Republicans claim some Georgia ballots arrived too late Looks like there is some validity to this claim and is being picked up by canadian news.
No, there is no validity to this claim. Even your own link/source said, "Republicans ALLEGES." I can give you one simple, straightforward reason why here is zero validity to the claim, and a great defense Democrats can use in court:
"Post offices across Georgia close at 5PM. Postmen have already gotten off work and do not deliver mails after 5PM."
If a postman delivered those mail-in ballots before 5PM, but the people at the polling place did not put those delivered mails into the voting basket until 7PM... those mail-in ballots still arrived at the polling place before 7PM.
Seems to me that Trump and his dumb lawyers are just pulling whatever they can out of their arses out of desperation.
Republicans claim some Georgia ballots arrived too late Looks like there is some validity to this claim and is being picked up by canadian news.
No, there is no validity to this claim. Even your own link/source said, "Republicans ALLEGES." I can give you one simple, straightforward reason why here is zero validity to the claim, and a great defense Democrats can use in court:
"Post offices across Georgia close at 5PM. Postmen have already gotten off work and do not deliver mails after 5PM."
If a postman delivered those mail-in ballots before 5PM, but the people at the polling place did not put those delivered mails into the voting basket until 7PM... those mail-in ballots still arrived at the polling place before 7PM.
Seems to me that Trump and his dumb lawyers are just pulling whatever they can out of their arses out of desperation.
Ballots are also allowed to be put into drop boxes up to 7pm (the boxes are locked at that point to prevent any more being posted) - and would then be delivered after that to the count. I'm sure there are some Republicans alleging that such ballots should not be counted, but I don't think anyone without a partisan interest would agree.
Well when you falsely claim to your followers that mail in ballots are ripe with fraud, chances are there aren’t going to be that many mail-in ballots with your name on it.
He thought he could stop them from being counted, but really didn’t have a concrete plan to do so especially after the Supreme Court said they won’t look at the matter until after the ballots started to be counted.
Well when you falsely claim to your followers that mail in ballots are ripe with fraud, chances are there aren’t going to be that many mail-in ballots with your name on it.
He thought he could stop them from being counted, but really didn’t have a concrete plan to do so especially after the Supreme Court said they won’t look at the matter until after the ballots started to be counted.
He really did seal his own fate with this one. Even in DEEP RED counties in PA, the mail in ballots are almost 70% Biden. And that is all that is left to count. And the only reason it is taking so long is because the Republican legislature INSISTED mail-in ballots be counted last. If they had been counted early, this race would have been called Tuesday night, and we wouldn't even be discussing it at this hour.
There is also a WORLD of difference between the rhetoric you are seeing Trump surrogates spout in press conferences outside vote counting sites, and what you are seeing in their actual legal filings. Because the lawyers presenting them aren't interested in presenting obviously false claims to a judge, because there are consequences for doing so.
@_Nightfall_ "You don't know them, judging comes easy doesn't it?"
You're not the only one who grew up in and around farms. I know these people very well, they are literally my family.
"Then why do they need you? Why should they adhere to your rules? Could America be great if not for the working class? Who is mining your coal? Who has the timber? Who has the natural resourses that those populated places could not live without? You care about gas prices? There is a redneck working that makes your fuel prices lower."
And I imagine you have some legislation ready to go that was put forward by city people that harms, or even simply doesn't help, rural communities? People talk about how city people deserve less of the vote on the pretense that they would somehow harm rural communities. But I've never seen a single example. In fact, I see the opposite. Why has my wife struggled to get disability? Why can we no longer afford medication? Not because city people are voting for Americans to have less, that's for sure.
Numbers are looking better and better for Biden in Georgia. He also just nearly doubled his lead in NV (7k to 12k).
PA remains on course to be a Biden pick up by Friday or earlier. A Trump lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed this morning. I think things are starting to wind down as all the numbers are coming out to give Biden an edge he wont lose.
Numbers are looking better and better for Biden in Georgia. He also just nearly doubled his lead in NV (7k to 12k).
PA remains on course to be a Biden pick up by Friday or earlier. A Trump lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed this morning. I think things are starting to wind down as all the numbers are coming out to give Biden an edge he wont lose.
Numbers are looking better and better for Biden in Georgia. He also just nearly doubled his lead in NV (7k to 12k).
PA remains on course to be a Biden pick up by Friday or earlier. A Trump lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed this morning. I think things are starting to wind down as all the numbers are coming out to give Biden an edge he wont lose.
