Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hercules56 said:
Its shameful that Trumpsters pay no mind to an American political campaign soliciting dirt from a foreign entity seeking sanctions relief.

And they they lend a blind eye to Trump attempting to extort campaign help from another foreign entity by threatening to hold back military aid.

What has happened to Republicans? What is so spellbinding about Donny?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

He says the parts they think are quiet out loud.

They were never quiet, of course, just somewhat less crude and self-obsessed than Toupee Fiasco is.
 
eerok said:
He gets votes. That's the entire deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah but people have followed him for variable periods of time because he's a good con. He pretends to be famous. Groupies accumulate.

And there is also the fundraising.
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
And "Lock the Bitch Up!" They love that.
Click to expand...

He says the things that other politicians won't say.

He says, "Lock her up", about everyone from Hillary Clinton to Gretchen Whitmer. He says there are good racists. He says the US is number one and we don't have to listen to those foreigners. He says that global warming is a hoax and he tells those Paris folks to stick it in their ear. He doesn't pull punches, and a lot of people like that.

They shouldn't like it. He shouldn't say those things, but they like a guy who will say them.
 
acbytesla said:
I believe you misread my post. I'm not saying anything really different.
Click to expand...

You said Alito/Thomas is saying Texas has automatic standing. I don't believe that to be the case. The long standing position of Alito/Thomas is that because the Constitution says that the Supreme court shall have jurisdiction in cases between two states, the Court cannot reject a petition in such a case, for any reason. The petition must be granted. Period.

It is only after the motion to file has been granted that the Court can deny relief on a basis such as lack of standing. (Although previous opinions by Alito indicate that he believes there has to at least be an allegation of harm in order to meet the requirement of "controversies" between states.)

Alito/Thomas don't say why they would have not granted relief. But considering that they did not dissent, and made no mention of the standing issue, and did not write a longer opinion as they have done when they dissented, it is reasonable to conclude that they agreed with the issue on standing.

That is, they believed that the Court should grant the motion to file, AND THEN deny relief due to lack of standing. But, as I said, that is conjecture because they don't actually say why they would not have granted relief, so it could have been standing, laches, failure to state a claim, insufficient evidence, relief request not warranted or possible, or whatever. But it looks like they agreed with the lack of standing issue considering that they agreed with the majority.

Note that Alito/Thomas did not dissent. They merely made a statement. That implies that they agree with the decision, but simply feel it should have been denied on the complaint rather than on the motion to file.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
You said Alito/Thomas is saying Texas has automatic standing. I don't believe that to be the case. The long standing position of Alito/Thomas is that because the Constitution says that the Supreme court shall have jurisdiction in cases between two states, the Court cannot reject a petition in such a case, for any reason. The petition must be granted. Period.

It is only after the motion to file has been granted that the Court can deny relief on a basis such as lack of standing. (Although previous opinions by Alito indicate that he believes there has to at least be an allegation of harm in order to meet the requirement of "controversies" between states.)

Alito/Thomas don't say why they would have not granted relief. But considering that they did not dissent, and made no mention of the standing issue, and did not write a longer opinion as they have done when they dissented, it is reasonable to conclude that they agreed with the issue on standing.

That is, they believed that the Court should grant the motion to file, AND THEN deny relief due to lack of standing. But, as I said, that is conjecture because they don't actually say why they would not have granted relief, so it could have been standing, laches, failure to state a claim, insufficient evidence, relief request not warranted or possible, or whatever. But it looks like they agreed with the lack of standing issue considering that they agreed with the majority.

Note that Alito/Thomas did not dissent. They merely made a statement. That implies that they agree with the decision, but simply feel it should have been denied on the complaint rather than on the motion to file.
Click to expand...

You're right.
 
Meadmaker said:
He says the things that other politicians won't say.

He says, "Lock her up", about everyone from Hillary Clinton to Gretchen Whitmer. He says there are good racists. He says the US is number one and we don't have to listen to those foreigners. He says that global warming is a hoax and he tells those Paris folks to stick it in their ear. He doesn't pull punches, and a lot of people like that.

