I wouldn't be me if I didn't chime in....

"cya in court, honey!"

I miss ya, tanq!

(I pinkie promise I won't post here again) ...

Although most (especially most Blue people) thought that everything would be decided 6-3, it seems that that result is relatively rare. We get a lot of 5-4s and 9-0s, it seems. Anybody have any stats on how often the 6 and the 3 break ranks?

I expect the 6 break ranks more often.

(03-07-2024 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Last comment then I'm out on the subject...

One of the things that irritates me the most about your arguments, Tanq... is that you routinely are 'loose' with your own words, but pounce like a baby goat on anything that others say (especially it seems, me) that is similarly loose, or that you can misrepresent to be so.

An example of your loose words...

I was laughing with a classmate (another attorney... doesn't post on here) about this exchange tonight and I mentioned your non-sequitur of the 60 lawsuits and the lack of the state being a 'party' to the suit. He made an interesting (and it turns out, accurate) observation.

Before I go here, I had no intention of making such pedantic corrections... but since you want to play this game... we can play.

1) Trump didn't lose 60 lawsuits. Some of them were withdrawn. Not saying he won ANY of them... I see anywhere between 1-4 of them... none meaningful... but if you're going to even TRY and argue that a 9-0 decision was 'somehow' 5+3+1 - 0 (it could be more accurately stated) then you should be equally accurate yourself. Hint (mirroring your 'concurrence' admonition)... perhaps you should look up the word 'withdrawn' vs 'lost'. More on this later.
2) Trump didn't file 60 lawsuits. Many of them, he wasn't a party to. I won't bother to count them, but I see at least 10 of them in a short list that were filed by residents of the states where the suit was filed... hence, again mirroring your admonition of me... Trump was not even REMOTELY a 'party' to those suits.... vastly less a party than 'the state court' is.
3) At least a few of the lawsuits were dismissed without review for lack of standing or jurisdiction... hence they were never adjudicated on the facts. I can't tell which and don't care to look it up... but I find that amusing given your 'surprise' at my opinion that the state court should have known it didn't have jurisdiction to hear a federal case. Apparently they make such pre-trial decisions regarding elections (and of course plenty of other issues as well) with at least SOME regularity.

I appreciate you making our dinner conversation so entertaining.

lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state simply rendering a judgement whether to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates across the various states. My guess is that there will be zero states having all candidates for President in common. Damn states just trying to disenfranchise I guess ( at least in Hamworld it should be….)

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

The important point about the 60 cases (which you overlook in your predictable random meanderings on subjects) is that there was zero basis for Trump to ask or tell Pence to ixnay the electoral votes simply ' because' (you know, the issue that you presumptively and reflexively said there is no reason to know w/o bothering to even look at it, but now somehow ate in agreement on). I guessnow you think the stupid rhetoric that improper party or failure to state a claim is somehow not a loss on the issue. And hopefully you are now aware if the fact that the Trump campaign guided and supported pretty much each of the 60 cases, regardless of who the actual party complainant was. Again, Ham, facts ate your friend. Rhetorical meandering statements off topic are not necessarily that. Just saying


Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

(03-10-2024 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Last comment then I'm out on the subject...

One of the things that irritates me the most about your arguments, Tanq... is that you routinely are 'loose' with your own words, but pounce like a baby goat on anything that others say (especially it seems, me) that is similarly loose, or that you can misrepresent to be so.

An example of your loose words...

I was laughing with a classmate (another attorney... doesn't post on here) about this exchange tonight and I mentioned your non-sequitur of the 60 lawsuits and the lack of the state being a 'party' to the suit. He made an interesting (and it turns out, accurate) observation.

Before I go here, I had no intention of making such pedantic corrections... but since you want to play this game... we can play.

1) Trump didn't lose 60 lawsuits. Some of them were withdrawn. Not saying he won ANY of them... I see anywhere between 1-4 of them... none meaningful... but if you're going to even TRY and argue that a 9-0 decision was 'somehow' 5+3+1 - 0 (it could be more accurately stated) then you should be equally accurate yourself. Hint (mirroring your 'concurrence' admonition)... perhaps you should look up the word 'withdrawn' vs 'lost'. More on this later.
2) Trump didn't file 60 lawsuits. Many of them, he wasn't a party to. I won't bother to count them, but I see at least 10 of them in a short list that were filed by residents of the states where the suit was filed... hence, again mirroring your admonition of me... Trump was not even REMOTELY a 'party' to those suits.... vastly less a party than 'the state court' is.
3) At least a few of the lawsuits were dismissed without review for lack of standing or jurisdiction... hence they were never adjudicated on the facts. I can't tell which and don't care to look it up... but I find that amusing given your 'surprise' at my opinion that the state court should have known it didn't have jurisdiction to hear a federal case. Apparently they make such pre-trial decisions regarding elections (and of course plenty of other issues as well) with at least SOME regularity.

