iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,540
|
Post by iang on Jun 4, 2021 20:17:41 GMT
He is apparently predicting that in / by August, he will be vindicated, Biden's election will be overturned and he will be back in the White House
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 5, 2021 11:47:29 GMT
LOL
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 5, 2021 14:08:47 GMT
He is apparently predicting that in / by August, he will be vindicated, Biden's election will be overturned and he will be back in the White House Of course he might then argue that it was within the 22nd amendment that he could seek re-election in 2024. It more than likely isn't but that wouldn't prevent Trump arguing the opposite and sending it to SCOTUS where let's see - oh yes he has packed the court. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." I appreciate that he would then have been "elected" twice and to argue otherwise would be contradictory - but when has that prevented Trump? " or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." While if Biden was President - if he waits until after the mid-terms or when he will then have a compliant Congress to install him (of course - according to him) - it will be under a 2 years of a term where Biden was elected. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution--- Unlikely (in all regards) but just saying !!!!!!
|
|
OWL
Forum Regular
Posts: 162
|
Post by OWL on Jun 5, 2021 14:16:47 GMT
Trump's Justices (if you can call them that) have ruled against him on several occasions. Though they are in many ways sub-optimal, they're hardly beholden to him.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 5, 2021 14:18:19 GMT
Biden would have still won last time with Michigan and Wisconsin, and just about without Minnesota. If Pennsylvania was also to go the Democrats would need Texas or Florida to make up for it (or North Carolina if they also hold Minnesota). So while not likely, far from impossible. I can definitely see a sun belt/rust belt realignment at the next election. Especially since rust belt will lose electoral votes cos of population loss. It will be very interesting if Texas goes "demographically" Democrat and is perhaps edged along that road by Governor O'Rouke ( ) and is a big block of votes for the Republicans to overcome? In addition am I right in thinking that House seats are allocated to states differently following a census and therefore the electoral college votes? If so, when will this come into effect? And what will be the effect. I guess more EVs for those with larger Hispanic populations such as Texas (and Florida) and may be fewer for rust belt states?
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jun 5, 2021 17:00:23 GMT
Trump's Justices (if you can call them that) have ruled against him on several occasions. Though they are in many ways sub-optimal, they're hardly beholden to him. Yes, with the possible exception of Alito the Justices have no interest at all in re-installing Trump.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 5, 2021 22:12:37 GMT
Trump's Justices (if you can call them that) have ruled against him on several occasions. Though they are in many ways sub-optimal, they're hardly beholden to him. Yes, with the possible exception of Alito the Justices have no interest at all in re-installing Trump. My original post was of course a complete flight of fantasy. And of course no such outlandish sequence of events could happen - could it?. Except that we have had many outlandish things happen in American politics. A state such as Florida would never of course design a deliberately confusing ballot paper - would it? Now that was an election that was stolen IMHO! And that must be an example of a "butterfly flapping its wings" and causing a storm - Gore wins - and write your counterfactual history - potentially no second Iraq War.... But in the Florida saga if I remember rightly (which I probably don't!) SCOTUS did uphold a state's rights and sovereignty essentially. And just a tad (but not much) more believable is a Republican controlled state rescinding in some way their certification of Biden as a winner of their state's EVs and SCOTUS upholding their right to do so. But I of course accept the point that SCOTUS justices appointed by Trump or Republicans are in no way beholden to them as with Democrat appointed ones and indeed have gone against Republican policy positions and some of those not appointed by Trump may privately dislike him or his policies or where he is taking the Republican party. I would just venture though that it seems to me from afar that on what one might term "party political" matters as supposed to policy, they do if they possibly can, find arguments and ways to support the Republicans. But of course Trump's remark was a way to get media attention which he is a genius at after honing his skills at that in NY. And both Trump and Boris Johnson are sheer geniuses as politicians. Their politics are not my cup of tea and they are lousy at running Governments but I admire them as politicians! And their enemies seem to be so blinded by their hatred of them that they don't take time to dissect how they do it and learn how to apply their techniques themselves (even if a little more ethically as they see it!). But of course Trump's line about the election being stolen was to keep him in the running for another attempt at the White House. And I suspect that he is about the first to lose a presidential election and still be in the running for a second term since Grover Cleveland - although my (slight) knowledge only goes back to Carter. Trump was I believe the first to win the presidency who hadn't be in the military or held elected office before. And no (serious) commentator gave him a cat in hell's chance of winning the Republican primary against a number of experienced well-funded professional politicians. Sheer genius!
