is relating to how the state's apportion there votes which is their purview under the Constitution as well. But there being a conflict between these two provisions it's definitely going to go to the Supreme Court to decide which takes precedence and I am personally pretty confident that it's going to require Congressional approval once the Supreme Court makes its decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
There were some Trump Legal updates over the past couple days, beyond general Trump electabilitychat. As noted above, in Colorado the state supreme court heard arguments from both sides on why the lower judge was both correct and incorrect. As a general rule, I'll note my understanding is that in an appeal I'd rather be arguing that the judge reached the wrong conclusion on a legal concept and the right conclusion in her finding of fact based on evidence than the opposite. Actual lawknowers ITT can let me know if that's wrong and dumb, which it may well be! CREW starts off with a "by your logic" for the defense: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732493299779293192 And tries to address the court's omission questions: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732496777943613661 (As described by Brandi here, I find the argument pretty weak. But then, there are plenty of alternative reasons to find the president an officer and this reason not to feels similarly lacking) I do enjoy a bigot's hyperbole coming back to haunt, though: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732497158887092420 The 'Political Question' comes next, and CREW chooses to lean in, which strikes me as the right decision: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732502690834391234 Again, I'm piecing together from Brandi's reporting. If I understand this correctly, it's CREW arguing that a question about politics and political questions are distinct - and that the crucial part here is that CREW does not ask the court to resolve a dispute in an area or using powers that have been specifically assigned to another branch (e.g. Foreign Policy). The "no matter how popular they are" bit is a point that I've not seen brought up prior, even in the lengthy Federalist treastie (though I may have missed it) but one I find immediately compelling. If it's meant to bar those who'd otherwise hold office, then "a lot of people want to vote for him" is a point towards disqualification, not towards suspending enforcement of the constitution. Finally-ish, the court asks a question that, as Brandi notes, has been repeatedly settled in DC: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732505577153012176 To Trump's lawyers, we probe on the parade of horribles https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732511884950028549 Brandi notes in her story, but not the thread, that Trump has already started to raise Purcell - the principle that the Roberts court has repeatedly used to justify disenfranchising Black and Latino voters for years because it'd be hard to get in to compliance with the law and constitution before an election. Much like the GOP's stance on the appropriate time to discuss gun control, SCOTUS's stance on what window Purcell doesn't apply to is more of a theory than anything measurable with humanity's understanding of chronology. The court does probe towards the absurdity of a couple of the arguments against disqualification here: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732511898413785498 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732514069544849840 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1732514285123735919 A note of caution that you never want to assume how a case will go based on the questions at oral arguments. Meanwhile, back in New York, Engoron continues to allow the defense to present its witnesses on matters he's already decided on: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1732089416196268152 https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1732093507936964830 Eric Trump, in a surprise reversal, chose not to testify yesterday. That means the last thing we saw before today was laughing Kise out of the courtroom: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1732122808514380118 We also had filings in the NY gag appeal, specifically the court slapping around the idea that there's meaningful infringement: https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status/1732522182532612377 https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status/1732545770975355214 Note the bottom tweet is as specifically as I've noticed them reference that Trump's clerk obsession is disrupting the trial on its own (through repeated interruption), not solely through threat of violence. And finally, today, Engoron continues to make clear why he is being permissive with Trump's team on all nonclerk matters: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1732793907849646438
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Maybe you missed the part where the vast majority of the insurrectionist were white. instead it was a right wing insurrection to kill leaders and install a puppet government so...six months probation. have a nice day 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Right, trial judges have broad discretion on the facts, but narrow on the law. By ruling against Trump on the facts but for him on the law, the trial judge was teeing himself up for maximum latitude to be reversed on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Seems really irresponsible to call them "electors" unqualified like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Compacts aren't federal law as they do not require the president to sign or a veto bypass. However they do require Congress approval according to the Constitution. There's an argument to be made that the voting compact doesn't need this because it's is relating to how the state's apportion there votes which is their purview under the Constitution as well. But there being a conflict between these two provisions it's definitely going to go to the Supreme Court to decide which takes precedence and I am personally pretty confident that it's going to require Congressional approval once the Supreme Court makes its decision. How can you say that? Don't you know that the SC is all about the right of states to administer themselves and to dismatle the big federal state?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Because the compact would likely create a permanent Democrat presidency (at least for the forseeable future) since they have only lost the popular vote one time since 1988.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Because the compact would likely create a permanent Democrat presidency (at least for the forseeable future) since they have only lost the popular vote one time since 1988. You have a lot of faith in Americans, I assume that people would just shift their voting patterns until it was back to close to being 50/50 in the popular vote instead because we're all loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Late Fees posted:Seems really irresponsible to call them "electors" unqualified like that How else would you describe what they "claimed to be"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
I've seen "fake electors" and "fraudulent electors" used elsewhere. The headline just says "electors", which they were not. An uninformed reader glancing at the headline might be led to believe that legitimate electors are being punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
They claimed to be fake electors? No. They falsely claimed to be electors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Weren't they technically electors, regardless? Just not the electors for the winning candidate and thus not the lawfully nominated electors?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Are we really worried about the nuanced semantic implications of a headline for the sake of people emerging from a cave in 2023 who also apparently don’t have time to read the article?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Weren't they technically electors, regardless? Just not the electors for the winning candidate and thus not the lawfully nominated electors? I'm also technically the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I just am not the one elected by the House of Commons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Weren't they technically electors, regardless? Just not the electors for the winning candidate and thus not the lawfully nominated electors? I think that they are not electors until they win, they are elector candidates - just like the president isn't the president until they win, but a presidential candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
"Documents released as part of the settlement revealed one of the Wisconsin Republicans appeared to refer to the attempt to install Trump for a second term as a “possible steal.” That Republican expressed skepticism about the plan but told others he was going along with it in part because he feared he would face blowback from Trump supporters if he didn’t." My god, every time I'm tempted to think it's impossible to despise these people any more than I already do, along comes further information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I think that they are not electors until they win, they are elector candidates - just like the president isn't the president until they win, but a presidential candidate. They are not Electors unless they are from the Electorč region of France, otherwise they are just sparkling voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
nerox posted:They are not Electors unless they are from the Electorč region of France, otherwise they are just sparkling voters. If they were from South Florida would they be fabulous voters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
I know court doesn't work like Ace Attorney where you win or lose cases based on gotchas and catching someone in a contradiction, but it really is stark how contradictory the Trump team's arguments are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Are we really worried about the nuanced semantic implications of a headline for the sake of people emerging from a cave in 2023 who also apparently don’t have time to read the article? You're right, and point taken. I'll stop being so pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1732846174137426266?t=qSPZrbmXhfA1MWTTLVE5HQ&s=19 So Trump is basically saying "You aren't gonna actually throw me in jail so gently caress off".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
I absolutely love the end of that little highlighted portion "absent further order of the Court." I'm going to start using that. "My client wins and will proceed with this understanding, absent further order of the Court."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 22:34
|
|