I appreciate you making our dinner conversation so entertaining.

lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state trying to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates.

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

(03-09-2024 08:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I wouldn't be me if I didn't chime in....

"cya in court, honey!"

I miss ya, tanq!

(I pinkie promise I won't post here again) ...

lol.. great to cya stink. Be good.

(03-10-2024 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Last comment then I'm out on the subject...

One of the things that irritates me the most about your arguments, Tanq... is that you routinely are 'loose' with your own words, but pounce like a baby goat on anything that others say (especially it seems, me) that is similarly loose, or that you can misrepresent to be so.

An example of your loose words...

I was laughing with a classmate (another attorney... doesn't post on here) about this exchange tonight and I mentioned your non-sequitur of the 60 lawsuits and the lack of the state being a 'party' to the suit. He made an interesting (and it turns out, accurate) observation.

Before I go here, I had no intention of making such pedantic corrections... but since you want to play this game... we can play.

1) Trump didn't lose 60 lawsuits. Some of them were withdrawn. Not saying he won ANY of them... I see anywhere between 1-4 of them... none meaningful... but if you're going to even TRY and argue that a 9-0 decision was 'somehow' 5+3+1 - 0 (it could be more accurately stated) then you should be equally accurate yourself. Hint (mirroring your 'concurrence' admonition)... perhaps you should look up the word 'withdrawn' vs 'lost'. More on this later.
2) Trump didn't file 60 lawsuits. Many of them, he wasn't a party to. I won't bother to count them, but I see at least 10 of them in a short list that were filed by residents of the states where the suit was filed... hence, again mirroring your admonition of me... Trump was not even REMOTELY a 'party' to those suits.... vastly less a party than 'the state court' is.
3) At least a few of the lawsuits were dismissed without review for lack of standing or jurisdiction... hence they were never adjudicated on the facts. I can't tell which and don't care to look it up... but I find that amusing given your 'surprise' at my opinion that the state court should have known it didn't have jurisdiction to hear a federal case. Apparently they make such pre-trial decisions regarding elections (and of course plenty of other issues as well) with at least SOME regularity.

I appreciate you making our dinner conversation so entertaining.

lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state trying to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates.

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

That is a good one, good sir. The interesting thing is that I can support the obtaining an alternate set of electors. They needed to have them in case there was a successful suit.

The problem occurs when they tried to present them as valid — when the states had never certified them nor had any court directed a state to deviate from their certification.

Kind of like what should happen if I try to file an invalid deed with the county for a tract of land when the lawsuit to quiet title goes against me.

(03-10-2024 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Last comment then I'm out on the subject...

One of the things that irritates me the most about your arguments, Tanq... is that you routinely are 'loose' with your own words, but pounce like a baby goat on anything that others say (especially it seems, me) that is similarly loose, or that you can misrepresent to be so.

An example of your loose words...

I was laughing with a classmate (another attorney... doesn't post on here) about this exchange tonight and I mentioned your non-sequitur of the 60 lawsuits and the lack of the state being a 'party' to the suit. He made an interesting (and it turns out, accurate) observation.

Before I go here, I had no intention of making such pedantic corrections... but since you want to play this game... we can play.