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,540
|
Post by iang on Jun 5, 2021 22:18:40 GMT
But he is taking the Republican party down a cul de sac. And is been suggested that pushing for restrictions to mail in ballots will actually hurt the Republicans, as older, white, wealthier voters are more likely to mail in ballots, and they are key GOP constituencies. The obsession with the "stolen" election might actually harm the Republicans in the long run
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 6, 2021 9:32:15 GMT
A state such as Florida would never of course design a deliberately confusing ballot paper - would it? Now that was an election that was stolen IMHO! And that must be an example of a "butterfly flapping its wings" and causing a storm - Gore wins - and write your counterfactual history - potentially no second Iraq War.... I know that most conspiracy theories are nuts but this is even nuttier than most. The person responsible for the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County was the County Elections Supervisor a Mrs Theresa LePore who was twice elected to that office as a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 6, 2021 11:02:00 GMT
A state such as Florida would never of course design a deliberately confusing ballot paper - would it? Now that was an election that was stolen IMHO! And that must be an example of a "butterfly flapping its wings" and causing a storm - Gore wins - and write your counterfactual history - potentially no second Iraq War.... I know that most conspiracy theories are nuts but this is even nuttier than most. The person responsible for the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County was the County Elections Supervisor a Mrs Theresa LePore who was twice elected to that office as a Democrat. May be. But Wikipedia notes "Media organizations later analyzed the ballots and found that, under any considered criteria, the originally pursued, limited county-based recounts would have confirmed a Bush victory, whereas a statewide recount would have revealed a Gore victory." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._GoreIt further notes: "On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes. The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10, with the machine recount apparently finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327 votes. According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, later analysis showed that a total of 18 counties—accounting for a quarter of all votes cast in Florida—did not carry out the legally mandated machine recount, but "No one from the Gore campaign ever challenged this view" that the machine recount had been completed." In particular the Supreme Court decision was favourable to Bush. Wikipedia notes: "Bush v. Gore prompted many strong reactions from scholars, pundits and others regarding the Court's decision, with a majority of publications in law reviews being critical. An analysis in The Georgetown Law Journal found that 78 scholarly articles were published about the case between 2001 and 2004, with 35 criticizing the decision and 11 defending it." It is a fact that the the Florida State Secretary of State and Florida's Governor were both Republican and the Governor of course Bush's brother. And SCOTUS had a majority of Republican appointed justices which the majority legal opinion says issued a partisan judgement in favour of Bush. Even if I was wrong with my faulty memory to put it down to the ballot paper in that county. I think it is a reasonable conclusion to say that the election was won by Gore in Florida if properly counted and partisanship probably was not unhelpful in that and keeping the result from being properly corrected - and certainly if you will forgive me not "nuts". Now the Gore campaign also made mistakes - it didn't "lawyer up" as well as the Bush campaign. And I accept that the final result is subject to what the courts say - that's part of the rules in America and part of the rules in this country where individual the courts have overturned results and ordered them to be re-run - notably in Winchester in 1997. And partisanship is something that goes with the process in the US - it obviously (probably) helps Democrats in some states and Republicans in others. And Gore, of course, very graciously conceded defeat to Bush unlike Trump! The point was not so much about the problems of the result which I made as an aside. But the "butterfly effect" in complex systems. That randomly a few people in Florida chose whether to go and vote or not - or say take their child to piano practice and not bother. That the Supreme Court happened to have a majority appointed by Republicans just based on when a previous justice happened to retire or die. And may be the Gore campaign might have got its act to together etc. etc.
|
|
OWL
Forum Regular
Posts: 162
|
Post by OWL on Jun 6, 2021 11:06:39 GMT
Haven't thought about the case much (though I understand that it was very hastily written and made numerous factual errors), but it is worth noting that 7 of the 9 Justices were Republican appointed and only 5 signed the decision*. Somewhat telling is the fact that they explicitly asked for it not to carry any force of precedent.
