(11-19-2020 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:10 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ]Voted for Trump and wish he won, but I have to say the true evidence of actually overturning the result of the election is virtually zero. He's within his Constitutional right to investigate any potential fraud, but tweeting that he was the real winner without proven results is dangerously stupid.
If there isn't enough evidence, will he ever concede? It's a dangerous path our country is headed in.
Concession is more a customary thing than one that has legal significance. Concession basically cuts off his ability to challenge...
How so? What legal position does a concession speech create?
Agreement among both parties as to who won. Its hard to unring that bell.
How so...there's nothing finite established. None of the states had certified anything, much less stopped counting votes.
Oh good lord, Tom. You're literally just arguing to argue. You know damn well that you would be among the first to note that he'd conceded if he continued to argue before a court that he won.
No, it's not legally binding... but it would be like admitting in an interview that you killed someone while arguing before the court that you didn't. The admission would not be 'proof', but to deny that it would have an impact is silly
What's funny is I'm pretty sure that you were among the people arguing that 'Trump wouldn't agree to a transition' when he clearly just refused to accept the premise that he would lose.
(11-19-2020 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 02:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:21 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:18 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]Trump's mouth by far is his worst trait. He exaggerates more than anyone person should.
That being said, if he loses but shows there is election fraud, maybe, just maybe, the American people will demand stricter regulations as it comes to votes. I hear certain people saying that throwing out votes disenfranchises voters, but fake votes disenfranchises legal voters. This could be Trump's parting gift to the country.
That's not his end game though - if that was the true message he would be talking about that instead of tweeting "I Won!"
Look, there has been a coup to undo the 2016 election, I believe this, but thinking long term...not conceding after a close loss will further divide our nation and will be his lasting legacy 20 years from now. Similar to Al Gore.
Here is the dirty little secret about Trump. His tweets have never matched how he governs. His tweets sometimes have been strident and unpredictable. His actually governing decisions have been quite reasonable and stable. His main achievements—controlling runaway illegal immigration, changing “free” trade to “fair” trade, and bringing jobs back to America by creating a more business friendly climate (lower regulation and lower taxes) are his legacy gift to the public (along with a Covid vaccine).
There is literally nothing wrong or particularly controversial about his governance absent the tweets. Trump has tendency to think out loud via news conferences or tweets. It’s somewhat unconventional, but it’s largely the press that has deemed it a big deal. The rest of America seems to understand it really isn’t and likely re-elects him had the press not convinced them Covid was all Trumps fault.
Just this week he appointed the 33 year old wife of one of his staffers (also employee of the firm he hired to challenge the vote) to a federal judgeship for life. The bar association considered her unqualified as she has only taken part in two trials (both single day trials) and was only an intern. She has never taken a case to trial as primary or co-counsel since passing the bar.
You do realize there are judges that dont even have law degrees? At least 14 Supreme Court justices had no law degree. So, the nominee your concerned about has a law degree and is a practicing attorney. She'll be fine.
It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
(11-19-2020 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 02:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:21 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ]That's not his end game though - if that was the true message he would be talking about that instead of tweeting "I Won!"
Look, there has been a coup to undo the 2016 election, I believe this, but thinking long term...not conceding after a close loss will further divide our nation and will be his lasting legacy 20 years from now. Similar to Al Gore.
Here is the dirty little secret about Trump. His tweets have never matched how he governs. His tweets sometimes have been strident and unpredictable. His actually governing decisions have been quite reasonable and stable. His main achievements—controlling runaway illegal immigration, changing “free” trade to “fair” trade, and bringing jobs back to America by creating a more business friendly climate (lower regulation and lower taxes) are his legacy gift to the public (along with a Covid vaccine).
There is literally nothing wrong or particularly controversial about his governance absent the tweets. Trump has tendency to think out loud via news conferences or tweets. It’s somewhat unconventional, but it’s largely the press that has deemed it a big deal. The rest of America seems to understand it really isn’t and likely re-elects him had the press not convinced them Covid was all Trumps fault.
