Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

Here I am, browsing one of my fav sites and reading this thread wondering how someone can die in a hill made of stupid. So I logged in, quickly realized why I have had @Sweet Lou 4 2 on ignore for years. Lol.. He/Her/They/It will argue blue vs white without reason. They die on that hill regardless of facts, logic, or quite frankly, common sense. Reminds me of a 5 year old kid.

Don’t waste your time responding to such incompetence. @fchowd0311 is another one of those incredibly ignorant and incompetent losers that spend way too much time preaching cultish nonsense in the D&D. Ignore the weirdos and talk about stuff that matters.

 

And you appear to have left out multiple times where Raffensperger and others push back on Trump noting that he is wrong about his claims also in addition to the highlighted part in the quotes Trump also says “many, many times above the margin. And so we don’t really have to, Mark, I don’t think we have to go through” there he is again asking that they only need
Just enough to win. That isn’t asking for an accurate count but just enough to win.

So the whole transcript is Trump insisting he has won by a lots when he’s pushed back on it just saying they need to find enough votes to win. That’s not a principled concern for an accurate vote count but pressuring the election official to go against both their own judgment and the facts that there was no probable voter fraud to flip the election.

 

We don’t live in something like Russia because people like Brad Raffensperger were willing to stand up to a President insisting they find enough votes to overturn their states election. A former President who is possibly going to be back in office and is pledging a whole sale replacement of people not based on ability or principle but on loyalty.

 

guys, is 1+1 = 2? it depends.

 

In terms of law and language, it really does. This is why those fields suck, lol.

 

Technicality and reasoning: it's both language and laws.

In Boolean algebra, 1+1 = 1.

In modular arithmetic (numbers wrap around after reaching a certain value), 1+1 = 0.

In string concatenation, 1+1 = 11.

(and so on)

Lawyers have this special ability to find these conditions and argue for them, and judges can also adopt them to rule as they see fit. Principles are the only things that guide them. But when principles are abandoned (remember when ethics and textual interpretation was a thing), you know that these guys are dishonest or they actually had a higher principle after all, like Christian values.

Either way, this is why lifetime appointment of any position is probably a bad idea, especially for a department that can literally control everyone's livelihood.

 

I actually did mention the Raffensperger shot down his claims. He also at no point says he doesn't want an accurate vote count. The part where he says "I don't think you have to go through" where the end is cut off is not him saying stop looking at the problems. I will refer you back to the transcript, the next portion he talks about how he thinks he won by half a million votes, but that is partially based on his concerns about the Dominion voting machines (which just before the cut off quote he says he has not been allowed to go through the Dominion voting machines). He then says, "We have won this election in Georgia based on all of this. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, Brad. You know I mean, having the correct — the people of Georgia are angry. And these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night. Along with others that we’re going to have by that time which are much more substantial even." So even in the part you are pointing to and saying he is only asking to change just enough to win, in the very next paragraph he is talking about having the correct numbers because the people are angry, and that they are still trying to substantiate additional challenges. For nearly an hour, he is listing things he perceives as irregularities, asking that they be investigated, and once the investigation is complete, to report the correct numbers (which he believes would indicate a massive Trump victory). It really requires ignoring the entire thing to come to the conclusion that it is a tyrant pressuring an underling to change just enough votes to give him the win.

 

Joe Biden sets his final price with offer to ‘limit’ the Supreme Court

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4783017-biden-offers-supreme-court-limiting-proposal/

excerpt:

This week, President Joe Biden finally named a price. As a growing number of panicked Democrats moved to force him off the ticket before the convention, Biden has offered somethingthat the far left has demanded for years: limiting the Supreme Court.

It was another defining moment for Biden, and it was far from complimentary.

Winston Churchill once purportedly asked an English socialite at a dinner if her principles would prevent her from sleeping with him for 5 million pounds.

The socialite admitted that it would be hard to turn down such a fortune. Churchill then offered five pounds. When his aghast antagonist asked, "What type of woman do you think I am?" Churchill replied "We’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

This week, Biden finally stopped haggling and set his price.

According to the Washington Post, the president held a Zoom call with the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

He thrilled them by agreeing to "come out with a major initiative on limiting the court.” He added that he was looking to them for support because "I need some help."

Even the New York Times noted the timing as a shift in his position that would appeal to the far left of his party.

It was another reversal for the president prompted by political expediency like his flipping on the filibuster rule and, years ago, on abortion.

In the 2020 election, many of us were highly critical of Biden for refusing to reveal his position on packing the Supreme Court and other so-called reform proposals. It was one of the major issues in the election, but Biden refused to tell voters where he stood to avoid alienating both moderates and the far left.

Liberal professors, pundits and politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), continued to demand that the court be packed with an instant liberal majority.

During his administration, Biden sought to appease his base by establishing a commission that explored absurd, radical proposals for changing the court. As many of us predicted, Biden waited years and later admitted that he had no intention to pack the court.

He then decided to run for reelection and faced a revolt in his party, including hysteria over his dismal polling numbers.

If those numbers were 10 points higher, the Supreme Court might be safe for another 10 years. However, it is now just another price for power.

In decades of public service, Biden has shown an impressive moral and political flexibility. He has shifted on almost every major issue as polls made his earlier positions unpopular, or when trying to appeal to a larger Democratic constituency.

From abortion to gun rights to criminal justice, Biden does not allow principle to stand in the way of politics, and the politics today could not be more dire.
​

more at the link

​

 

How can they if they have more votes to count? You might try going into a city, but lots of people live there.

 

lol

 

I don't trust any county that shuts down voting for the night and restarts counting. So if everything is on the up and up you shouldn't have an issue with these places turning in their vote counts first. Count the votes and wait to turn them in after Fulton, Maricopa etc .. turns in their vote counts.

 

So because they don't do it the way you want, it's cheating?

 

Guy has posting stamina I'll give him that and nothing else.

 

Yeah I remember now why I left - it's like trying to debate a brick wall.

 

Yea, can't reason with stupid and @raining threes hasn't made a shot yet.

 

Nope, I didn't say anybody was cheating, but this way will stop the cheating if there was cheating.

If there's no cheating you shouldn't have a problem with waiting to turn in vote counts until after these counties turn in their vote counts. Do you have a problem and if so what's your problem with waiting?

 

So waiting to turn in votes until these counties do is stupid?

You've got issues.

 

Apparently Trump couldn't wait and he got upset they were still counting mail in ballots.

 

Like I asked,

What's your issue with waiting?