2020 Political Chatter

[bking]

Wow.
Someone should turn the lights on in here. Way too dark.

[Corso]

"Pet." A domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure. Hmm.

Lest anyone feel their insides stirring with righteous indignation, let's just establish that Mrs. Trump #3 has earned every bit of scorn that is tossed her way. "I really don't care. Do u?"

No, it's not established. It's only your opinion.

The hatred put forward on this forum is simply amazing. It used to be a nice place to visit, now it's simply a ball of hate. All coming from so called "Progressives".

[j44ke]

I'm going to agree with several posters here that the dialogue has trickled onto the dark side of things. And it shows, I think, in the paucity of threads appearing elsewhere on the forum.

Part of this is covid fatigue. But the rest...

There is a way forward that may not reveal itself if everyone gets locked into anger mode. But it is necessary.

If you are only coming here to participate in the political threads, then you need to go ride your bike.

[Matthew Strongin]

I'm going to agree with several posters here that the dialogue has trickled onto the dark side of things. And it shows, I think, in the paucity of threads appearing elsewhere on the forum.

Part of this is covid fatigue. But the rest...

There is a way forward that may not reveal itself if everyone gets locked into anger mode. But it is necessary.

If you are only coming here to participate in the political threads, then you need to go ride your bike.

Jorn is doing a lot of (probably all of) the heavy lifting here lately. And he's spot on. If you're here only to talk politics, I'd also recommend some time outside in the fresh air, maybe enough to kindle your love of bikes and help keep the heart of this forum interesting. These politics threads are tolerated because they're like chatting about current events with buds on a ride. But when things get heated it's probably time for someone to drop the hammer and focus on bikes. Let's keep it civil, folks.

[BBB]

Dude - You just called the Presidents wife a "pet" a few post above. You comparing the First Lady to an animal is odd, in the context of your post quoted.

I disagree. My post that you quoted represents (hopefully) and sensible approach to a vexing issue as well as expressing my concern at the notion that it is okay to take the law into your own hands. That's not inconsistent with a satirical poke at the relationship between Mr and Mrs Trump (younger trophy wife and older wealthy husband).

[ides1056]

I went for a ride in Hawley State Forest. Snow fell, and quiet gathered in the trees. Stopping every now and then I breathed in peace, total and complete. The trail was demanding enough to require my full attention. The world was far.

NPR had a piece on when I drove home about the pressure being exerted on the Secretary of State in Georgia to compromise the voting process, which he has adamantly refused to do. An upright man in a bit of a shit storm.

One thing I have learned is what a friend is: a person who brings out the best in you. For the life of me I don't know why 70 million people voted for a person who does the opposite.

I have friends who voted for Trump. I talked with one last night. His wife is in the hospital again. He's confused about the new lockdowns, what the future will be. i got the impression he wasn't sober. We ended the call by each telling the other that they were loved.

So it is. Complicated.

[bcm119]

Here we go. Wayne county MI (Detroit) just failed to certify the election results. A couple of local yokels on the county election board just decided, nah, we're not certifying. Without Wayne County, Trump would win MI. Apparently if the county board punts, it goes to the state to certify.

The state board of canvassers is composed of 2 dems and 2 repubs. Whether MI is certified or sabotaged is in the hands of those 4 people. One of the republicans appears from social media to be a conspiracy theorist in Trump's camp.

[jimcav]

Here we go. Wayne county MI (Detroit) just failed to certify the election results. A couple of local yokels on the county election board just decided, nah, we're not certifying. Without Wayne County, Trump would win MI. Apparently if the county board punts, it goes to the state to certify.

The state board of canvassers is composed of 2 dems and 2 repubs. Whether MI is certified or sabotaged is in the hands of those 4 people. One of the republicans appears from social media to be a conspiracy theorist in Trump's camp.

it is now being reported that they checked the "evidence" and then voted again, 4-0 to certify

[bcm119]

it is now being reported that they checked the "evidence" and then voted again, 4-0 to certify

Thank you. My blood pressure just dropped back to healthy levels.

[Marvinlungwitz]

Anyone one else find the refusal of other Republicans to “concede” and admit they lost bizarre?

Especially the one from IL who actually went to the orientation for freshmen representatives.

Like COVID, it seems to be contagious.

[j44ke]

This is all about the two Senate races in Georgia. If they concede, they are worried that Trump voters won’t show up for the runoff election in January. They need Trump voters to stay engaged just a bit longer. However it still looks like they may have a turnout problem. Democrats on the other hand do not.

[HorsCat]

This is all about the two Senate races in Georgia. If they concede, they are worried that Trump voters won’t show up for the runoff election in January. They need Trump voters to stay engaged just a bit longer. However it still looks like they may have a turnout problem. Democrats on the other hand do not.

It would be great if Ds could eke out a victory in at least one race but I don't see it happening. Rs who voted for Biden over Trump are still more likely to support the R Senate candidates and if the plethora of Trump signs still dotting the Georgia landscape - rural and urban - are any indication, engagement is still high. Georgia may turn reliably blue, or at least be reliably in play, at some point in the future, but for now it is a red state through and through. I hope I'm wrong.

