I think this particular thing is a irregular. I do not think that this particular thing is the only thing that exists.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
So just to be clear, one of Trump's legal arguments that he's put before the Supreme Court is thus: "He won 18 of the country's 19 so-called 'bellwether' counties—counties whose vote, historically, almost always goes for the candidate who wins the election."
He is arguing, in a legal brief, that because he won those counties, he must have won the election, because anyone who wins those counties almost always wins the election, and therefore not winning the election is proof of fraud.
I always feed my fish before the Patriots win the Super Bowl, but this time I fed my fish and the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, so obviously the Patriots were cheated out of their victory!
He is arguing, in a legal brief, that because he won those counties, he must have won the election, because anyone who wins those counties almost always wins the election, and therefore not winning the election is proof of fraud.
I always feed my fish before the Patriots win the Super Bowl, but this time I fed my fish and the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, so obviously the Patriots were cheated out of their victory!
Ok question. Have we actually found out why some listed counties got postal votes but 0 registered voters in them yet?
I've never heard of that. I wonder how that works. Can people just show up to vote, and then that counts, or do you have to register in advance?
Also, Colorado looks into "Legitimate concerns"
Could be that they register on the day at the polling station and those records have not yet been updated.I've never heard of that. I wonder how that works. Can people just show up to vote, and then that counts, or do you have to register in advance?
Also, Colorado looks into "Legitimate concerns"
I hate to feed this nonsense, but I can't help but be bemused that when Trump won against expectations, it's because he was the outsider, the black horse, the system disruptor, etc.
But when he fails to win a reelection suddenly the math and probabilities are skewed, this make no sense, fraud, foul play!
Here's the thing. You can't be the outsider who disrupts the system, then use historical data about election stats to show how these results are different. That's how it works. You were the wild card, so you cant point at past probabilities in your defense.
But when he fails to win a reelection suddenly the math and probabilities are skewed, this make no sense, fraud, foul play!
Here's the thing. You can't be the outsider who disrupts the system, then use historical data about election stats to show how these results are different. That's how it works. You were the wild card, so you cant point at past probabilities in your defense.
I feel this applies more and more each day. Some people on this site is actually letting us see the buildup live.
It's certainly one in the eye for "states' rights". Apparently states shouldn't have the right to put forward their support for presidents Texas doesn't want them to.
This Texas lawsuit is probably one of the most unwise and divisive lawsuits ever raised in the USA. Texas - later joined by others - is officially seeking to trample over the independence of other states. This is the sort of stuff that will lead to secessions and civil wars.
So are the bellwether counties the same as they were at the first US presidential election, or even 1950? If not, it is proof that bellwether counties do not remain bellwether counties, and the argument is null and void.
Texas replied in the SCOTUS case:
" Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. "
" Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin? "
" Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions. "
" Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. "
" Not acting incentivizes further lawlessness and will drive honest voters from the polls: why should anyone vote if a few urban centers will manufacture an unlawful and insuperable vote margin? "
" Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions. "
I'm hoping this argument gains a lot of traction among Republican voters in Georgia.
How strange! To think Texas could not participate in other states' judiciary processes, concerning matters that are supposed to be up to individual states to administer!
In other words, they mean Democrats. (Or perhaps "non-whites", or both.) Because that what "a few urban centers" really means.
And herein lies a core dishonesty. The voting system is the same across the whole state, so the same hypothetical opportunity for cheating exists in a mass of rural counties, too. It is patently absurd to assume cheating in one place and yet not another using the same system, and the Republicans plainly are not applying equal scrutiny to rural (i.e. Republican) counties.
On the left? Then why did Trump's lawyers explicitly tell the courts that they're not alleging voter fraud? And why is there still no evidence of large scale voter fraud? It seems to me that the right also recognizes that there's nothing wrong with mail-in ballots. They just don't like them because it makes voting easier. Which is consistent with Republican agenda of making it more difficult to vote.
Because other arguments are more defensible in court.
Watch the hearings, and see witnesses give testimony for 4,6,7,8 hours each. The only way you can think that there's "no evidence" is if you either haven't been paying attention or that, you have a creative definition of "large scale".
That's kind of like saying "why are you complaining that people can get away with crimes? Just go commit your own!"
The "urban centers" are "committing crimes" and getting away with it. Yes, the opportunity exists elsewhere.
Last edited:
Apparently the "states" of "New California" and "New Nevada" have hopped on the Texas train:
So, Republicans in California are trying to make their own state?
www.newcaliforniastate.com
So, Republicans in California are trying to make their own state?
New California State
New California is a new state in development exercising its constitutional Right to form from the State of California as codified under Article IV Section 3 of the United States Constitution and in the United States Declaration of Independence.
www.newcaliforniastate.com
- Status