Just this week he appointed the 33 year old wife of one of his staffers (also employee of the firm he hired to challenge the vote) to a federal judgeship for life. The bar association considered her unqualified as she has only taken part in two trials (both single day trials) and was only an intern. She has never taken a case to trial as primary or co-counsel since passing the bar.
You do realize there are judges that dont even have law degrees? At least 14 Supreme Court justices had no law degree. So, the nominee your concerned about has a law degree and is a practicing attorney. She'll be fine.
It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
True. Theyve declined. We need more non lawyers as judges.
Yep. Many of the dumbest people I know have advanced college degrees. And, many of the smartest people I know, never went to college.
(11-19-2020 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
I haven't looked (no idea who she is) but based on a reading of the above, she HAS a law degree. She passed her state's bar
(11-19-2020 03:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 02:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:21 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ]That's not his end game though - if that was the true message he would be talking about that instead of tweeting "I Won!"
Look, there has been a coup to undo the 2016 election, I believe this, but thinking long term...not conceding after a close loss will further divide our nation and will be his lasting legacy 20 years from now. Similar to Al Gore.
Here is the dirty little secret about Trump. His tweets have never matched how he governs. His tweets sometimes have been strident and unpredictable. His actually governing decisions have been quite reasonable and stable. His main achievements—controlling runaway illegal immigration, changing “free” trade to “fair” trade, and bringing jobs back to America by creating a more business friendly climate (lower regulation and lower taxes) are his legacy gift to the public (along with a Covid vaccine).
There is literally nothing wrong or particularly controversial about his governance absent the tweets. Trump has tendency to think out loud via news conferences or tweets. It’s somewhat unconventional, but it’s largely the press that has deemed it a big deal. The rest of America seems to understand it really isn’t and likely re-elects him had the press not convinced them Covid was all Trumps fault.
Just this week he appointed the 33 year old wife of one of his staffers (also employee of the firm he hired to challenge the vote) to a federal judgeship for life. The bar association considered her unqualified as she has only taken part in two trials (both single day trials) and was only an intern. She has never taken a case to trial as primary or co-counsel since passing the bar.
He can't do that without senate approval.
The bar association is a liberal cesspool. They claimed one guy who was perfectly qualified was unqualified. One of his political opponents wrote the claim that he was unqualified.
And I notice you didn't include a link.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/breaking-n...-in-tampa/
Senate was fine with her. And even her opponents admit her excellent credentials.
Only 41 Democrats bothered to vote no.
"...She has never tried a criminal or civil case, even as co-counsel, since being admitted to the Bar eight years ago, according to a Sept. 8 letter written by Randall D. Noel, chairman of the association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary, to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Ms. Mizelle has a very keen intellect, a strong work ethic and an impressive resume,” Noel said. “She presents as a delightful person, and she has many friends who support her nomination. Her integrity and demeanor are not in question. These attributes, however, simply do not compensate for the short time she has actually practiced law and her lack of meaningful trial experience.”
Tobias said Mizelle answered that criticism during her confirmation hearing, pointing to the “trial-type” work she has done at the Justice Department and the litigation teams she led for a major law firm.
“I think the criticism was that she hadn’t tried a lot of cases,” the professor said. “But in fairness most cases settle (and) 95 percent of cases settle in the federal system. Today a district judge tries some cases, but not that many...."”
(11-18-2020 11:27 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go!!!
![[Image: 7c9e3615e0a82f530bc9dcd351037614.jpg]](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201119/7c9e3615e0a82f530bc9dcd351037614.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Good luck with this...
They are playing politics.
This will go as far as them being replaced by the Governor...
Seems Donald called one of these officials after she changed her vote to Yes...
She says she felt no pressure to rescind her yes vote...But she then did after the call. Seems a little inappropriate.
(11-19-2020 04:52 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:27 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Good luck with this...
They are playing politics.
This will go as far as them being replaced by the Governor...
Seems Donald called one of these officials after she changed her vote to Yes...
She says she felt no pressure to rescind her yes vote...But she then did after the call. Seems a little inappropriate.
I would "seem" that way. True.
But, perhaps he gave her some info of what is to come? Either way, we should know soon.
(11-19-2020 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:10 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ]Voted for Trump and wish he won, but I have to say the true evidence of actually overturning the result of the election is virtually zero. He's within his Constitutional right to investigate any potential fraud, but tweeting that he was the real winner without proven results is dangerously stupid.
If there isn't enough evidence, will he ever concede? It's a dangerous path our country is headed in.
Concession is more a customary thing than one that has legal significance. Concession basically cuts off his ability to challenge...
How so? What legal position does a concession speech create?
Agreement among both parties as to who won. Its hard to unring that bell.
How so...there's nothing finite established. None of the states had certified anything, much less stopped counting votes.
lol...then whats the argument for calling Biden the president elect? Isnt it the same? The president elect can become the president elect by both sides agreeing to it. If there is no agreement, the process you describe will determine the president elect. If you concede---and then try to pull back--you've now created a new hurdle to overcome--that being your own statement that your opponent won.
(11-19-2020 05:21 PM)oruvoice Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 04:52 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:27 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Good luck with this...
They are playing politics.
This will go as far as them being replaced by the Governor...
Seems Donald called one of these officials after she changed her vote to Yes...
She says she felt no pressure to rescind her yes vote...But she then did after the call. Seems a little inappropriate.
I would "seem" that way. True.
But, perhaps he gave her some info of what is to come? Either way, we should know soon.
It is akin to the a criminal talking to someone on the jury.
If he told her what is to come it is still considered tampering.
Trump knows probably more than anyone what the actual facts are...If not he hired a bunch of incompetent folks.
Since he hasn't brought forth any evidence to the courts that would change the election indicates it doesn't exist.
If this was 2016 when Obama was in office I would give him more rope...But he is in charge of the intelligence apparatus now. There should be no need to retweet random people on twitter.
(11-19-2020 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 02:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 10:21 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote: [ -> ]That's not his end game though - if that was the true message he would be talking about that instead of tweeting "I Won!"
Look, there has been a coup to undo the 2016 election, I believe this, but thinking long term...not conceding after a close loss will further divide our nation and will be his lasting legacy 20 years from now. Similar to Al Gore.
Here is the dirty little secret about Trump. His tweets have never matched how he governs. His tweets sometimes have been strident and unpredictable. His actually governing decisions have been quite reasonable and stable. His main achievements—controlling runaway illegal immigration, changing “free” trade to “fair” trade, and bringing jobs back to America by creating a more business friendly climate (lower regulation and lower taxes) are his legacy gift to the public (along with a Covid vaccine).
There is literally nothing wrong or particularly controversial about his governance absent the tweets. Trump has tendency to think out loud via news conferences or tweets. It’s somewhat unconventional, but it’s largely the press that has deemed it a big deal. The rest of America seems to understand it really isn’t and likely re-elects him had the press not convinced them Covid was all Trumps fault.
Just this week he appointed the 33 year old wife of one of his staffers (also employee of the firm he hired to challenge the vote) to a federal judgeship for life. The bar association considered her unqualified as she has only taken part in two trials (both single day trials) and was only an intern. She has never taken a case to trial as primary or co-counsel since passing the bar.
You do realize there are judges that dont even have law degrees? At least 14 Supreme Court justices had no law degree. So, the nominee your concerned about has a law degree and is a practicing attorney. She'll be fine.
It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
My point was there are currently practicing judges that don't even have law degrees--and there have even been a number of judges on the Supreme Court that had no law degree. This appointment wasnt made to the Supreme Court. She HAS a law degree. She IS a practicing attorney. Yes---she's never argued a case before a jury. She has that in common with Nancy Freudenthal---a 2010 Obama nominee that had also never tried a case before a jury.
The world will be fine.
Another good piece by Mollie. She mentions in the article that Laurence Tribe, the founder of borking, was Obama's mentor.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/19/dem...-theories/
"...The false and delusional conspiracy theory, wielded eagerly and viciously by media handmaidens in order to harm Trump and his voters and keep them from accomplishing their policy objectives, damaged the country. While there is no evidence in support of the claim of treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and in fact not a single American was found to have colluded, it was pushed so relentlessly by liberals that 81 percent of liberals actually believe it was true! Tribe is right that conspiracy theories are harmful to the fabric of the country. He and every single other person who perpetrated the Russia collusion hoax should never forget how much they harmed the country with their lies.
