Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2020, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Has anyone with some knowledge looked at the Texas lawsuit? There hasn't been much discussion about it and I've heard that it's well written and argued. Honestly I've been staying out of all of this as the election caused me enough drama on a local level.

Most of what I have seen is that it is ridiculous. One thing of note with it is that because of the Texas governor's own actions under the guise of emergency authority due to the pandemic would mean that if the Texas case were successful, it could be then used to invalidate Texas' own election. Honestly, this will result in nothing and may not even be heard.

I've been doing some more reading on the lawsuit from the brief itself as well as from some legal scholars around the web (actual ones, not the Twitter lawyers), and here are the problems: almost all of the claims being made by the Texas AG have already been dismissed in the previous lawsuits filed around the country; the remedy being sought for the states usurping the authority of their legislatures is for the SCOTUS to usurp the authority of Congress; and all of the states in the lawsuit had Republican legislatures that actually passed laws allowing for no-excuse early voting.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Has anyone with some knowledge looked at the Texas lawsuit?  There hasn't been much discussion about it and I've heard that it's well written and argued.  Honestly I've been staying out of all of this as the election caused me enough drama on a local level.

Yeah Texas thinks it has standing because other states voted differently in a national election. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Election-Challenges-Protests-Conspiracy-Theories-and-Moral-Panics?pid=963527#pid963527

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah Texas thinks it has standing because other states voted differently in a national election. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Election-Challenges-Protests-Conspiracy-Theories-and-Moral-Panics?pid=963527#pid963527

Yeah, this doesn't answer my question at all.  Can someone with some knowledge please address the substance of the case, please?

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, this doesn't answer my question at all.  Can someone with some knowledge please address the substance of the case, please?

Matt did, but did you honestly think there was any substance or chance for this?  I know you didn't bother to research before "just asking" but even a casual reader trying to "avoid" the post election stuff would know this.

That's one of the reasons I encourage people to do their own reading and then bring that with them versus asking questions they could have answered with a little work and then arguing about it.  And that's not just aimed at you.  Too often we have posts with "just asking" when a quick search would have answered.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Matt did, but did you honestly think there was any substance or chance for this?

I have no idea, hence the question.

Quote:I know you didn't bother to research before "just asking" but even a casual reader trying to "avoid" the post election stuff would know this.

Know what?  You didn't make a declarative statement about something someone should "know".

Quote:That's one of the reasons I encourage people to do their own reading and then bring that with them versus asking questions they could have answered with a little work and then arguing about it.  And that's not just aimed at you.  Too often we have posts with "just asking" when a quick search would have answered.

Message boards are about sharing opinions and interpretations, as well as exposing people to facts and information they might have otherwise missed.  I can obviously form my own opinion.  What I am asking for is the opinion of people a little more invested in the nuts and bolts of this subject, someone with experience in the area.  Hence my initial question.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 01:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most of what I have seen is that it is ridiculous. One thing of note with it is that because of the Texas governor's own actions under the guise of emergency authority due to the pandemic would mean that if the Texas case were successful, it could be then used to invalidate Texas' own election. Honestly, this will result in nothing and may not even be heard.

I've been doing some more reading on the lawsuit from the brief itself as well as from some legal scholars around the web (actual ones, not the Twitter lawyers), and here are the problems: almost all of the claims being made by the Texas AG have already been dismissed in the previous lawsuits filed around the country; the remedy being sought for the states usurping the authority of their legislatures is for the SCOTUS to usurp the authority of Congress; and all of the states in the lawsuit had Republican legislatures that actually passed laws allowing for no-excuse early voting.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

Thank you for the analysis.  That would lead me to ask why they would bother filing suit then?  Is it to cast a pall on Biden's presidency, i.e. delegitimize him from the beginning?

[*Nately120*]

(12-09-2020, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the analysis.  That would lead me to ask why they would bother filing suit then?  Is it to cast a pall on Biden's presidency, i.e. delegitimize him from the beginning?

That seems to be the case.  A significant number of voters are convinced the election was rigged and politicians who don't want to be singled out as helping the left-wing overthrow of the government need to make it look like they're fighting back, I'd wager.

[hollodero]

(12-09-2020, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the analysis.  That would lead me to ask why they would bother filing suit then?  Is it to cast a pall on Biden's presidency, i.e. delegitimize him from the beginning?

I have zero expertise, but I'd say it's the same reason all the time: These suits, as frivolous as they might be in a legal sense, are used to further strengthen the stolen elective narrative.

I just don't think it has much to do with Biden, just with Trump and party members being afraid of opposing Trump.

[*Nately120*]

(12-09-2020, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have zero expertise, but I'd say it's the same reason all the time: These suits, as frivolous as they might be in a legal sense, are used to further strengthen the stolen elective narrative.

I just don't think it has much to do with Biden, just with Trump and party members being afraid of opposing Trump.

Right, maybe I'm being too hard on ol' Donny but it seems like you do what he says or you get doxed by him and armed protestors show up at your home.

