Re: Biden Takes Georgia; Violence on Horizon
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:42 am
Knowingly wasting the time of the court with phony lawsuits to please a deranged Trump should carry a penalty.
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
That is my point regarding the Lincoln Project's campaign to cancel lawyers they deem as unworthy. Representing the unpopular with certain crowds has its downside. I guess this firm didn't want to face the repercussions the Lincoln Project threatened. Maybe this is a way to defeat the election challenge, threaten social and economic ostracizing?Gunnar wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:00 pmI think it extremely likely that the firm knew from the start that the position was frivolous, but they couldn't resist the opportunity to enrich themselves by humoring Trump and his cronies. As long as Trump is willing to pay them handsomely to file frivolous lawsuits on his behalf, they are content to profit from his narcissism and self delusion as long as they can get away with it, or until they realized that the cost to their ethical reputation is more than they are willing to pay. I am convinced that at least some of the lawyers representing Trump merely unethical opportunists who are eagerly and unethically taking deliberate advantage of Trump's glaring deficiencies and incompetence as long as they can, with little or no regard to how much this will damage our democracy.
Perhaps the left-right paradigm doesn't fit well here? Neocons haven't liked Trump much and the LP is part of that faction. https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/31 ... s-to-come/canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:30 pmDoctor,Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:15 pm
Maybe there is something to the cancel culture angle? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tru ... l-campaign
Why does the Lincoln Project feel it is necessary to attack the lawyers? It will only fuel right-wing conspiracy theories. I thought the idea was to accept the results and supposedly come together. Trump should be allowed to be Trump and make his claims. Assuming they fail, perhaps that will show the Trump faithful that their faith is misplaced? Perhaps that will aid the people in coming together? However, seeking to cancel the lawyers will only raise questions as to why that was even necessary when the claims were supposedly so weak?
If I remember correctly, the LP - while certainly lauded by many on the Democratic side of the voting aisle during this election - is composed of rather well-known Republicans of long standing. Given this, just who should receive the blowback from their action?
It's a mistake to conflate any social ostracizing with the real problem of engaging in shady legal behavior that is sanctionable by the courts. The former can come with the latter but the latter is enough on it's own to have serious weight.Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:48 pmThat is my point regarding the Lincoln Project's campaign to cancel lawyers they deem as unworthy. Representing the unpopular with certain crowds has its downside. I guess this firm didn't want to face the repercussions the Lincoln Project threatened. Maybe this is a way to defeat the election challenge, threaten social and economic ostracizing?Gunnar wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:00 pm
I think it extremely likely that the firm knew from the start that the position was frivolous, but they couldn't resist the opportunity to enrich themselves by humoring Trump and his cronies. As long as Trump is willing to pay them handsomely to file frivolous lawsuits on his behalf, they are content to profit from his narcissism and self delusion as long as they can get away with it, or until they realized that the cost to their ethical reputation is more than they are willing to pay. I am convinced that at least some of the lawyers representing Trump merely unethical opportunists who are eagerly and unethically taking deliberate advantage of Trump's glaring deficiencies and incompetence as long as they can, with little or no regard to how much this will damage our democracy.
I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?
I'm not sure how much voter fraud is actually punished. Is it one of those deals where if you don't own property, already have a criminal record, already have bad credit, there isn't much the law can do to you anyway? If not, even prosecuting those who are caught committing voter fraud and punishing them could have a really bad effect on the next election for the side that benefits from such voter fraud even if not nearly enough voter fraud is proven to change the results of the current election.I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?
Your are clinging to a delusion that leads you to fear and hate. You can let go by recognizing that voter fraud is generally committed by scattered individuals who identify with both parties. The people you seem to hate and fear are unlikely to vote, let alone vote fraudulently.ajax18 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:46 pmI'm not sure how much voter fraud is actually punished. Is it one of those deals where if you don't own property, already have a criminal record, already have bad credit, there isn't much the law can do to you anyway? If not, even prosecuting those who are caught committing voter fraud and punishing them could have a really bad effect on the next election for the side that benefits from such voter fraud even if not nearly enough voter fraud is proven to change the results of the current election.I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?
So yeah, it makes sense that the Democrats need to squash this quick to protect their constituents and make sure that enough people are willing to commit voter fraud on their behalf to help them in future elections.
Face the facts. Trump's lawyers took cases to court, alleging all kinds of voter fraud. Judges listened, as they were bound to, and asked where the evidence (or in some cases even the logic) was. Answer came there none that made sense. So the judges threw the cases outajax18 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:46 pmI'm not sure how much voter fraud is actually punished. Is it one of those deals where if you don't own property, already have a criminal record, already have bad credit, there isn't much the law can do to you anyway? If not, even prosecuting those who are caught committing voter fraud and punishing them could have a really bad effect on the next election for the side that benefits from such voter fraud even if not nearly enough voter fraud is proven to change the results of the current election.I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?
So yeah, it makes sense that the Democrats need to squash this quick to protect their constituents and make sure that enough people are willing to commit voter fraud on their behalf to help them in future elections.
Bear in mind that by simply taking a legal position that ultimately loses doesn't automatically mean that sanctions are warranted. Here is the verified complaint filed by the law firm that withdrew:Meadowchik wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:18 pmIt's a mistake to conflate any social ostracizing with the real problem of engaging in shady legal behavior that is sanctionable by the courts. The former can come with the latter but the latter is enough on it's own to have serious weight.Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:48 pm
That is my point regarding the Lincoln Project's campaign to cancel lawyers they deem as unworthy. Representing the unpopular with certain crowds has its downside. I guess this firm didn't want to face the repercussions the Lincoln Project threatened. Maybe this is a way to defeat the election challenge, threaten social and economic ostracizing?
I think it is a bad choice to attack the messenger. Assuming the election contesting arguments are specious, just point that out and the judges will dismiss the cases. That seems to be what is happening so far. It'll be over in a few weeks. Most election contests don't end well anyway. So, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?
Chap
Why can't you just accept that the majority of Americans have never liked having Trump as President, and now they have voted him out? That's democracy, isn't it?