Hopefully Biden wins by a clear couple of states to reduce the risk of foul play
By the President right. Crazy that is where we are we gotta worry about foul play by the sitting President.
Ralston in Nevada is saying it is now almost certainly going to Biden, as it is almost all Clark County. GA may be a recount, but Biden SHOULD pull it out. No serious analyst has anything but total confidence in a eventual Biden victory in PA by at least 100,000 votes. AZ may be closer than anticipated, we just don't know where those outstanding votes are. Regardless, unless something INCREDIBLY weird happens in PA, this thing isn't going to end up having been close at all. Either in the popular vote OR the Electoral College.
All Trump seems capable of doing is tweeting "stop counting votes" in all caps and sending his remaining loyalists to spout conspiracy theories at reporters. They are TRYING to do something about it, but it's a completely impotent effort.
What's more, is it is now certain that control of the Senate will be up for grabs in Georgia in December. It is a steep climb for Dems, but the question is, will Trump lift a finger for EITHER GOP candidate as a lame duck??
There's been some discussion last night about the electoral college and how that is weighted against more densely populated areas. I thought it might be worth considering the extent to which that happens.
The constitution sets out 3 main forms of representation - for the House, the Senate and the electoral college.
- of those, the one which is most obviously intended to significantly over-represent sparsely populated areas is the Senate - where representation is equal between states regardless of population.
I just want to dispel some myths that I think are in this post. The Senate was not built to defend "sparsely populated" states. It was built to defend the interests of small states. Rhode Island was not sparsely populated, it was merely small. This "sparsely populated" argument is a modern conservative retconning of the arguments the founders used.
Moreover, it's not actually true that many of the founders thought there was a real democratic norm behind the disproportionate representation of the Senate (and thus also of the Electoral College). In fact several of the founders made passionate arguments at the time against it. This is a useful essay that explores that: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/minority-rule-not-in-the-constitution.html
Ben Franklin, as quoted there: "The Interest of a State is made up of the interests of its individual members. If they are not injured, the State is not injured."
The lesser-known James Wilson: "Equality of votes among the States will subject the majority of the People & Property to be governed by a minority of each."
Even James Madison, the Constitution's main author, conceded that the disproportionate representation in the Senate was merely an ad hoc compromise, useful for its time and not defensible by an appeal to "theory", or what we would calls norms: "it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.' "
I'd emphasize the concession to "the peculiarity of our political situation."
Perhaps the Constitution and its Senate have a lesson for the European Union. I don't know. But the EU, as a radically different enterprise imo, does not have a lesson for arguments about modern day representation within a unified state. And that's the US's current peculiar political situation.
There's been some discussion last night about the electoral college and how that is weighted against more densely populated areas. I thought it might be worth considering the extent to which that happens.
The constitution sets out 3 main forms of representation - for the House, the Senate and the electoral college.
- of those, the one which is most obviously intended to significantly over-represent sparsely populated areas is the Senate - where representation is equal between states regardless of population.
I just want to dispel some myths that I think are in this post. The Senate was not built to defend "sparsely populated" states. It was built to defend the interests of small states. Rhode Island was not sparsely populated, it was merely small. This "sparsely populated" argument is a modern conservative retconning of the arguments the founders used.
Moreover, it's not actually true that many of the founders thought there was a real democratic norm behind the disproportionate representation of the Senate (and thus also of the Electoral College). In fact several of the founders made passionate arguments at the time against it. This is a useful essay that explores that: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/minority-rule-not-in-the-constitution.html
Ben Frankly, as quoted there: "The Interest of a State is made up of the interests of its individual members. If they are not injured, the State is not injured."
The lesser-known James Wilson: "Equality of votes among the States will subject the majority of the People & Property to be governed by a minority of each."
Even James Madison, the Constitution's main author, conceded that the disproportionate representation in the Senate was merely an ad hoc compromise, useful for its time and not defensible by an appeal to "theory", or what we would calls norms: "it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.' "
I'd emphasize the concession to "the peculiarity of our political situation."
Perhaps the Constitution and its Senate have a lesson for the European Union. I don't know. But the EU, as a radically different enterprise imo, does not have a lesson for arguments about modern day representation within a unified state. And that's the US's current peculiar political situation.
I'll give you sparsely populated - that was clumsy wording rather than an intended attempt to say that density of population should affect representation.