[Au165]

(12-09-2020, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the analysis.  That would lead me to ask why they would bother filing suit then?  Is it to cast a pall on Biden's presidency, i.e. delegitimize him from the beginning?

Many believe it is because the Texas AG has already been indicted on security charges and is under investigation for bribery. By bringing the suit he wins favor with Trump in a potential outgoing pardon spree. The ones signing on are heaving "red" states who win political clout with their constituents with very little work on their part.

As to breaking down the suit as a whole, Matt did a really good job. It's worth noting that people claiming the Supreme Court putting it on the docket is some sort of sign it has merit is misguided. The SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction to hear cases involving states suing each other. It most likely gets dismissed similarly to the PA suit yesterday, one line no decents. 

[Au165]

(12-09-2020, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I just don't think it has much to do with Biden, just with Trump and party members being afraid of opposing Trump.

See quote I posted earlier from PA senate majority leader (republican) on going against Trump. She literally said she was scared her house would be bombed if she did. They are literally terrified of his followers.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 03:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: See quote I posted earlier from PA senate majority leader (republican) on going against Trump. She literally said she was scared her house would be bombed if she did. They are literally terrified of his followers.

I remember those innocent times when we could have discussions about "IF" Trump inspired hatred and violence from his followers.  And how his defenders resisted that idea.

As Trump Rails Against Loss, His Supporters Become More Threatening https://t.co/2bj5dVNfSx pic.twitter.com/nKMsLWopxh

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) December 9, 2020

 

Now they run and hide from what they once said and try to pretend they weren't really defending him and that they had always been against what he said and did. Yet they still can't speak out against it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 03:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Many believe it is because the Texas AG has already been indicted on security charges and is under investigation for bribery. By bringing the suit he wins favor with Trump in a potential outgoing pardon spree. The ones signing on are heaving "red" states who win political clout with their constituents with very little work on their part.

As to breaking down the suit as a whole, Matt did a really good job. It's worth noting that people claiming the Supreme Court putting it on the docket is some sort of sign it has merit is misguided. The SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction to hear cases involving states suing each other. It most likely gets dismissed similarly to the PA suit yesterday, one line no decents. 

Good info, thank you.

[Big Boss]

(12-09-2020, 03:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: I remember those innocent times when we could have discussions about "IF" Trump inspired hatred and violence from his followers.  And how his defenders resisted that idea.

As Trump Rails Against Loss, His Supporters Become More Threatening https://t.co/2bj5dVNfSx pic.twitter.com/nKMsLWopxh

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) December 9, 2020

 

Now they run and hide from what they once said and try to pretend they weren't really defending him and that they had always been against what he said and did.  Yet they still can't speak out against it.

Literal terrorism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 03:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: I remember those innocent times when we could have discussions about "IF" Trump inspired hatred and violence from his followers.  And how his defenders resisted that idea.

As Trump Rails Against Loss, His Supporters Become More Threatening https://t.co/2bj5dVNfSx pic.twitter.com/nKMsLWopxh

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) December 9, 2020

 

Now they run and hide from what they once said and try to pretend they weren't really defending him and that they had always been against what he said and did.  Yet they still can't speak out against it.

I've been told by you and others that it is perfectly acceptable to protest outside the home of a public official.  While I personally don't agree with it, it's been defended here by you and others as long as protestors don't break the law.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've been told by you and others that it is perfectly acceptable to protest outside the home of a public official.  While I personally don't agree with it, it's been defended here by you and others as long as protestors don't break the law.

Show me where I defended threats of violence (which I specifically just posted about) or, for once, STFU.

Thanks!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 03:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Show me where I defended threats of violence (which I specifically just posted about) or, for once, STFU.

Thanks!

You didn't post any "threats of violence" from people outside the homes, so kindly post them if that's the point you're making.  In the interim, please try and curb your use of profanity.  Thank you.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 03:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You didn't post any "threats of violence" from people outside the homes, so kindly post them if that's the point you're making.  In the interim, please try and curb your use of profanity.  Thank you.

So that's a no you can't.

Thanks.

Since "profanity" has upset you ( ) pretty please with sugar on top stop mixing protests with violence to make it look like I said something I never did.  

See?  No profanity to harm your virgin ears.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2020, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: So that's a no you can't.

Thanks.

You've routinely defended protesting outside the home of elected officials, do you deny this?

Quote:Since "profanity" has upset you ( ) pretty please with sugar on top stop mixing protests with violence to make it look like I said something I never did.  

See?  No profanity to harm your virgin ears.

It doesn't upset me, but it is against the ToS and could result in you being suspended or banned, which we certainly don't want.  Do stop projecting though, you got upset and lashed out, just own it like a man and move on.

[GMDino]

I hope that someday we find out if Trump was so dumb he made this stuff up or that people were feeding him the info or what.

pic.twitter.com/bP4emLBBng

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) December 9, 2020