(12-26-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But lad's time rationale is very on point for the singular seat of the Presidency, whereas it really is not the same import for single seat in Congress. Especially when an Iowa court can legally keep the seat open while it determines a winner.

There is no mechanism for keeping the seat of the President open. There are very clear rules 'who' sits in the seat if there is a question, and how to deal with the question in the terms of the Presidency.

Again, my rationale? I’m explicitly talking about Hart’s rationale.

Stop projecting.

Funny you wrote this:

Quote:I don’t know why the Iowa court would require such a fast turnaround (less than 1 week) while the House would have more time, but that seems like a reasonable concern.

Maybe I should change my first sentence to the more accurate: "But the time rationale that lad very readily adopts, triumphantly repeats as reasonable, and approves of is very on point". Feel better?

Excuse the hell out of me for 'projecting' when you seem to be 'adopting, repeating, and approving of' the rationale. Good grief.

After noting another post on your adoption of that rationale and announcing to us all that it 'seems reasonable' that you get all akimbo about.... bad feather ruffle day over there? Double good grief.

I didn’t adopt it - I said it seemed rationale.

I think you mean rational.

rationale

It probably would reduce argument here if we all were using the correct words.

Rationally, one would want to choose the venue with the likeliest chance of success, and the House controlled by Honest Nancy would seem to fit that bill best for her. Presumably, she expects Iowa venues and courts to uphold the certified results, so her best option is somebody who might ignore such certification.

I think it unlikely that she choose this option, blindly hoping for a good outcome. I feel sure there was back channel communication that gave her team some assurances that this would work.

Sorry, autocorrect. I do a lot of responding on the phone, which doesn’t always lead to proofread responses.

I hope that the backchanneling wasn’t occurring, and frankly that she had not gone the route she has. Yeah, it’s a really tight race, but don’t skip the legal step that is in place to review election results to jump ahead into more biased arms.

If there really is an issue with timing in regards to the ruling, I understand why the jump was made. If that isn’t true, it’s just a partisan reaction that has the chance to further damage the trust in the electoral process.

As I said before (which I think Tanq missed while going full on attack mode), my guess is the House sides with the election board - or at least I hope they do. Overturning that result would require really, really solid evidence and a bipartisan consensus.