On the Senate representation, I'm not arguing that there was some deep philosophical insight behind the US constitution that should still guide us today. I think it was an amazing achievement for its time, but it wasn't designed for today's conditions and could absolutely do with updating. However, whether or not some of the Founders didn't like the idea at the time, I think it's unarguable that the method of representation finally agreed in the constitution was deliberately designed to protect small states. I think it's also worth noting that I don't believe the political situation at the birth of the US was unique - and I think the EU does share many of the same features. The desire of both was to bring together a collection of separate entities to form a whole which would have a significant element of control over its constituent parts. The extent of that control is of course much argued over - as is the extent to which smaller entities need to be protected.
You contrast the EU with the US on the grounds that the latter is a "unified state". That's not my perception though. The amount of control the states have within the US seems to me to be consistent with the idea of separate countries operating within an over-arching transnational framework, even if the states are not called countries. I don't have to look as far as the EU for an example of that type of setup. The UK itself is an example of separate countries that have operated within such a framework for hundreds of years. For most of that period the constituent countries have had less control over their own destiny than states in the US, but with the relatively recent extensions of delegated powers I think the non-english countries are now pretty comparable to states in terms of the influence they can wield over their citizens - even if the political frameworks are rather different in nature.
I'll give you sparsely populated - that was clumsy wording rather than an intended attempt to say that density of population should affect representation.
On the Senate representation, I'm not arguing that there was some deep philosophical insight behind the US constitution that should still guide us today. I think it was an amazing achievement for its time, but it wasn't designed for today's conditions and could absolutely do with updating. However, whether or not some of the Founders didn't like the idea at the time, I think it's unarguable that the method of representation finally agreed in the constitution was deliberately designed to protect small states. I think it's also worth noting that I don't believe the political situation at the birth of the US was unique - and I think the EU does share many of the same features. The desire of both was to bring together a collection of separate entities to form a whole which would have a significant element of control over its constituent parts. The extent of that control is of course much argued over - as is the extent to which smaller entities need to be protected.
You contrast the EU with the US on the grounds that the latter is a "unified state". That's not my perception though. The amount of control the states have within the US seems to me to be consistent with the idea of separate countries operating within an over-arching transnational framework, even if the states are not called countries. I don't have to look as far as the EU for an example of that type of setup. The UK itself is an example of separate countries that have operated within such a framework for hundreds of years. For most of that period the constituent countries have had less control over their own destiny than states in the US, but with the relatively recent extensions of delegated powers I think the non-english countries are now pretty comparable to states in terms of the influence they can wield over their citizens - even if the political frameworks are rather different in nature.
The sparsely populated point was not intended to attack you fwiw, but rather a commonplace argumentum ad mappa.
It's important to remember that the Constitution of 1865 is not the Constitution of 1789. The US and its citizens saw themselves in the early period in the way you're describing. The US and its citizens are not that since the Civil War. And there are even other major reforms post Civil War, but that's the key one.
The lunatic is about to speak. He is (in some fashion) trying to do what we always said he would. That he would reject the results and claim it was rigged. The caveat is that he and his team are too buffoonish and have telegraphed their intentions too much to have any real hope of pulling it off. No judges they are bringing their lawsuits to can even understand what the hell they are arguing.
The lunatic is about to speak. He is (in some fashion) trying to do what we always said he would. That he would reject the results and claim it was rigged. The caveat is that he and his team are too buffoonish and have telegraphed their intentions too much to have any real hope of pulling it off. No judges they are bringing their lawsuits to can even understand what the hell they are arguing.
The lunatic is about to speak. He is (in some fashion) trying to do what we always said he would. That he would reject the results and claim it was rigged. The caveat is that he and his team are too buffoonish and have telegraphed their intentions too much to have any real hope of pulling it off. No judges they are bringing their lawsuits to can even understand what the hell they are arguing.
The lunatic is about to speak. He is (in some fashion) trying to do what we always said he would. That he would reject the results and claim it was rigged. The caveat is that he and his team are too buffoonish and have telegraphed their intentions too much to have any real hope of pulling it off. No judges they are bringing their lawsuits to can even understand what the hell they are arguing.
The lunatic is about to speak. He is (in some fashion) trying to do what we always said he would. That he would reject the results and claim it was rigged. The caveat is that he and his team are too buffoonish and have telegraphed their intentions too much to have any real hope of pulling it off. No judges they are bringing their lawsuits to can even understand what the hell they are arguing.
See twitter is shutting him up, so he is using the one platform he can to spread his BS. Except the press is going to fact check everything he says. Train wreck.
See twitter is shutting him up, so he is using the one platform he can to spread his BS. Except the press is going to fact check everything he says. Train wreck.
