Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Silvanus]

So um this happened. Hopefully people aren't going to say CBS isn't a good enough source now

CBS Texas - Breaking Local News, First Alert Weather & I-Team Investigations

Latest breaking news from CBS11 KTVT-TV | KTXA-TV.

dfw.cbslocal.com

Ah, good to know the mechanisms to detect fraud are working just fine, and this small-time rubbish is the worst they can find.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ah, good to know the mechanisms to detect fraud are working just fine.

Yeh It's come up after the election seemingly so it may not have been caught before some of those votes got sent in.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Actually pretty glorious to see. If they're not even in favor of that they're useless.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

yeh Sharia Law is based on just that too. The only evidence to claim republicans are being racist is pre-existing biases.

If banning Sharia were put on the books by a Democrat it would likely be voted through. Thus it's not about points being raised but because the other "tribe" is suggesting it so it's being deemed bad because the other tribe is being deemed to have nefarious purposed behind it.

Thus its just about hatred of "The monsters not on the right side of history" or whatever

"If democrats did it" but they, y'know, *didn't*.

So...yeah. This is "but if people agreed with me, then they'd agree with me" level bullshit

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeh It's come up after the election seemingly so it may not have been caught before some of those votes got sent in.

You know they keep track of who sent in votes, right?

Not that that's enough votes to matter

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"If democrats did it" but they, y'know, *didn't*.

So...yeah. This is "but if people agreed with me, then they'd agree with me" level bullshit

So the only reason you admit it's being blocked is because Republicans suggested it.

Which again point about working together rather than trying to dominate which I brought up before.

 

[Asita]

yeh Sharia Law is based on just that too. The only evidence to claim republicans are being racist is pre-existing biases.

If banning Sharia were put on the books by a Democrat it would likely be voted through. Thus it's not about points being raised but because the other "tribe" is suggesting it so it's being deemed bad because the other tribe is being deemed to have nefarious purposed behind it.

Thus its just about hatred of "The monsters not on the right side of history" or whatever

No, it's because it's bullshit whose transparent purpose is to stoke fears about Muslims. Sharia Law is effectively already precluded from being passed as it is wholly religious in nature and thereby spectacularly fails the Lemon Test and certainly violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Not to mince words here, the point of trying to ban Sharia Law is wholly propaganda. Partially it's fearmongering to create the impression that Muslims are the enemy at the gates and are on the verge of overturning our way of life and rule of law, thereby making it crucially important that we definitively act to limit their influence while we still can. The idea is less to ban Sharia Law (as there's no risk of it being put into effect), but more to use the implications of passing such a ban to shape public opinion of Muslims.

This brings us to the second part: it's virtue signalling that Muslims are an 'other' and unwelcome, hence specifying Sharia and Sharia alone instead instead of crafting a more general ban addressing the underlying issues. That might read something like, oh I don't know...maybe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? For those unfamiliar, that's the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which makes it illegal both to make any laws that would push us towards a theocracy and to make any laws that discriminate against a given religion. Which brings us back full circle with the fact that such a ban is redundant and unnecessary.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Can Trump still win if he takes it to court and wins there?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You know they keep track of who sent in votes, right?

Not that that's enough votes to matter

To an extent yes but it takes time to check things. In this case it was obvious because she signed for 67 people which would raise obvious red flags.

Much harder to just catch it when it's 1 persons name involved.

Also the claim is there was 0 election fraud.

This is evidence of at least one case.

It's why I said Biden would be good to say he welcomes investigations etc because he wants Trump to know he was beaten fair and square

But still have a Spitting Image video

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So the only reason you admit it's being blocked is because Republicans suggested it.

Which again point about working together rather than trying to dominate which I brought up before.

Man, you are utterly and deeply committed to the bit that Democrats and Republicans are 100% the same politics wise, huh

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Can Trump still win if he takes it to court and wins there?

Going by the way states look rn he'd have to do it in multiple states

 

[Silvanus]

Also the claim is there was 0 election fraud.

No it isn't. There isn't widespread voter fraud. Giuliani is alleging, in effect, an enormous statewide conspiracy for which zero evidence has been presented. He's not just alleging that a few people faked a vote here or there.

Every election on the planet will have one or two assoles attempting to fake 2 or 3 votes.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Can Trump still win if he takes it to court and wins there?

Theoretically, but the Florida decision in 2000 was for a much closer, much more contested count with a variety of physical weird bits (butterfly ballots and hanging chads) that came down to only 500 votes (that Gore actually won, if he hadn't conceded) and it took a huge number of highly specialized lawyers, oodles of cash, and coordinated riots to pull off.