1) Trump didn't lose 60 lawsuits. Some of them were withdrawn. Not saying he won ANY of them... I see anywhere between 1-4 of them... none meaningful... but if you're going to even TRY and argue that a 9-0 decision was 'somehow' 5+3+1 - 0 (it could be more accurately stated) then you should be equally accurate yourself. Hint (mirroring your 'concurrence' admonition)... perhaps you should look up the word 'withdrawn' vs 'lost'. More on this later.
2) Trump didn't file 60 lawsuits. Many of them, he wasn't a party to. I won't bother to count them, but I see at least 10 of them in a short list that were filed by residents of the states where the suit was filed... hence, again mirroring your admonition of me... Trump was not even REMOTELY a 'party' to those suits.... vastly less a party than 'the state court' is.
3) At least a few of the lawsuits were dismissed without review for lack of standing or jurisdiction... hence they were never adjudicated on the facts. I can't tell which and don't care to look it up... but I find that amusing given your 'surprise' at my opinion that the state court should have known it didn't have jurisdiction to hear a federal case. Apparently they make such pre-trial decisions regarding elections (and of course plenty of other issues as well) with at least SOME regularity.

I appreciate you making our dinner conversation so entertaining.

lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state trying to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates.

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

That is a good one, good sir. The interesting thing is that I can support the obtaining an alternate set of electors. They needed to have them in case there was a successful suit.

The problem occurs when they tried to present them as valid — when the states had never certified them nor had any court directed a state to deviate from their certification.

Kind of like what should happen if I try to file an invalid deed with the county for a tract of land when the lawsuit to quiet title goes against me.

Re: the bolded: ergo, undocumented.

We as a modern society rely heavily on documentation. Why, then, does the left represent lawful documentation as, at best, extraneous, and at worst, nefarious?

I think we all know, and it has something to do with censuses and elections.

(03-10-2024 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Last comment then I'm out on the subject...

One of the things that irritates me the most about your arguments, Tanq... is that you routinely are 'loose' with your own words, but pounce like a baby goat on anything that others say (especially it seems, me) that is similarly loose, or that you can misrepresent to be so.

An example of your loose words...

I was laughing with a classmate (another attorney... doesn't post on here) about this exchange tonight and I mentioned your non-sequitur of the 60 lawsuits and the lack of the state being a 'party' to the suit. He made an interesting (and it turns out, accurate) observation.

Before I go here, I had no intention of making such pedantic corrections... but since you want to play this game... we can play.

1) Trump didn't lose 60 lawsuits. Some of them were withdrawn. Not saying he won ANY of them... I see anywhere between 1-4 of them... none meaningful... but if you're going to even TRY and argue that a 9-0 decision was 'somehow' 5+3+1 - 0 (it could be more accurately stated) then you should be equally accurate yourself. Hint (mirroring your 'concurrence' admonition)... perhaps you should look up the word 'withdrawn' vs 'lost'. More on this later.
2) Trump didn't file 60 lawsuits. Many of them, he wasn't a party to. I won't bother to count them, but I see at least 10 of them in a short list that were filed by residents of the states where the suit was filed... hence, again mirroring your admonition of me... Trump was not even REMOTELY a 'party' to those suits.... vastly less a party than 'the state court' is.
3) At least a few of the lawsuits were dismissed without review for lack of standing or jurisdiction... hence they were never adjudicated on the facts. I can't tell which and don't care to look it up... but I find that amusing given your 'surprise' at my opinion that the state court should have known it didn't have jurisdiction to hear a federal case. Apparently they make such pre-trial decisions regarding elections (and of course plenty of other issues as well) with at least SOME regularity.

I appreciate you making our dinner conversation so entertaining.

lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state trying to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates.

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

That is a good one, good sir. The interesting thing is that I can support the obtaining an alternate set of electors. They needed to have them in case there was a successful suit.

The problem occurs when they tried to present them as valid — when the states had never certified them nor had any court directed a state to deviate from their certification.

Kind of like what should happen if I try to file an invalid deed with the county for a tract of land when the lawsuit to quiet title goes against me.

Re: the bolded: ergo, undocumented.

We as a modern society rely heavily on documentation. Why, then, does the left represent lawful documentation as, at best, extraneous, and at worst, nefarious?

I think we all know, and it has something to do with censuses and elections.

As one can ask in the instance of the Trump issue why the right goes to extreme lengths to deny the issue of simply throwing out certified votes as normal, expected, and justified.

I heartily agree that aliens should be documented. And controlled. As much as I would hope that the right respect that same style of documentation in the extraordinarily important aspect of counting the electoral votes in a Presidential election.

Seems that neither side respects issues of documentation and certification --- each in their own special manner.

(03-10-2024 12:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lol. I guess you think ‘withdraw from a suit’ does not equal losing the suit.


Idiocy at its finest.