Like you said earlier, tells his supporters for months that mail-in votes are fraudulent and not to trust them, wonders why mail-in ballots are causing him to lose. I mean, children come up with better excuses than this. I'm not gonna lie, I love seeing him so weak and powerless. Inject this into my veins. What he is doing right now is WHY he lost.
The GOP needs to find their fucking spine and denounce this man now. Last chance.
They will. Even McConnell said every vote should be counted (maybe after he knew he’d secure the Senate, but still).
The Supreme Court owes him nothing. They already got their life time appointments.
Once he loses the election, everyone is going to go back to being Never Trumpers in 48hrs after Biden is sworn in and complaining about the Deficit and what Biden is going to do to fix it.
Rick Santorum (who I despise) just said on CNN Republican leaders need to tell him what needs to be said. As a former PA Senator, he knows full-well Trump has no shot in the state at this stage.
Rick Santorum (who I despise) just said on CNN Republican leaders need to tell him what needs to be said. As a former PA Senator, he knows full-well Trump has no shot in the state at this stage.
Rick Santorum (who I despise) just said on CNN Republican leaders need to tell him what needs to be said. As a former PA Senator, he knows full-well Trump has no shot in the state at this stage.
Santorum even called him out when he prematurely declared victory on the night of the election. So did Christie. They know he isn't the party anymore. They're moving on.
Comments
No, there is no validity to this claim. Even your own link/source said, "Republicans ALLEGES." I can give you one simple, straightforward reason why here is zero validity to the claim, and a great defense Democrats can use in court:
"Post offices across Georgia close at 5PM. Postmen have already gotten off work and do not deliver mails after 5PM."
If a postman delivered those mail-in ballots before 5PM, but the people at the polling place did not put those delivered mails into the voting basket until 7PM... those mail-in ballots still arrived at the polling place before 7PM.
Seems to me that Trump and his dumb lawyers are just pulling whatever they can out of their arses out of desperation.
Ballots are also allowed to be put into drop boxes up to 7pm (the boxes are locked at that point to prevent any more being posted) - and would then be delivered after that to the count. I'm sure there are some Republicans alleging that such ballots should not be counted, but I don't think anyone without a partisan interest would agree.
Well when you falsely claim to your followers that mail in ballots are ripe with fraud, chances are there aren’t going to be that many mail-in ballots with your name on it.
He thought he could stop them from being counted, but really didn’t have a concrete plan to do so especially after the Supreme Court said they won’t look at the matter until after the ballots started to be counted.
He really did seal his own fate with this one. Even in DEEP RED counties in PA, the mail in ballots are almost 70% Biden. And that is all that is left to count. And the only reason it is taking so long is because the Republican legislature INSISTED mail-in ballots be counted last. If they had been counted early, this race would have been called Tuesday night, and we wouldn't even be discussing it at this hour.
There is also a WORLD of difference between the rhetoric you are seeing Trump surrogates spout in press conferences outside vote counting sites, and what you are seeing in their actual legal filings. Because the lawyers presenting them aren't interested in presenting obviously false claims to a judge, because there are consequences for doing so.
You're not the only one who grew up in and around farms. I know these people very well, they are literally my family.
"Then why do they need you? Why should they adhere to your rules? Could America be great if not for the working class? Who is mining your coal? Who has the timber? Who has the natural resourses that those populated places could not live without? You care about gas prices? There is a redneck working that makes your fuel prices lower."
And I imagine you have some legislation ready to go that was put forward by city people that harms, or even simply doesn't help, rural communities? People talk about how city people deserve less of the vote on the pretense that they would somehow harm rural communities. But I've never seen a single example. In fact, I see the opposite. Why has my wife struggled to get disability? Why can we no longer afford medication? Not because city people are voting for Americans to have less, that's for sure.
PA remains on course to be a Biden pick up by Friday or earlier. A Trump lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed this morning. I think things are starting to wind down as all the numbers are coming out to give Biden an edge he wont lose.
How much more is left to count in NV?
By the President right. Crazy that is where we are we gotta worry about foul play by the sitting President.
Ralston in Nevada is saying it is now almost certainly going to Biden, as it is almost all Clark County. GA may be a recount, but Biden SHOULD pull it out. No serious analyst has anything but total confidence in a eventual Biden victory in PA by at least 100,000 votes. AZ may be closer than anticipated, we just don't know where those outstanding votes are. Regardless, unless something INCREDIBLY weird happens in PA, this thing isn't going to end up having been close at all. Either in the popular vote OR the Electoral College.