*Actually it was a per curiam decision but that's beside the point.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 6, 2021 13:17:43 GMT
The idea that anybody in Florida designed a deliberately confusing Ballot paper, with the intention of skewing the election result in favour of one particular candidate, is doubleplusridiculous verging Trumpthink.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 6, 2021 13:28:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 6, 2021 13:31:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 6, 2021 14:04:43 GMT
Of course it confused people, and of course it is skewed the election result in favour of Bush. There is no doubt about either of those two things. My point was that it is ridiculous to suggest that it was deliberately designed in that way for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 6, 2021 14:56:07 GMT
Of course it confused people, and of course it is skewed the election result in favour of Bush. There is no doubt about either of those two things. My point was that it is ridiculous to suggest that it was deliberately designed in that way for that purpose. And my point was I agreed with you! My memories from something 20 years ago that this wasn't done to try and help people with poor eyesight and I am not sure that I had heard it said at the time but if I had, I had forgotten and my thoughts were also that the election officials were all Republicans but I appreciate that this was a Democrat albeit working to Republican bosses who also approved the design. Given my misapprehensions it was not an invalid conclusion to draw and not I'd suggest Trumpian "doublespeak" but unlike Trump when the correct facts are brought to my attention I change my mind! I also highlighted the butterfly ballot paper in a passing point as it rather complemented my point about the "butterfly" effect in chaos theory! Clearly I should have mentioned all the other things that happened - the SCOTUS verdict in favour of Bush and the re-counts in Florida which are (very) suggestive that it was "won" by Gore if the proper counting had been done and the more "legally correct" SCOTUS verdict had been given- much more so than Trump's allegations and that this was helped along by Republicans. And the allegation from you and the other person that this was an unfounded Trumpian "conspiracy theory". Not proven may be but I would suggest quite strong evidence. I hope that clarifies things. I apologise if I didn't make myself clearer in the original post! Sorry!
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 6, 2021 15:04:14 GMT
Haven't thought about the case much (though I understand that it was very hastily written and made numerous factual errors), but it is worth noting that 7 of the 9 Justices were Republican appointed and only 5 signed the decision*. Somewhat telling is the fact that they explicitly asked for it not to carry any force of precedent. *Actually it was a per curiam decision but that's beside the point. While 7 were appointed by Republicans it is undeniable that Stevens and Souter were very much on the liberal wing of the court. You also seem to be confusing two matter, 7 Justices (including Breyer and Souter) ruled that the order of the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protections Clause. It was the specific remedy (to halt the recount) that only a bare majority of 5 agreed on.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jun 6, 2021 15:08:42 GMT
*Actually it was a per curiam decision but that's beside the point. It absolutely isn't. Power without accountability is incredibly dangerous, and that they wanted to avoid accountability to begin with colours their decision. I have limited sympathy for Gore - he tried to play silly buggers by asking for partial recounts. That doesn't make what happened in FL fair, and the voters deserved a statewide recount.
|
|
OWL
Forum Regular
Posts: 162
|
Post by OWL on Jun 6, 2021 15:12:22 GMT
Haven't thought about the case much (though I understand that it was very hastily written and made numerous factual errors), but it is worth noting that 7 of the 9 Justices were Republican appointed and only 5 signed the decision*. Somewhat telling is the fact that they explicitly asked for it not to carry any force of precedent. *Actually it was a per curiam decision but that's beside the point. While 7 were appointed by Republicans it is undeniable that Stevens and Souter were very much on the liberal wing of the court. You also seem to be confusing two matter, 7 Justices (including Breyer and Souter) ruled that the order of the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protections Clause. It was the specific remedy (to halt the recount) that only a bare majority of 5 agreed on. All true, but I think people were most upset about the remedy to be honest.
|
|
OWL
Forum Regular
Posts: 162
|
Post by OWL on Jun 6, 2021 15:13:35 GMT
*Actually it was a per curiam decision but that's beside the point. It absolutely isn't. Power without accountability is incredibly dangerous, and that they wanted to avoid accountability to begin with colours their decision. ?? The composition of the majority was perfectly clear from who dissented.
|
|