And I shall clarify — 60 suits to try and overturn elections. Still 0 - 60. Regardless of your arm flapping expertise. The difference between you and me is that your comment on my preciseness I actually consider, and correct when need be. That is without getting a country size ego all aflame. Maybe you might try that tack before your caterwauling.

And while you correctly say ‘Trump wasn’t a party’, you leave off the issue that the Trump campaign rendered aid and assistance to every single one of those efforts. It is rather amazing what the record produced post J6 reveals. But leave it to you to shoot from the hip w/o that base background. Kind of a pattern with you overall.

And, I love the distinction you try and make between losing because of improper parties and simply losing. Maybe the groups should’ve employed competent counsel who maybe understood ‘a proper party is required’ in those instances. The attempts to say a loss isn’t a loss is a really fantastic example of trying to construct a deny the actual truth of the matter. Between the ******* level equivalences and the denialism, I’m impressed.

But please yell a river about how it really isn’t a loss. Good fing grief.

By the way Ham, I mentioned Pences words in context of the comments of
Trump asking him to shitcan votes. In response to your comment ‘[I] have no reason to know that’. Leave it to the guy who is all knowing on everything to mangle that bit up.

Look up Pences comments that ‘Trump asked him to throw away votes’. Goes along with his comments on the clown car attorneys in the mix.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass about a state trying to enforce a prerequisite for being President, I can’t wait for your equally vehement diatribe against insufficient signatures across the states that will keep off several score candidates.

More government suppression (at least in Ham world that should be).

I am sorry your rhetoric about Colorado disenfranchisement is pretty much gloriously idiotic. But true to form you have been. Yep the STATE OF COLORADO was seeking to de-ballot Trump. The funny thing is that you are probably clueless that the co plaintiff is a group of Republicans. Interesting that.

But please return to your shallow screed about CO. lol. Facts are a *****. In your case maybe more so when you really don’t seem to care about them.

Glad I gave you all entertainment. I don’t get upset enough to ramble to third parties about your mishmash word salad stuff. You be you.

Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

That is a good one, good sir. The interesting thing is that I can support the obtaining an alternate set of electors. They needed to have them in case there was a successful suit.

The problem occurs when they tried to present them as valid — when the states had never certified them nor had any court directed a state to deviate from their certification.

Kind of like what should happen if I try to file an invalid deed with the county for a tract of land when the lawsuit to quiet title goes against me.

Re: the bolded: ergo, undocumented.

We as a modern society rely heavily on documentation. Why, then, does the left represent lawful documentation as, at best, extraneous, and at worst, nefarious?

I think we all know, and it has something to do with censuses and elections.

As one can ask in the instance of the Trump issue why the right goes to extreme lengths to deny the issue of simply throwing out certified votes as normal, expected, and justified.

I heartily agree that aliens should be documented. And controlled. As much as I would hope that the right respect that same style of documentation in the extraordinarily important aspect of counting the electoral votes in a Presidential election.

Seems that neither side respects issues of documentation and certification --- each in their own special manner.

So true.

As for the first paragraph, I have outlined my personal position before with regard to "justified".

I wonder what Sam Adams(insurrectionist) or Abraham Lincoln (preserver of the Union) would have done in a situation like that. Surrender meekly?

IAC, I know which side in November represents the greater evil. If still breathing, I will vote accordingly, and not make excuses for my choice. As I expect you will, and I respect that. It's the American way.

Best wishes, Tanq.

(03-10-2024 01:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 12:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-10-2024 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe we could refer to the fake electors as “undocumented” electors.

J/K.

That is a good one, good sir. The interesting thing is that I can support the obtaining an alternate set of electors. They needed to have them in case there was a successful suit.

The problem occurs when they tried to present them as valid — when the states had never certified them nor had any court directed a state to deviate from their certification.

Kind of like what should happen if I try to file an invalid deed with the county for a tract of land when the lawsuit to quiet title goes against me.

Re: the bolded: ergo, undocumented.

We as a modern society rely heavily on documentation. Why, then, does the left represent lawful documentation as, at best, extraneous, and at worst, nefarious?

I think we all know, and it has something to do with censuses and elections.

As one can ask in the instance of the Trump issue why the right goes to extreme lengths to deny the issue of simply throwing out certified votes as normal, expected, and justified.