Trump’s 74 million supporters — knowing that their political opponents are willing to spy, fund and fabricate a dossier, push a “collusion” hoax, accuse a federal judge of being a serial gang rapist, run a “resistance” campaign throughout the federal government, manufacture an impeachment, use tech corporations to censor legitimate news about Biden family corruption, trash an economy, and lie about Trump’s standing with American voters through propaganda polls — now have a pretty good idea that election fraud is well within the realm of possibility. That would be true even if Democrats hadn’t spent much of the year working to ensure lowered scrutiny of mail-in ballots, which everyone knows are more susceptible to fraud than other ballots.
If it takes a few weeks for these 74 million voters and their elected representatives to see if they can learn anything about election integrity and whether this election had it, the people who put them through four years of claims about “illegitimacy” can go ahead and sit down and wait."
![[Image: a6224810191308db3568c13d5870ade0.jpg]](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201119/a6224810191308db3568c13d5870ade0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
(11-19-2020 06:50 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
yep, cuz thats the law.
and when they apply the other parts of the law, like it being illegal to open absentee ballots prior to the election, never mind cure them, Trump wins PA.
Toss out the absentee ballots that have no application in WI, and Trump wins WI.
Get the illegal votes in MI tossed, and Trump is still your president.
(11-19-2020 04:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
I haven't looked (no idea who she is) but based on a reading of the above, she HAS a law degree. She passed her state's bar
I wasn't saying she didn't have one. Attackcoog brought up the fact that justices without law degrees have been appointed while defending her qualification, I was simply pointing out that was a long time ago and there were different standards so that isn't really relevant to her appointment.
My points with here appointment were the fact that she is married to a trump appointee, works at the law firm representing trump, and according to the bar has next to no trial experience.
(11-19-2020 04:52 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:27 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-18-2020 11:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Good luck with this...
They are playing politics.
This will go as far as them being replaced by the Governor...
Seems Donald called one of these officials after she changed her vote to Yes...
She says she felt no pressure to rescind her yes vote...But she then did after the call. Seems a little inappropriate.
Do you have a source? If it is true that Donald called her that is way out of line.
(11-19-2020 07:12 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 04:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]It's been 80 years since they have appointed a justice without a law degree, and the standards of education for practicing the law obviously changed over time by moving from "reading the law" to formal education. It isn't really relevant on 2020.
I haven't looked (no idea who she is) but based on a reading of the above, she HAS a law degree. She passed her state's bar
I wasn't saying she didn't have one. Attackcoog brought up the fact that justices without law degrees have been appointed while defending her qualification, I was simply pointing out that was a long time ago and there were different standards so that isn't really relevant to her appointment.
My points with here appointment were the fact that she is married to a trump appointee, works at the law firm representing trump, and according to the bar has next to no trial experience.
You don’t know that for a fact, you think you do, but that’s actually your opinion.
Also, majority of the practicing attorneys in this country never set foot in a court room or go to trial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
(11-19-2020 07:08 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2020 04:06 PM)oruvoice Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. Many of the dumbest people I know have advanced college degrees. And, many of the smartest people I know, never went to college.
That's the truth.
I went to college with a plethora of dumb people who were alleged to be "smart." I know a guy who never went to college who has been repeatedly published in major math journals and spoken to higher mathematical conventions for his new original mathematical theories, where he teaches the PhD's how it's done...guy is a wealthy man, and a good Christian to boot who never misses a Sunday. To be fair, he did go to two years of electrical for an associates at a community college. We have fun in his workshop making stuff when I have some spare time...and talking math, physics and science...no--global warming doesn't come up, except to laugh at! Now if there'd been guys like him at my college, they'd have actually been smart for real. Instead, just a bunch of clueless elitists who cheer on antifa as their stores in their neighborhoods burn down.