5 ms·

Al Gore and George Bush had lawsuits going for many weeks that ultimately went to the Supreme Court.

greggturkington 6y ago
And Trump's team had tens of lawsuits across Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan. Many of them dismissed without merit. You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!
- insickness 6y ago
  What's wrong with lawsuits? You should want the election contested legally. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  - greggturkington 6y ago
    I agree you should want the election contested legally. Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public statements you should not want.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Absolutely agree. We should want elections contested legally, in the courts, no matter what the whacked out crazy or inherently false claims there might be. That's what the courts are there for and it's really IMO why they are a third branch, not a subsidiary, of the government. Let the lawsuits go forward. Let the courts decide on their merits, so we have finality and case law for the future. IMHO it was a mistake for the Supreme Court not to hear the Texas lawsuit. It almost certainly was not going to prevail, but by summarily declining to even hear the case, it undermines the judiciaries independence.
    - debaserab2 6y ago
      The courts DID decide on the Texas case, though. When a case is presented to the SC that "is almost certainly not going to prevail", this often (and undoubtedly so in the texas case) means that there is a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of law that is so egregious there is no opinion to be had. This is exactly what the SC justices said in this case: > The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. [1] The courts essentially decided the cases have no merit to rule on. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
frankfrankfrank 6y ago
The difference you are seemingly missing or ignoring is that the courts were actually evaluating the evidence. NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time, not even the thousands, not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed. If it's all fake and "unverified", how can any rational person justify that none of the evidence has been even looked at. I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. And there are several instances like that, not even just one that I found. For example, just one example of several extremely suspicious situations, how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time. Again, any rational and good faith person would be extremely alarmed by even just a few of the mountain of suspicious events that are being totally blacked out, just like the Hunter Biden laptop was totally blacked out. Maybe you are not a good faith actor and really don't want to or care about realty and the truth, but any decent person could not ignore these matters, no matter how much they intentionally avert their eyes and mind.
- belltaco 6y ago
  If what you say is true, then didn't Trump appointed judges and Republican judges not evaluate the evidence and sworn affidavits? Why didn't Barr, a heavily partisan and biased Trump sycophant who meddled with prior investigations, not investigate all that being the head of the DoJ? If he somehow turned rogue, why didn't Trump fire him and replace him with someone who would investigate? Do you have any reasonable explanation for the above? Mine is that all the evidence was hearsay and even Trump and Republicans knew it wasn't credible, he just did that to get this campaign to make even more money by fooling people, and for political gain. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-reaps-207-5-million-after-loss-as-donors-answer-his-fury https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-rea...
- 6y ago
Simulacra 6y ago
The left seems to have this mindset, and this is only my opinion, that do as they say, not as they do. I remember the outrage and the "resistance" against the electoral college and certifying the vote in 2000. History repeats itself. What was good then, is suddenly not good now. It's almost like $600 is a significant sum.
TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
Florida counties ran an automated recount, as required by law. Under Florida law, candidates could request a manual recount as well. Bush sued to stop the recount, and won. Gore conceded on December 13. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Contrast this to 2020, where there were 86 lawsuits after the election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

And Trump's team had tens of lawsuits across Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan. Many of them dismissed without merit. You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!

insickness 6y ago
What's wrong with lawsuits? You should want the election contested legally. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
- greggturkington 6y ago
  I agree you should want the election contested legally. Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public statements you should not want.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Absolutely agree. We should want elections contested legally, in the courts, no matter what the whacked out crazy or inherently false claims there might be. That's what the courts are there for and it's really IMO why they are a third branch, not a subsidiary, of the government. Let the lawsuits go forward. Let the courts decide on their merits, so we have finality and case law for the future. IMHO it was a mistake for the Supreme Court not to hear the Texas lawsuit. It almost certainly was not going to prevail, but by summarily declining to even hear the case, it undermines the judiciaries independence.
  - debaserab2 6y ago
    The courts DID decide on the Texas case, though. When a case is presented to the SC that "is almost certainly not going to prevail", this often (and undoubtedly so in the texas case) means that there is a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of law that is so egregious there is no opinion to be had. This is exactly what the SC justices said in this case: > The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. [1] The courts essentially decided the cases have no merit to rule on. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

frankfrankfrank 6y ago

The difference you are seemingly missing or ignoring is that the courts were actually evaluating the evidence. NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time, not even the thousands, not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed. If it's all fake and "unverified", how can any rational person justify that none of the evidence has been even looked at. I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. And there are several instances like that, not even just one that I found. For example, just one example of several extremely suspicious situations, how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time. Again, any rational and good faith person would be extremely alarmed by even just a few of the mountain of suspicious events that are being totally blacked out, just like the Hunter Biden laptop was totally blacked out. Maybe you are not a good faith actor and really don't want to or care about realty and the truth, but any decent person could not ignore these matters, no matter how much they intentionally avert their eyes and mind.

belltaco 6y ago
If what you say is true, then didn't Trump appointed judges and Republican judges not evaluate the evidence and sworn affidavits? Why didn't Barr, a heavily partisan and biased Trump sycophant who meddled with prior investigations, not investigate all that being the head of the DoJ? If he somehow turned rogue, why didn't Trump fire him and replace him with someone who would investigate? Do you have any reasonable explanation for the above? Mine is that all the evidence was hearsay and even Trump and Republicans knew it wasn't credible, he just did that to get this campaign to make even more money by fooling people, and for political gain. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-reaps-207-5-million-after-loss-as-donors-answer-his-fury https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-rea...
6y ago

Simulacra 6y ago

The left seems to have this mindset, and this is only my opinion, that do as they say, not as they do. I remember the outrage and the "resistance" against the electoral college and certifying the vote in 2000. History repeats itself. What was good then, is suddenly not good now. It's almost like $600 is a significant sum.

TYPE_FASTER 6y ago

Florida counties ran an automated recount, as required by law. Under Florida law, candidates could request a manual recount as well. Bush sued to stop the recount, and won. Gore conceded on December 13. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Contrast this to 2020, where there were 86 lawsuits after the election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...