I heartily agree that aliens should be documented. And controlled. As much as I would hope that the right respect that same style of documentation in the extraordinarily important aspect of counting the electoral votes in a Presidential election.

Seems that neither side respects issues of documentation and certification --- each in their own special manner.

So true.

As for the first paragraph, I have outlined my personal position before with regard to "justified".

I wonder what Sam Adams(insurrectionist) or Abraham Lincoln (preserver of the Union) would have done in a situation like that. Surrender meekly?

I would hope that neither would have taken a piss on the Constitutionally defined transfer of power and simply seek to throw out votes on the basis of 'because'.

Quote:IAC, I know which side in November represents the greater evil. If still breathing, I will vote accordingly, and not make excuses for my choice. As I expect you will, and I respect that. It's the American way.

Best wishes, Tanq.

I am glad you are comfortable in that calculus. I simply cannot support someone who I surmise based on the facts present willingly and eagerly takes a massive **** on the elective process as I surmise happened.

While I feel that way about that candidate, I fully respect your decision to make another choice. Be good as well OO.

OO --

was intrigued by your raising the ghosts of John Adams and Lincoln in defense of Trumps attempts to short circuit the electoral process under the Constitutional process.

John Adams : "Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

Lincoln: Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.”

Trump (in relation to the D-Day war dead): "Losers"

Trump (at a 2017 Memorial Day event in Arlington National Cemetery): "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

Trump (on J6 replying to a statement that the rioters had built a gallows and were chanting 'Kill Pence': "Who cares?"

Sorry --- I'll pass with a hard no on the analogy to and excuse invoking Adams and Lincoln.

(03-10-2024 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO --

was intrigued by your raising the ghosts of John Adams and Lincoln in defense of Trumps attempts to short circuit the electoral process under the Constitutional process.

John Adams : "Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

Lincoln: Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.”

Trump (in relation to the D-Day war dead): "Losers"

Trump (at a 2017 Memorial Day event in Arlington National Cemetery): "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

Trump (on J6 replying to a statement that the rioters had built a gallows and were chanting 'Kill Pence': "Who cares?"

Sorry --- I'll pass with a hard no on the analogy to and excuse invoking Adams and Lincoln.

Trump has a lot of baggage that I don't like, some of which you outline here. Not my hero, did not get my vote on Super Tuesday.

But, IMO, he is still the lesser evil, as far as the direction of this country is concerned in an election between Trump and Biden.

I choose to oppose the greater threat to our democracy. That, in this case, is Biden/Harris. If Biden wins, I foresee 8-12 more years under the leadership of the Progressive branch of the Democrats.

I am less concerned with the past than the future. I sure don't like the future under Presidents Biden and Harris. Whatever satisfaction(s) we may get from snubbing Trump for any reason are outweighed by the facts of the election - It will be one or the other.

Both Trump and Biden have track records as Prez. The four years under Trump were IMO better for me, and for the nation, than the four years we are currently enduring.

Not surprised you don't see the analogy. It is about the situation and responses to it, not at all an excuse.

I choose to not vote for the far greater threat to democratic (little D) process (fairly provably so), and choose not to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on many policy issues.

It isnt that I didnt see the supposed analogy.

I appreciate someone who steadfastly fights for the Constitution -- both Lincoln and Adams did so. Adams pretty much put his life on the line for the grand experiment.

I think it somewhat odious to compare those who steadfastly stand for the Constitution and its processes with one who simply takes a giant smelly **** (figuratively) on that document and on those principles -- especially that itsy bitsy one related to 'elected to office' in contrast to that individual's somewhat apparent active effort to 'short circuit the process to be selected to the office'. There is a giant difference in the goals of those who seek to be 'elected' to office --- as opposed to those whom try and go the 'selected to office' route, imo.

If all you wish to make analogies to is steadfastness to a goal, that steadfastness is most prevalent in that individual's efforts to achieve that office, through election or selection. In that instance, perhaps John Gotti, or Putin might be more apt analogies. They both exhibit a steadfastness to a goal coupled with the 'selected to office' trait that I denote above. That, to me, seems to besharp distinctive trait to the steadfastness in pursuit of the goals embodied in the Constitution that your proffered examples are, and should be, lauded for.

(03-10-2024 11:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I choose to not vote for the far greater threat to democratic (little D) process (fairly provably so), and choose not to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on many policy issues.

It isnt that I didnt see the supposed analogy.

I appreciate someone who steadfastly fights for the Constitution -- both Lincoln and Adams did so. Adams pretty much put his life on the line for the grand experiment.

I think it somewhat odious to compare those who steadfastly stand for the Constitution and its processes with one who simply takes a giant smelly **** (figuratively) on that document and on those principles -- especially that itsy bitsy one related to 'elected to office' in contrast to that individual's somewhat apparent active effort to 'short circuit the process to be selected to the office'. There is a giant difference in the goals of those who seek to be 'elected' to office --- as opposed to those whom try and go the 'selected to office' route, imo.

If all you wish to make analogies to is steadfastness to a goal, that steadfastness is most prevalent in that individual's efforts to achieve that office, through election or selection. In that instance, perhaps John Gotti, or Putin might be more apt analogies. They both exhibit a steadfastness to a goal coupled with the 'selected to office' trait that I denote above. That, to me, seems to besharp distinctive trait to the steadfastness in pursuit of the goals embodied in the Constitution that your proffered examples are, and should be, lauded for.

Adams did his thing long before there was a Constitution. He was an insurrectionist, pure and simple. But he acted as he did to preserve/earn his rights.

Lincoln acted to save the Union. Not sure where that is in the Constitution. Lots of Southerners and many Northerners in 1861 would have thought he should have just let the states leave freely instead of taking up arms.

Both men did what they thought was right.

And so am I. And you.

I have given this some thought overnight. I will once again try to explain why I intend to hold my nose and vote for Trump in November. I am not trying to convert you or anybody to my viewpoint. But I am tired of being told I am making excuses for him.

It is because Biden and the Democrats is the alternative.

I think Trump is the better choice both for the next four years and for the future of our democracy, even if he did incite an insurrection. Even if he is guilty of all you say he is guilty of, because of the policies he will push. AND, I am not nearly as sure as you are that he is guilty of that. Didn't he tell the protesters (insurrectionists in Dem-speak) to go protest peacefully? What incitement!!!!

The events of the last 8 years, from Russiagate to the current lawfare, make me distrust that everything was/is on the up and up. Or do you think Letitia and Mani are just blindly doing their jobs, influenced only by the desire to do what is right? We appear to have a double standard of justice here in the USA.

But while part of that distrust sows doubt on Trump's guilt, part of it sows doubt on the goals and methods of the Democrats.

If Biden is re-elected, he will not survive the full four years. Either he will die, probably of natural causes, or his own party with remove him with either the 25th Amendment or an impeachment/removal. No matter what, we will have President Harris who will still retain her main qualifications of being black, female, and easily led. And will be eligible to run as an incumbent for perhaps two full terms, as Johnson was. That's a long time for the people who currently run the Biden WH to run another puppet President. By the time Harris finishes her last term, irreparable damage will have been done. This is my opinion.

I plan to do my little part to avoid that. Although I am but a single vote in a non-swing state, I will be at the courthouse on the first day of early voting. Because at my age and condition, my survival is not a given. And it is all I can do.

So please stop demeaning my choice. I do not demean yours. In the end we both are just drops of water in a gigantic lake.

I will add that my choice is not immutable. If a third party or candidate emerges who has a snowball's chance, I may well vote for him/her. So the possibility remains we may end up in the same camp.

I am not demeaning your personal action of whom you decide to choose.

But when you decide to wrap the candidate as some folk hero, perhaps you should be prepared to entertain the counter view.

I am glad you made the personal choice you made. Yours is a different calculus in that respect from mine. When you decide to tell everyone your personal calculus, I would suggest also to be prepared to listen without rancor the countervailing view.

In others view, Trump is simply a cheap tin ass thug - who is capable of, able to, and more than willing to **** on the electoral process. And has done so. Simply to grab the office.

And all the proferred whataboutisms do not justify nor offset that cold, hard issue. That is my opinion.

(03-11-2024 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am not demeaning your personal action of whom you decide to choose.

But when you decide to wrap the candidate as some folk hero, perhaps you should be prepared to entertain the counter view.

I am glad you made the personal choice you made. Yours is a different calculus in that respect from mine. When you decide to tell everyone your personal calculus, I would suggest also to be prepared to listen without rancor the countervailing view.

In others view, Trump is simply a cheap tin ass thug - who is capable of, able to, and more than willing to **** on the electoral process. And has done so. Simply to grab the office.

