[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8116


 No.8118

It's pretty clear that all of these legal actions seem frivilous. There's been a pervasive lack of evidence throughout and their claims in public do not match the claims they are making in courts. It's clear it's all just attempts to sew distrust in the election results among Trump's base.

 No.8122

>>8116
Hmm...Trump may be slowly accepting his defeat, regrouping to run again in 2024.  Normally a state contradicting the federal government would be disrespectful, but I don't think Trump has the power to punish states for not being as fraudulent as required for a Trump victory.  Disrespect is only legitimate when an authority has the power to punish people for it.

 No.8123

>>8118
>It's pretty clear that all of these legal actions seem frivilous.
Last I heard, Trump lost 32 cases and won only 2 cases.  The Republicans will likely win the Pennsylvania case pending before the US Supreme Court if the Court decides the case on the merits. (However, the number of ballots affected is much less than Biden's margin of victory, so it won't make a difference in who wins PA.)

https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/pennsylvania-democratic-party-v-boockvar/

>>8122
>Normally a state contradicting the federal government would be disrespectful
I disagree.  States are independent sovereign entities; they are not subordinate to the federal government.  E.g., Congress lacks the authority to pass a law commanding state law-enforcement officers to perform specific actions.  Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

 No.8124

>>8123
If rule of law is preferred by an authority, one can expect bounds to their power.  But as well, the Supreme Court is a federal institution, in this case allowing states some prerogative in law enforcement.

As I understand, American states are sovereign and subordinate.  At least, states that saw it otherwise were corrected by force during the American Civil War.

 No.8169

File: 1606519073718.png (12.5 KB, 220x220, 1:1, Bibas-2020-11-27.png) ImgOps Google

A while ago, I remember someone here claiming that Trump's judicial appointees would have loyalty to the Republican Party or something like that.  In light of that, I'd just like to note that a judge appointed by Trump just wrote a scathing opinion against Trump in one of Trump's election lawsuits.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/court-rejects-trumps-pa-election-appeal-in-scathing-decision

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

 No.8174

>>8169
I meant to respond to that thread and decided against it.

Judges don't deal in the political sphere. They don't live there. We've seen most of the Bush appointees also ruling against Trump throughout this administration because they don't live in that world. They aren't surrounded by lobbyists and powerbrokers. They're surrounded by legal clerks and attorneys. Supreme Court Justices are surrounded by other judges. The community they live in isn't one that will easily ignore political favoritism. The community that they deal with on a day-to-day basis and which comes to drive their views on morality and social acceptability is one obsessed not with power but with what is and isn't legally sensible.

They're people who never talked to Trump before and only ever deal with one of his agents when the administration wants to get something from them. The way we talk about the process is very flattering to the person who is on the TV the most. From the judge's perspective somebody they don't know put their name on a list to give to somebody who knows the president, who proceeded to not read the list before submitting the names for appointments. Meanwhile the judge is on the list because (1) they have potentially convenient personal opinions and (2) they have been busting their ass all their life to be excellently qualified for any legal position you could dream up and are a natural choice for a judgeship.


I like scotch. The person who was in charge of HR when I was hired also likes liquor. If we ever talked then we might happen to get along, I don't know. I am not about to commit a massive and highly visible ethics violation at work as a personal favor to that person. If he showed up drunk to work and I was in a position to then I probably still wouldn't put my neck on the chopping block for him, despite our mutual enjoyment of spirits.

Looking at who appointed a judge is better for looking for excuses than looking for allies.

 No.8183

>>8116
Some is not all.
Isn't that rather obvious?
I'm pretty sure there was a lot of sexual allegations against Trump that would fall under the same category, but I'm fairly certain plenty here wouldn't declare Trump innocent of sexual misconduct.

 No.8184

>>8122
I'm not so convinced.  There appears to be some evidence justifying investigation, at the very least.
We did have a four year long investigation over far, far less, in regards to Russia after all

 No.8191

File: 1606708180725.jpg (525.13 KB, 3280x2807, 3280:2807, pony-ice-cream-swirls.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8183
>Some is not all.
Right.  And expect there was some fraud in the election (but not enough to make a difference in the outcome of any state).  E.g., IIRC, the 2016 audit of Detroit turned up about 30 people who voted both by mail and in-person, who were referred for criminal prosecution.

The point that the judge is making is that a process that produces a lot of garbage evidence is unreliable and thus should not be relied upon by the judiciary.  It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove his claims by a preponderance of evidence.

 No.8207

>>8191
I would say then that this is an issue with the way that the legal system works. Government does not investigate itself, unless somebody else has done so, and proven there to be an issue.

There is more than enough reason that investigations ought to be done. There is more than enough evidence to suggest something could have happened, and thus warrants investigation.

I presume we can all agree that anybody who commit voter fraud of any sort should be punished. Especially right now, given how vital it is to have a fair and open election.
Kicking out election observers, for instance, regardless of if anything questionable happened, should have the individual responsible removed from any such position where vital integrity of that sort is required.
Their actions directly threaten the integrity and consequently the continued existence of the state.

As to whether or not it will matter, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to say, either way, but when fraud is allowed to persist, people will lose faith.
When people lose faith in peaceful means of change, violence is inevitable. Revolutions always come from hopelessness.

 No.8209

File: 1606779147214.png (476.02 KB, 802x663, 802:663, homu.png) ImgOps Google

>>8207
>Government does not investigate itself, unless somebody else has done so, and proven there to be an issue.
Yes, this is a problem, not just for elections, but also for policing.  

>There is more than enough reason that investigations ought to be done.
In Michigan, an audit was conducted after the 2016 election that investigated irregularities.  Most of them were found be the result of simple incompetence and clerical mistakes.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Combined_Detroit_Audit_Exec_summary_551188_7.pdf.
Hopefully a similar investigation will occur this year as well.

>when fraud is allowed to persist, people will lose faith.
Even if no fraud is happening, people can lose faith if the system isn't transparent enough.  I'd guess that our election systems are pretty reliable in practice, but a lot can be done to better secure them and increase public confidence.  Top of my list would be to prohibit electronic voting machines that lack a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT).  Continuous video recording (with multiple cameras) of ballot boxes would also be a good measure.

 No.8210

>>8209
My trouble I suppose is "clerical errors" is a good excuse for an intentional action, as it's quite difficult to prove such a thing especially considering how little seems to be kept track of.

But I definitely agree with you in regards to voter confirmation requirements. Ideally, each machine would require some form of ID, and a signed receipt before being counted,  with those receipts scanned and forwarded to at least one database under separate jurisdiction.
To be quite honest, I am shocked at how little security there seems to be.

 No.8216

>>8210
The clerical errors presented in that article would be pretty difficult to use maliciously. At most they'd trigger an audit to explain the discrepancy.

 No.8221

>>8184
My mom feels there are statistical irregularities and an unwillingness to allow enough people to examine the voting results, software, and hardware, and this in general makes election results highly suspect.  (I don't think I have the time to examine all the information on that).  I know some will say states are allowed by the federal government to use or permit as many statistical irregularities -- whatever that means -- as is their pleasure, provided the governors designate electors to make the required votes in a few days.  Nobody thinks Trump will use federal power to disrupt the Electoral College, so I guess that will probably go through, and we will know the result in about a week.

 No.8224

>>8221
That's basically how I feel as well.  It's getting worse with more and more suspicious circumstances popping up.
I didn't have much faith in the system to begin with, but now I feel rather pessimistic.

I'm less hopeful of it getting solved in time as a consequence. And it doesn't help there's guaranteed to be major unrest basically either way it goes.

 No.8225

>>8221
>statistical irregularities
The Benford's Law thing?  For a refutation of that, see:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1324760992446849024.html

And in general regarding election 'irregularities', see:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/30/the-paranoid-style-of-american-politics-presidential-election-edition/

 No.8226

>>8225
This 1st one seems to be mostly somebody capslock ranting angrily, Which I suppose is entertaining, but ineffective when it comes to a refutation.
It seems to assume that trump is unpopular, and therefore this is the logical result,  without demonstrating that presumption.
The rest seems to be solely angry screaming, belittling insults, and strawmenning classics typically seen in political comics who are at least going for a comedic satirical representation for those of that political angle to look on fire amusement, rather than refutation of their opposition.
It's rather unpersuasive as a consequence. I'm open to it being false, not knowing much of the subject, but this is a terrible way to go about it.

 No.8227

>>8225
I liked this take on it, personally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

This guy also went over the other big "analysis" that "indicates" fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8

>>8226
Check out the first link I just gave, it's by a mathematician specialising in public math communication going over it. Bottom line though, if by "statistical irregularities" the other guy was actually referring to Benford's law, that's a huge dud.

 No.8229

>>8227
Hmm, seems interesting.  I'm not all the way through, but what I'm seeming to get at least so far is, while it might be an indicator, it's not a guarantee. Which seems about right to what I've seen, at least.
It's why I simply want an investigation.  Especially given some of the stuff I've heard of forcing out observers.
Not a guarantee the same way, but something warranting an investigation, I guess.

Of course, I also don't think much will come from that.  Government is bad at investigating itself, and doesn't like giving over control to a properly independent investigation.

 No.8230

>>8229
I mean, his point is that Benford's law is at best an indicator that a look is needed for an explanation, and this is pretty much that look and explanation. Benford's law happens in the first place because of different orders of magnitude. Think about a stopwatch that only counts seconds. It'll roll over the first 9 digits quickly, then it'll have 1 at the start for a long time compared to how quickly it changed when there was only a single digit. Then it'll finally roll over to twenties, thirties, and so on, until it gets to a hundred which again will make it take forever (compared to all the switches before it) before the next switch happens. This sudden, sharp increase in time needed as it rolls over is what promotes lower digits when the number is random, but in the data there? It's not and it can't be, because the districts are deliberately split so that they'd be similar in size to each other and they're essentially all 3 digit numbers, so it would be pretty weird to expect to see an effect that's caused by the number of digits freely changing between data points when it almost never actually can.

That data for both candidates is pretty much just the Gaussian normal distribution trimmed to producing just non-negative values, too, so there's another way things are statistically exactly as can be expected. So yeah, the bottom line is that as far as the stats go this is all perfectly kosher.

 No.8233

>>8230
Makes sense, I suppose.  Would say it's still worth looking in to, considering how important this election is, but to be honest I feel that way for elections as a whole, every time. They should be scrutinized.
It's why there is supposed to be observers, for example.
Transparency and faith in the election is vital. Especially right now, with how much politically motivated violence in the streets there is.

 No.8240

>>8233
I'm personally perfectly satisfied as this constituting "having been looked into", at least for that allegation, and with the amount of crying wolf I've seen I'm perfectly satisfied with the legitimacy of this election overall even without looking at every single one of them as I figure if they actually had something, things would start to coalesce around it by now. And yes, I agree those things are very important, which in my opinion makes the whirlwhind of conspiracy theories tossed around it very unfortunate, with particular fault lying with the usual high profile suspect. Assuming the election was conducted upright (an assumption that's again IMO safe in this particular case), it will still unjustly undermine that faith and do long term damage. Because really, why should people be expected to HAVE TO do esoteric analysis like this? People they trust are pushing bullshit onto them, so it's natural they'd go along. On the other hand, assuming it was not, the actual wrongdoing will get obfuscated by the avalanche of all the stupid shit being tossed everywhere of which there is just so much. This is losing all around.

 No.8243

>>8240
Eh, I see it, at least given how it's been explained to me, as a signal.  Much as the metal detector doesn't automatically mean there's buried treasure at play, this doesn't mean there's fraud.  
But I wouldn't consider it looked into until you get a shovel and check.

As to whether or not things have coalesced, I'd say certainly more has.
For example, it seems to be an objective fact at this point, Republican poll watchers and observers were prevented from doing their job, thanks to numerous testimonies, recordings, audio, and photos of these events.
That alone strikes me as a major sign of significant corruption.  Certainly, it provides more than reasonable cause to doubt the integrity of the election.

And there's been a lot more stuff brought up in the various hearings, besides.  Some with pictures, some with videos.
A recent one where they tell everyone they're done counting for the day, telling poll watchers to go home, before pulling out a mass of ballots is pretty damning to me.

And of course, it must be mentioned, there was massive investigating and upheaval when it was Trump and the supposed Russians, so a refusal to investigate now is just downright hypocritical.

 No.8247

>>8243
Right, and this is the checking. "Why are the numbers not following Benford's law?" -> check -> see that it's because all these numbers aren't fully random but actually similarly sized 3 digit ones because of how the districts were split -> this means the digits in fact are expected to behave exactly the way they did -> done, it's checked, there actually was an extra underlying mechanism but it was district population balancing, not fraud

I personally find none of this at all compelling, but I don't really feel like getting into those weeds. Let them win a court case where they demonstrate deliberate and widespread fraud, they certainly put forth a bunch of those so it's not like they are being forced to be silent (though with the approach they took of tossing all the shit at the wall to see if anything sticks, they actually managed to make me personally even more convinced they have nothing substantial as their cases got thrown out left and right), and then I'll start to pay real attention. Otherwise I have the politics in my own back yard to deal with (things are currently absolute ass, and it's 3 years before any upcoming elections so it's going to be a long ride downhill), and for the topic here I can talk math, like what I responded to originally.

 No.8248

>>8247
Keep in mind that these days a case getting tossed out of a lower court isn't really indicative of its merits, due to the politicization of courts and judges these days. But, yes. A lot of it seemed rushed.  I still expect appeals to the bulk refused,  though I'm not hopeful,  due to the way these proceedings don't seem to consider whether or not anything untoward happened, but solely if it would change anything.

None the less, we got four years of Russian conspiracy theory chasing,  so I see no reason there should not be an investigation from the government, and not simply Trump's legal team.

 No.8251

>>8248
>due to the politicization of courts and judges these days.
Both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed have nearly universally ruled against Trump's claims.

>a case getting tossed out of a lower court isn't really indicative of its merits
If you mean merits as opposed to standing: Yes, some cases have been dismissed due to lack of an Article 3 'case or controversy'.
If you mean merits as opposed to procedural things: Yes, some cases have been dismissed on grounds of laches and such things.

 No.8267

>>8251
I'm not sure that's true. Most of what I have seen, it's either been them saying it's outside of their jurisdiction, by and large, which is what was expected for the bulk of these. But there's been a few 'wins' as well, as far as discovery and preventing the deletion of data goes, for instance.
Some of the challenges were lost due to not demonstrating the election would be lost, but those aren't 'ruling against' Trump's claims. For example, it is an objective fact that Republican poll watchers were forced out on multiple occasions, blocked from watching the count, and in one case they quite literally blocked the windows from view, and as far as I have seen, rather than say this didn't happen, the argument is solely "it wouldn't change the outcome" if they are denied.
At least on part of Republican judges, anyway.

 No.8403

File: 1608157756406.jpg (411.28 KB, 1189x1600, 1189:1600, Dr-Seuss-models-some-chara….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8116
I just want to point out that Trump won the election.


Edit: holy shit im almost Sleepy Joe!  What a great result.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]