I wish this were true. But, since the election I've seen relatively moderate Republicans not accept the election results, some that I really respect. I suspect there are some moderate Republicans that feel the same way on this forum. The response to other Republicans accepting the election results has basically been to call them traitors or that they are somehow compromised. A conservative supreme court ruling against Trump will most definitely end the same. In fact, there is already some anger towards SC justices that aren't overly political in their rulings.
Sorry - I was talking about Ted Cruz. He's offering to take the case to ingratiate himself with Trump fans and so he can say he fought for Trump until the very end. That sets him up for his next run in 2024 if Trump doesn't run.
Ugh.... He might think so but the person who wins the 24 nomination is the person that stands up to Trump in the party, but does it in a way that is all in on Trumpism (racism, nationalism, etc.) but makes the case that Trump was incompetent especially on the economics. Otherwise the candidate will be Trump or Trump Jr. The reason why Cruz didn't win over Trump is because he's basically Trump without the charisma. He's cringeworthy, insincere, and annoying. Trump to many people is authentically Trump, and a wildly entertaining personality. Most importantly though he was in government and supported everything Trump did that was incompetent so he would be a TERRIBLE messenger to tell the Trumpist base that Trump sucked at Trumpism. There are virtually no Senate or House Republicans that can unseat Trump, but there are several people outside of government that could do it, and have a much better chance at beating Biden, Harris, or whoever runs in 24 on the Dem side if Biden retires. Tucker Carlson, or Mark Cuban (Darkhorse, but I think he's a better candidate as a Republican than some might think) have a much better chance of beating the Dems than Trump does, and Trump is impossible to unseat with in-government Republicans who he's managed to co-opt.
Trump is polling better than carlson by like 40%. Trump right now has best odds of being 2024 candidate.
Well when the entire Republican propaganda infrastructure is telling their voters that Trump is God... yeah he's going to poll as if he's the frontrunner. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and he's only as potent as the propaganda networks led by Rupert Murdoch allow him to be. The polling and the data though does not lie. Trump sucked as a candidate. Got lucky in 2016, got creamed in mid terms, lost tons of special elections he should have won, and lost BIG when the rest of the party did well in 2020. Again....Trump sucks as a candidate for president. The Republican pollsters know this. They all will advise Murdoch, McConnell, and the Republican Oligarch billionaires that he shouldn't be supported for president in 2024. They all fear the Trump base though, and that they'll leave the party if Trump is unseated, but the data shows that's just not true. If that was true Republicans wouldn't have been able to win House seats like they did. Those Trump voters will ALL vote AGAINST Democrats even if is milk toast Republican vs Democrat. Trumper voters ALL consume fascist propaganda, and they will not in any way shape or form abandon switch their vote to a Democrat when they all believe there are secret Cabals of Democrats that drink the blood of trafficked children. They are all idiots if they believe the Trumper base will abandon the Republican party if Trump is not the nominee. So we'll see what the Fascist Right Wing Propaganda networks decide to do, but we know for a fact that all the data will show those that control those networks that Trump is a really really bad bet for 24 especially when he'll have 3 years of evidence that what he did was absolute garbage for this country, and especially the low educated worked class who he really sold out with his pro-billionaire policies.
In his Texas Senate re-election yes unless there is Hispanic turnout heavily in favor of the Democrat who runs against him. To win the Texas Senate seat he needs turnout in the rural Trumpy parts of the country that Trump can help deliver. We know that the Dems now have infrastructure here to turnout our base. The Latino Valley vote is this swing Texas voter if they turnout for the Dems, but Cruz is DOA if he doesn't get that Bum F$ck Texas voter turnout that Trump delivered. So yeah I think if it's about getting re-elected, he's trying to secure Trump's help on the campaign trail. If it's about being the presidential nominee in 24, and having Trump anoint him the heir apparent... NOT going to happen.
On one side you have a cult (Trumpers) and on the other side you have a semblance of reason (US Judicial system.) Other than their leader/idol, the cult doesn't respect anyone/anything else (not even their pockets!) to the same degree - this has been shown by others here. So when SCOTUS doesn't pick up the case, regardless of the reason or any previous level of respect for the institution, Trumpist base will keep shouting "stop the steal" and if the court does pick it up and summarily reject the idol, you'll get the same response of "stop the steal". I don't think there will be any difference and you didn't present a strong case of why there should be a big difference. Just like most of us don't know a single Justice Alito's opinion by heart, most won't go out of their way to read the specifics of his opinion on this case (and don't expect the echo chamber media to report it to Trump's base.) Besides, their opinions have already been proven to use bad facts/evidence when it comes to these election cases, so you can't even consider their rulings all that "reasonable." Just get used to the idea of a split country. A court decision won't change that. It's on the senate to fix but they only care about re-election and so they will keep using Trump's approach to winning - by spewing hate; and they will keep on supporting him for as long as he is still relevant among his base. But the civil war is not upon us. Trump is not the type of leader for whom the truly brave will be willing to die for and no cohesive group is economically desperate enough (unlike the slave owners of the old.)
Which Pennsylvania case is this? Is it about the 9k ballots post-marked by election day and arriving within 3 days? That one (and I think that's the only one) actually has legal merit. Not sure what the remedy would be, but assuming it's like 8k for Biden and 1k for Trump, it's not impossible that SCOTUS would subtract 7k from Biden's total. It's not impossible, but not likely. Actually, they probably won't even grant cert. This isn't even a fraud case by the way - it's a procedural rules debate.
Well the PA related appeal to SCOTUS seems to have been denied.. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/al...pplication-to-day-before-safe-harbor-deadline
This case below. And yes, the 2019 state law was passed by the GOP majority. Now that Trump lost, they want the court to rule their own law was unconstitutional and allow them to select the winner. https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-...-rejects-republican-suit-to-throw-out-ballots In its ruling, the high court unanimously dismissed a lawsuit that claimed that a 2019 state law allowing no-excuse absentee ballots was unconstitutional. The suit, filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and others on Nov. 21, requested that the state reject mail ballots submitted under that law or allow state lawmakers to select presidential electors. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans.
Lol, that one was dumb. I got confused - there are so many lawsuits. The one I was thinking about is still before SCOTUS and last thing that happened is both sides filing amicus briefs. https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/pennsylvania-democratic-party-v-boockvar/ This is the only potentially legally legit one, but impacts only 9k votes.
When you call someone a "mother****er" are you implying that they actually have sex with their mother? Or "son of a b****"? Or any number of other slurs....
