3 ms·

For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos o

For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. Opinions aren't formed on court cases. That's why in 2020, more than half of Democrats thought the election was irregular. It's remarkable to me because this is one of those issues where polling says voters of both parties agree, but the media insists that there's nothing there. That's crazy

gruez 2y ago
>For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this seems sus") that you can provide?
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The accusations are always vague as well since each time you zoom in on one it’s completely anodyne but you need the distance to keep up the specter of something nefarious.
  - anon291 2y ago
    I guess for me personally I don't deny that Joe Biden won the contest as performed. I just question the contest themselves. After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania.
    - acdha 2y ago
      > that's what happened here What precisely happened here? Can you specify which ruling you’re talking about and why you think it’s so significant?
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I am going to take a guess as to what the GP was referring to: In 2020, Pennsylvania was one of the states that made many changes to how their elections work under the guise of the pandemic. But they changed their rules at the last minute once more in a way that may have altered Pennsylvania’s outcomes. Existing state law meant ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to extend that deadline and the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court (not SCOTUS) made a highly controversial ruling that extended the deadline to the following Friday. This extension would have helped Biden (given his party filed the lawsuit to force the change), and given they barely won the state (Biden had 50.01%), there is a good chance it affected the outcome.
        acdha 2y ago
        Are you referring to Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar over the 3 day extension of the received date? Those ballots were collected separately but there were less than 10k of them so even if they’d been 100% Biden voters they wouldn’t have affected the outcome of a race which Biden won by 80k votes.
        anon291 2y ago
        Yeah, and if you look at my comments, I agree that Biden won the race as run. I just question the entire legitimacy of counting any of the votes in a rogue election. I don't think rogue elections should happen. The moral hazard is too great, and it's a direct attack on democratic processes.
        acdha 2y ago
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The majority of the cases relating to that election were dismissed for various technicalities, not on merit. As in the judges didn’t laugh them out of the court based on the ideas in those cases. Of course they may have also been rejected on merits but we won’t know.
    - acdha 2y ago
      I think it’s worth remembering that Trump’s AG, campaign, and RNC lawyers were all clear that he lost fairly. The cases he brought trying to overturn the results were most commonly rejected not on technicalities but because he couldn’t show evidence of a wrong, and were often dismissed with prejudice and in a surprising number of cases the possibility of penalties for frivolous lawsuits which you just don’t tend to see at that level because the national players have not historically been trawling for anything they could possibly use. There’s a good list here, and it makes it clear that these cases were simply not going anywhere. The rulings aren’t technicalities like “you filed at 12:01 and the deadline was 11:59” but the failure to provide evidence of a problem even occurring in real life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Cases dismissed for “technicalities” means they were just dismissed… administering law is a technical process, and while I know what you’re attempting to convey with that phrasing, it’s still abundantly clear that there was no evidence at all of anything untoward or election-changing happening in 2020. So much so that several of trumps lawyers were sanctioned for filing such frivolous nonsense and others were sued for millions of dollars for their defamatory proclamations and conspiracy theories.

gruez 2y ago

>For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this seems sus") that you can provide?

mikeyouse 2y ago
Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The accusations are always vague as well since each time you zoom in on one it’s completely anodyne but you need the distance to keep up the specter of something nefarious.
- anon291 2y ago
  I guess for me personally I don't deny that Joe Biden won the contest as performed. I just question the contest themselves. After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania.
  - acdha 2y ago
    > that's what happened here What precisely happened here? Can you specify which ruling you’re talking about and why you think it’s so significant?
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I am going to take a guess as to what the GP was referring to: In 2020, Pennsylvania was one of the states that made many changes to how their elections work under the guise of the pandemic. But they changed their rules at the last minute once more in a way that may have altered Pennsylvania’s outcomes. Existing state law meant ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to extend that deadline and the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court (not SCOTUS) made a highly controversial ruling that extended the deadline to the following Friday. This extension would have helped Biden (given his party filed the lawsuit to force the change), and given they barely won the state (Biden had 50.01%), there is a good chance it affected the outcome.
      - acdha 2y ago
        Are you referring to Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar over the 3 day extension of the received date? Those ballots were collected separately but there were less than 10k of them so even if they’d been 100% Biden voters they wouldn’t have affected the outcome of a race which Biden won by 80k votes.
        anon291 2y ago
        Yeah, and if you look at my comments, I agree that Biden won the race as run. I just question the entire legitimacy of counting any of the votes in a rogue election. I don't think rogue elections should happen. The moral hazard is too great, and it's a direct attack on democratic processes.
        acdha 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The majority of the cases relating to that election were dismissed for various technicalities, not on merit. As in the judges didn’t laugh them out of the court based on the ideas in those cases. Of course they may have also been rejected on merits but we won’t know.
  - acdha 2y ago
    I think it’s worth remembering that Trump’s AG, campaign, and RNC lawyers were all clear that he lost fairly. The cases he brought trying to overturn the results were most commonly rejected not on technicalities but because he couldn’t show evidence of a wrong, and were often dismissed with prejudice and in a surprising number of cases the possibility of penalties for frivolous lawsuits which you just don’t tend to see at that level because the national players have not historically been trawling for anything they could possibly use. There’s a good list here, and it makes it clear that these cases were simply not going anywhere. The rulings aren’t technicalities like “you filed at 12:01 and the deadline was 11:59” but the failure to provide evidence of a problem even occurring in real life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Cases dismissed for “technicalities” means they were just dismissed… administering law is a technical process, and while I know what you’re attempting to convey with that phrasing, it’s still abundantly clear that there was no evidence at all of anything untoward or election-changing happening in 2020. So much so that several of trumps lawyers were sanctioned for filing such frivolous nonsense and others were sued for millions of dollars for their defamatory proclamations and conspiracy theories.