And all the proferred whataboutisms do not justify nor offset that cold, hard issue. That is my opinion.

yeah, "proffered whataboutisms" in no way demeans my choice or its basis.

I have heard your counterview, and not demeaned it with statements about excuses or whataboutisms. I rather admire your stand on principle. Wish you could open your mind to mine.

Good luck to you, Tanq. You will have to live with the results of this election much longer than I will.

(03-11-2024 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am not demeaning your personal action of whom you decide to choose.

But when you decide to wrap the candidate as some folk hero, perhaps you should be prepared to entertain the counter view.

I am glad you made the personal choice you made. Yours is a different calculus in that respect from mine. When you decide to tell everyone your personal calculus, I would suggest also to be prepared to listen without rancor the countervailing view.

In others view, Trump is simply a cheap tin ass thug - who is capable of, able to, and more than willing to **** on the electoral process. And has done so. Simply to grab the office.

And all the proferred whataboutisms do not justify nor offset that cold, hard issue. That is my opinion.

yeah, "proffered whataboutisms" in no way demeans my choice or its basis.

I have heard your counterview, and not demeaned it with statements about excuses or whataboutisms. I rather admire your stand on principle. Wish you could open your mind to mine.

Good luck to you, Tanq. You will have to live with the results of this election much longer than I will.

Candidly, I don’t know how to describe the myriad of justifications you proffer (Russiagate, lawfare, etc) as anything but a rationale or excuse for your choice in vote.

You rank them much higher than I do. Apparently my opinion on their value is demeaning. You think there is value to offset issues, I don’t. Your calculus on the issues vs mine.

If I am offering whataboutisms, please feel free to denote. I am not offering an excuse or justification —- I am offering an unadulterated reason why I think Trump should not be accorded even an office of dog catcher. Period.

Again, your calculus differs from mine, ostensibly because of Russiagate, Willis, James, and an apparent disbelief that anything untoward happened in Trump’s pursuit of trying to, what could easily be defined as, in my opinion, short circuiting an election.

I heard a great summary of our system that I knew, but hadn't thought about in these terms in quite some time.... and I think it's time for a national refresher.

The people are represented (by population) in the House of Representatives. As such they are responsive to the people

The states are represented (equally) in the Senate. As such they are responsive to the states.... who are less directly than in the house (because of the equal distribution) responsive to the people.

The court is responsive to the Constitution, and that alone. They are appointed to life terms specifically so that they are NOT responsive to 'the people'.... which they would be if there were subject to re-appointment.

I knew all this, but hearing it this way made it so much more clear for me (as opposed to just a 'separation of powers' argument) as to why Biden's attacks are so wrong (and I recall others doing it too... but 'back then' I recall fewer people feeling like it was okay.

What Biden attacks in particular is this directed at?

And a small quibble, perhaps a better way to state it is responsive to a local population (House) as opposed to the population of a state (Senate). You refer to 'the state', which could be interpreted in the manner that the 17th amendment changed in favor of the people of a state as opposed to 'a state'.

There is also the fact that the electors from each state for President are in fact responsive to each respective state. A state has the power to take the electoral selection back from the populace

(03-11-2024 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What Biden attacks in particular is this directed at?

Specifically in the SOTU.... “With all due respect, justices, women are not without electoral or political power. You’re about to realize just how much …”

The justices don't or shouldn't care about the electoral or political power of the population... as they are not/should not be responsive to it. Only elected representatives should be.

That was the key driver of the comment, though I think I've heard Biden make similar admonishments before.... that the court is somehow not 'in step' with the people

Quote:And a small quibble, perhaps a better way to state it is responsive to a local population (House) as opposed to the population of a state (Senate). You refer to 'the state', which could be interpreted in the manner that the 17th amendment changed in favor of the people of a state as opposed to 'a state'.

Fair.. what i meant is that the 'number of representatives' for a state are responsible to the population of that state... but yes... each to a different portion of the population.

Quote:There is also the fact that the electors from each state for President are in fact responsive to each respective state. A state has the power to take the electoral selection back from the populace

I believe the electors are actually selected by the party of the 'winning' candidate, are they not? The state of course affirms them, but I understand that at least in some cases, they aren't beholden to the vote of the people... though obviously the winning party isn't likely to renominate them if they buck the trend.