They shouldn't like it. He shouldn't say those things, but they like a guy who will say them.
Click to expand...

"Lock Her Up" was special... it really resonated with a variety of Trumpian scumbags. The fact that he didn't mean a word of it, and his daughter was best friends with Chelsea, and he spent most of his pre-political life telling anyone who would listen how much he admired her didn't blunt the effect at all.
 
Meadmaker said:
He says the things that other politicians won't say.

He says, "Lock her up", about everyone from Hillary Clinton to Gretchen Whitmer. He says there are good racists. He says the US is number one and we don't have to listen to those foreigners. He says that global warming is a hoax and he tells those Paris folks to stick it in their ear. He doesn't pull punches, and a lot of people like that.

They shouldn't like it. He shouldn't say those things, but they like a guy who will say them.
Click to expand...

And where do you stand on this?

Are you fine with half the GOP legislators bowing to King Trump? Do you think it's a passing phase, the GOP will be back to normal come Jan 21?
 
I'm mostly amused that this Lin Wood lawyer is even more of a knucklehead than he sounded at first glance. Yeesh!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And where do you stand on this?

Are you fine with half the GOP legislators bowing to King Trump? Do you think it's a passing phase, the GOP will be back to normal come Jan 21?
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how you are defining normal.
 
Ladewig said:
I guess that depends on how you are defining normal.
Click to expand...

Given their attempts to work against democracy for the past...60 years or so now, mostly by trying to disenfranchise nonwhite voters, I'd say that this is totally normal for them.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And where do you stand on this?

Are you fine with half the GOP legislators bowing to King Trump? Do you think it's a passing phase, the GOP will be back to normal come Jan 21?
Click to expand...

Ladewig said:
I guess that depends on how you are defining normal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What's "normal" for the GOP anymore? From my perspective, it hasn't been "normal" since the evangelicals sunk their claws into it and it's only gotten worse since the Tea Party infected it with their brain rot.
 
Mumbles said:
Given their attempts to work against democracy for the past...60 years or so now, mostly by trying to disenfranchise nonwhite voters, I'd say that this is totally normal for them.
Click to expand...

The main difference is that they have gone from (transparent) whistle blowing to saying the thing out loud.

I'm still not sure whether that is due to:
1) The Trump epiphenomenon
2) The US is slowly slipping away from them, hence the desperation
3) They feel that they are close to clinching power for decades (the Bannon theory)
 
Last edited:
I'm just greatful that if by some crazy chance PA or GA or MI or WI has their Electors thrown out, the number of required Electors goes down from 270. Biden only loses if Electors are flipped or ALL the Electors from WI, PA, GA, MI, AZ and NV are thrown out, which is impossible.

Biden wins!!!!
 
Hercules56 said:
I'm just greatful that if by some crazy chance PA or GA or MI or WI has their Electors thrown out, the number of required Electors goes down from 270. Biden only loses if Electors are flipped or ALL the Electors from WI, PA, GA, MI, AZ and NV are thrown out, which is impossible.

Biden wins!!!!
Click to expand...

None of the electors are going to be thrown out.
 
Damn, my math was wrong.
The case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an appeal, so if Trump loses that one, it stays at 59-1.

According to Marc Elias, there are no cases pending, only appeals, so it might end at a measly 59-1.

My post-election case count does not permit double counting. When Trump lost in the WI trial court, I counted it as a loss. When he loses again at the WI Supreme Court, I will tweeted it to educate/inform, but I will not count as a second loss.

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1338190673896419332?s=19
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Firestone said:
Damn, my math was wrong.
The case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an appeal, so if Trump loses that one, it stays at 59-1.

According to Marc Elias, there are no cases pending, only appeals, so it might end at a measly 59-1.
Click to expand...

How do you count the PA case that was dismissed by the District Court judge and appealed to SCOTUS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom