Plan B Forum

Econoline wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:41 pm

Darren wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:49 pm

To everyone else, money talks, bull shit walks.

Who wants to bet Biden will win after the audits/recounts are finished and lawsuits are settled?

I'm in for any amount up to $100. Don't be bashful people.

Okay, I'm in for $100, payable to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Clinton joined the Jill Stein recount in Wisconsin.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The Michigan recount was started and quietly dropped.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The Pennsylvania recount that never got going due to legal failings.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The effort to get Electoral College voters to change their votes.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The independent counsel probe plus hearings, plus a full-on mega investigation by nearly every media source, which all came up with nothing substantive (other than the general incompetence we already knew about). The go-nowhere impeachment show. The 25th Amendment blather (expect to see that one trotted out for Biden, btw). These were all long shots and publicity stunts. But it was the sentiment of rank and file Democrats that I am referring to. I personally know many smart Democrats who thought each of these offered viable chances to overturn the election. Research shows that over the last few election cycles if a voter's candidate won, they have more confidence the voting was legit; if their candidate lost, they have less confidence the voting was legit. The W or L has much more bearing than the R or D.

Darren wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:13 pm

Have I not acknowledged any bets including that Trump takes Pennsylvania?

Econoline wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:56 pm

Darren wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:13 pm

Have I not acknowledged any bets including that Trump takes Pennsylvania?

When you made that comment I asked if you were offering an additional, separate bet on the Pennsylvania outcome but you didn't reply. I guess it's too late now, and anyway I would feel guilty about taking any more of your money at this point (even though Planned Parenthood or 350.org probably could use an extra $100 ).



ETA: what Sue said.^^^^^

Sue U wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:20 pm

And now the only thing Trump and the GOP have learned is that there are no consequences for attacking and undermining the principles and institutions of American democracy.

Sue U wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:20 pm

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Clinton joined the Jill Stein recount in Wisconsin.

After Stein filed, with the Clinton campaign explicitly saying they would not have sought a recount themselves because there was no evidence hacking, fraud or other interference.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The Michigan recount was started and quietly dropped.

Again, this was not Clinton and the Democrats but Stein, and it wasn't "quietly dropped." Stein lost a lawsuit brought by the GOP to stop the recount, arguing she did not qualify as an "aggrieved party" under Michigan law because she only got 1% of the vote.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The Pennsylvania recount that never got going due to legal failings.

And again, this was Stein, not Clinton and the Democrats. Stein filed suit in federal court to force a recount because she missed the deadline to request one through the Commonwealth's administrative process. EDPA tossed the suit.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The effort to get Electoral College voters to change their votes.

There was no such "effort," only media speculation whether this could even be a thing.

So no, unlike what we are now seeing from Trump and the GOP, there was in fact absolutely no whining feet-stamping hissy fit by Clinton and the Democrats in the wake of "losing" an election by 77,000 votes in three states that tipped the Electoral College, while winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million. And again, here Trump has lost the popular vote by more than 6 million this time and lost PA, MI and WI by well over 200,000.

Long Run wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:20 pm

The independent counsel probe plus hearings, plus a full-on mega investigation by nearly every media source, which all came up with nothing substantive (other than the general incompetence we already knew about). The go-nowhere impeachment show. The 25th Amendment blather (expect to see that one trotted out for Biden, btw). These were all long shots and publicity stunts. But it was the sentiment of rank and file Democrats that I am referring to. I personally know many smart Democrats who thought each of these offered viable chances to overturn the election. Research shows that over the last few election cycles if a voter's candidate won, they have more confidence the voting was legit; if their candidate lost, they have less confidence the voting was legit. The W or L has much more bearing than the R or D.

If there was "nothing to see here," why did so many of Trump's campaign associates end up in the pokey? And do you seriously have any doubt that if Obama had abused his office the way Trump has that he wouldn't have been impeached AND convicted by an outraged Republican Congress? Trump didn't avoid conviction because he was "innocent," he avoided conviction because the jury refused to look at the evidence and instead decided it would tie its political fortunes to Trump. Despite the Trumpist spin, impeachment was not merely an attempt to "overturn the election," but it was an effort to force some accountability for gross abuses of power. And now the only thing Trump and the GOP have learned is that there are no consequences for attacking and undermining the principles and institutions of American democracy.

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, andeverywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants' motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

Sue U wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:32 am

Oh and J Brann is just getting started here (34 more pages plus an Order to GFY.)

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:53 am

Since I assume that 'GFY' is text-speak for "Go F*** Yourself", I'd love to see the actual ruling if for no other reason than to know just what the precise format and legal terms are required in such a document/court order to make it legally binding.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:27 am

That's the closest one can get in judgespeak to saying:

1. Why the fuck did you make me waste my time with this steaming pile of bullshit?

2. You're an asshole for doing so.

3. Go fuck yourself.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:32 pm

Yeah, no, not how it works, but I understand that you need to hold onto the dream.