[fastupslowdown]

The silliness of Trump's legal challenges was fully borne out yesterday when Rudy got permission to serve as pro hac legal counsel. He hadn't been in a court room in 28 years. He's asking for $20,000 a day. He didn't argue his complaint. He didn't stick to the facts or know the law. It was a fakakte performance. Rudy just engaged in conspiracy theories not tied to his case and none of which was supported by facts or proved anything. The judge struggled to rein him in. Opposing lawyer Mark Aronchick was angry but did a great job refuting. The record on the Trump side is like 1 for 25. they keep introducing more lawsuits while even more get withdrawn or denied. I was following Rudy and Aronchick on twitter yesterday and while it was funy it was also painful -Mike G

[Saab2000]

The silliness of Trump's legal challenges was fully borne out yesterday when Rudy got permission to serve as pro hac legal counsel. He hadn't been in a court room in 28 years. He's asking for $20,000 a day. He didn't argue his complaint. He didn't stick to the facts or know the law. It was a fakakte performance. Rudy just engaged in conspiracy theories not tied to his case and none of which was supported by facts or proved anything. The judge struggled to rein him in. Opposing lawyer Mark Aronchick was angry but did a great job refuting. The record on the Trump side is like 1 for 25. they keep introducing more lawsuits while even more get withdrawn or denied. I was following Rudy and Aronchick on twitter yesterday and while it was funy it was also painful -Mike G

So what does the judge do? Dismiss? I don't know anything about court rooms or proceedings or lawsuits but I'm pretty sure most judges don't like the court's time wasted.

Are there any attorneys in the house who can speak to how this process would work? It seems to me that they're trying to get one thing to stick to kick it up to the SCOTUS.

[vertical_doug]

The silliness of Trump's legal challenges was fully borne out yesterday when Rudy got permission to serve as pro hac legal counsel. He hadn't been in a court room in 28 years. He's asking for $20,000 a day. He didn't argue his complaint. He didn't stick to the facts or know the law. It was a fakakte performance. Rudy just engaged in conspiracy theories not tied to his case and none of which was supported by facts or proved anything. The judge struggled to rein him in. Opposing lawyer Mark Aronchick was angry but did a great job refuting. The record on the Trump side is like 1 for 25. they keep introducing more lawsuits while even more get withdrawn or denied. I was following Rudy and Aronchick on twitter yesterday and while it was funy it was also painful -Mike G

Just remember the Golden Rule of Trump- if you get caught in a lie, just lie bigger

[monadnocky]

I can remember Giuliani giving a (paid) lecture at the university I was attending for my Master's degree - this would have been 2005-ish. At the time I was certainly aware of some controversies surrounding his policies (the "broken windows" stuff and all that) and I thought that, frankly, the whole "America's Mayor" thing from 9/11 was kind of overstated (any other public servant would have, most likely, done the same thing - that is, carry out the responsibilities of the office, although I'm certainly not being critical of him here).

I recall that he was relatively articulate (realizing, of course, that he had probably given the same foreign-policy type speech in about 67 other colleges and universities that year and was making serious bank from doing so) and was able to equally articulately answer questions from the audience afterwards. He was relatively interesting to listen to at best, inoffensive at worst.

What the hell happened?

My brother, a lawyer in NYC, assures me that who we see now is exactly who he has always been .... but man, it seems like such a different person compared to the 2005 Giuliani.

Power corrupts blah blah blah I guess.

Edit: Or was the broken windows thing Bloomberg? Can't recall my mayors properly...

[ColonelJLloyd]

Edit: Or was the broken windows thing Bloomberg?

No, you had it right. Though it was not his theory and he was not the first to promote it in NYC as I understand it.

In an effort to reduce my stress over the last month I have upped my recreational intake and, when I do turn on the tube, have been watching Law & Order almost exclusively. It makes sense that there are a lot of references to Giuliani in those late 90s seasons, but I still find them interesting/funny.

That era of L&O was also the farm system for most of the cast of The Wire.

[BBB]

So what does the judge do? Dismiss? I don't know anything about court rooms or proceedings or lawsuits but I'm pretty sure most judges don't like the court's time wasted.

Are there any attorneys in the house who can speak to how this process would work? It seems to me that they're trying to get one thing to stick to kick it up to the SCOTUS.

An advocate coming to court making allegations without evidence would or should be given a dressing down by the Judge with several possible results; matter gets adjourned to enable them to make good their claims but with a warning to not repeat the performance; matter gets dismissed with costs; matter gets dismissed with costs and the advocate possibly gets referred for discipline.

Court rooms are not Twitter and you can't just say what you please. I mean you shouldn't be saying what you please in a leadership position like Trump does, but you certainly can't do it in court.

[Bob Ross]

Court rooms are not Twitter and you can't just say what you please.

Reminds me of this quote from Ian MacDougall's 11/4 op-ed in Propublica:

"A lawsuit without provable facts showing a statutory or constitutional violation is just a tweet with a filing fee"

[Saab2000]

An advocate coming to court making allegations without evidence would or should be given a dressing down by the Judge with several possible results; matter gets adjourned to enable them to make good their claims but with a warning to not repeat the performance; matter gets dismissed with costs; matter gets dismissed with costs and the advocate possibly gets referred for discipline.

Court rooms are not Twitter and you can't just say what you please. I mean you shouldn't be saying what you please in a leadership position like Trump does, but you certainly can't do it in court.

I’d like to hear a response from an actual attorney with actual experience (in a US courtroom) in this kind of lawsuit. What we (cyclists who are not lawyers or judges,at least I am no lawyer or judge) think should happen is not really relevant.

Anyone here ever argue a case in front of a court? It would be instructive to hear of the experience.