All Trump seems capable of doing is tweeting "stop counting votes" in all caps and sending his remaining loyalists to spout conspiracy theories at reporters. They are TRYING to do something about it, but it's a completely impotent effort.
What's more, is it is now certain that control of the Senate will be up for grabs in Georgia in December. It is a steep climb for Dems, but the question is, will Trump lift a finger for EITHER GOP candidate as a lame duck??
LMAO.....absolute clown show to the end:
I just want to dispel some myths that I think are in this post. The Senate was not built to defend "sparsely populated" states. It was built to defend the interests of small states. Rhode Island was not sparsely populated, it was merely small. This "sparsely populated" argument is a modern conservative retconning of the arguments the founders used.
Moreover, it's not actually true that many of the founders thought there was a real democratic norm behind the disproportionate representation of the Senate (and thus also of the Electoral College). In fact several of the founders made passionate arguments at the time against it. This is a useful essay that explores that: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/minority-rule-not-in-the-constitution.html
Ben Franklin, as quoted there: "The Interest of a State is made up of the interests of its individual members. If they are not injured, the State is not injured."
The lesser-known James Wilson: "Equality of votes among the States will subject the majority of the People & Property to be governed by a minority of each."
Even James Madison, the Constitution's main author, conceded that the disproportionate representation in the Senate was merely an ad hoc compromise, useful for its time and not defensible by an appeal to "theory", or what we would calls norms: "it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.' "
I'd emphasize the concession to "the peculiarity of our political situation."
Perhaps the Constitution and its Senate have a lesson for the European Union. I don't know. But the EU, as a radically different enterprise imo, does not have a lesson for arguments about modern day representation within a unified state. And that's the US's current peculiar political situation.
I'll give you sparsely populated - that was clumsy wording rather than an intended attempt to say that density of population should affect representation.
On the Senate representation, I'm not arguing that there was some deep philosophical insight behind the US constitution that should still guide us today. I think it was an amazing achievement for its time, but it wasn't designed for today's conditions and could absolutely do with updating. However, whether or not some of the Founders didn't like the idea at the time, I think it's unarguable that the method of representation finally agreed in the constitution was deliberately designed to protect small states. I think it's also worth noting that I don't believe the political situation at the birth of the US was unique - and I think the EU does share many of the same features. The desire of both was to bring together a collection of separate entities to form a whole which would have a significant element of control over its constituent parts. The extent of that control is of course much argued over - as is the extent to which smaller entities need to be protected.
You contrast the EU with the US on the grounds that the latter is a "unified state". That's not my perception though. The amount of control the states have within the US seems to me to be consistent with the idea of separate countries operating within an over-arching transnational framework, even if the states are not called countries. I don't have to look as far as the EU for an example of that type of setup. The UK itself is an example of separate countries that have operated within such a framework for hundreds of years. For most of that period the constituent countries have had less control over their own destiny than states in the US, but with the relatively recent extensions of delegated powers I think the non-english countries are now pretty comparable to states in terms of the influence they can wield over their citizens - even if the political frameworks are rather different in nature.
The sparsely populated point was not intended to attack you fwiw, but rather a commonplace argumentum ad mappa.
It's important to remember that the Constitution of 1865 is not the Constitution of 1789. The US and its citizens saw themselves in the early period in the way you're describing. The US and its citizens are not that since the Civil War. And there are even other major reforms post Civil War, but that's the key one.
I’m surprised he hasn’t raged about it yet.
*grabs some popcorn*
https://www.c-span.org/video/?477858-1/president-trump-news-conference
This absolute fucking loser. Just pathetic. And I've only watched 2 minutes:
Now claiming polls are "election interference". Jesus jumped up Christ.
you're missing out!
I'm still with it.
Like you said earlier, tells his supporters for months that mail-in votes are fraudulent and not to trust them, wonders why mail-in ballots are causing him to lose. I mean, children come up with better excuses than this. I'm not gonna lie, I love seeing him so weak and powerless. Inject this into my veins. What he is doing right now is WHY he lost.
They will. Even McConnell said every vote should be counted (maybe after he knew he’d secure the Senate, but still).
The Supreme Court owes him nothing. They already got their life time appointments.
Once he loses the election, everyone is going to go back to being Never Trumpers in 48hrs after Biden is sworn in and complaining about the Deficit and what Biden is going to do to fix it.
Santorum even called him out when he prematurely declared victory on the night of the election. So did Christie. They know he isn't the party anymore. They're moving on.
Watch for Ivanka in 2028 though...