Having to do that in 3-5 different states with much clearer victories, some of which aren't in "auto-recount" territory in one of the most transparent elections to date?

Highly doubtful Trump has that much clout. The less fanatical GOP is already abandoning him

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, it's because it's bullshit whose transparent purpose is to stoke fears about Muslims. Sharia Law is effectively already precluded from being passed as it is wholly religious in nature and thereby spectacularly fails the Lemon Test and certainly violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Not to mince words here, the point of trying to ban Sharia Law is wholly propaganda. Partially it's fearmongering to create the impression that Muslims are the enemy at the gates and are on the verge of overturning our way of life and rule of law, thereby making it crucially important that we definitively act to limit their influence while we still can. The idea is less to ban Sharia Law (as there's no risk of it being put into effect), but more to use the implications of passing such a ban to shape public opinion of Muslims.

This brings us to the second part: it's virtue signalling that Muslims are an 'other' and unwelcome, hence specifying Sharia and Sharia alone instead instead of crafting a more general ban addressing the underlying issues. That might read something like, oh I don't know...maybe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? For those unfamiliar, that's the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which makes it illegal both to make any laws that would push us towards a theocracy and to make any laws that discriminate against a given religion. Which brings us back full circle with the fact that such a ban is redundant and unnecessary.

And banning the law removes that little thing they can use.

Having even the potential for Sharia Law still on the table gives the Republicans in said state ammo to keep bringing it up.

If they tried it after the law was passed.

"Yeh no it's against the law so not going to happen, so shut up"

Now though that can't be used. Why allow your opponents to have ammo like that again?

Even most Muslims hate Sharia Law, what shapes perception more? Giving one side perpetual ammo to use or making them lose that ammo?

Also technically Sharia Law isn't required as part of practicing said religion.

Just consider it one of those laws on the books like many other less useful ones.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No it isn't. There isn't widespread voter fraud.

Every election on the planet will have one or two assoles attempting to fake 2 or 3 votes.

67. They alone tried to fake 67 votes.

in an election this tight it doesn't need that much to change things.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

67. They alone tried to fake 67 votes.

in an election this tight it doesn't need that much to change things.

67 votes in Texas, which was not one of the states that are currently under scrutiny.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

67. They alone tried to fake 67 votes.

in an election this tight it doesn't need that much to change things.

Texas was not a tight vote

And banning the law removes that little thing they can use.

Having even the potential for Sharia Law still on the table gives the Republicans in said state ammo to keep bringing it up.

If they tried it after the law was passed.

"Yeh no it's against the law so not going to happen, so shut up"

Now though that can't be used. Why allow your opponents to have ammo like that again?

Even most Muslims hate Sharia Law, what shapes perception more? Giving one side perpetual ammo to use or making them lose that ammo?

Also technically Sharia Law isn't required as part of practicing said religion.

Just consider it one of those laws on the books like many other less useful ones.

"Take away ammo from republicans being racist, bigoted assholes by being racist, bigoted assholes"

Good plan. Should democrats ban Halakha next to take ammo away from the anti-semites?

 

[Silvanus]

67. They alone tried to fake 67 votes.

in an election this tight it doesn't need that much to change things.

67 votes, relative to the numbers that Trump and Giuliani are claiming, is absolutely small fry. Their claim is tens of thousands, in a coordinated conspiracy spanning the state of PA, with the involvement of huge swathes of the authorities.

Without a shred of evidence. And directly contradicting their own lawyers, who admitted that Republican observers were present.

You see the difference in magnitude between that claim and some guy trying to fake 67 votes... and easily getting caught?

The fraud allegation is honestly just goddamn pathetic, and exists solely to save face and whip people up.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

67 votes in Texas, which was not one of the states that are currently under scrutiny.

Yeh, which still does suggest other states may have things having happened too.

What it magically could only happen in Texas?

Texas was not a tight vote

"Take away ammo from republicans being racist, bigoted assholes by being racist, bigoted assholes"

Well banning Sharia law would be a positive action due to it's persecution of women and members of other religions. Because Sharia Law itself is racist and sexist.

Good plan. Should democrats ban Halakha next to take ammo away from the anti-semites?

is Halakha racist and sexist?

 

[CastletonSnob]

Statement from Trump.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/statement-from-president-donald-j.-trump

How worried about the court battles are you?