An opinion of a journalist supporter. Poor strategy.
(Summary in my words)
An opinion of a journalist supporter. Poor strategy.
Trump was right to pursue his claims. The question is should he have backed off at some point?
Court after court refused to hear evidence, and, then, the Supreme Court refused to take the Texas case. After that maybe the revised case and others could be heard, but too late -it is possible to imagine the case being accepted but it is not possible at that stage to imagine a remedy being allowed.
The SCOTUS is understood to be conscious that if anything were to occur that would overturn the putative result, all hell would break out, the likes of which would put this year's BLM riots in the shade. Cowardice- yes, abnegation of duty- yes, but there it is.
The opinion given is that at the point when the court refused to hear the Texas case, Trump should have realized it was over. Then without conceding, kept a low profile.
Reader's comments-
A suggestion that is what perhaps he did? Any 'mature and measured' careful dignified behavior would not have been reported.
Another comment, the refusal view has some validity.
My thoughts-
Are there good arguments for lack of standing?
The letter from the military chiefs seems to be over the top, deliberately? It contradicts other opinions about the military. Were those the Obama appointees?
The Italian connection, looks credible to me but it comes too late for a court to do anything (if they would even look at it).
Biden's (or whoever) selections: Janet Yellin, mainstream more of the same, several others are real scary! Not the LBJ, Carter, Bush, Clinton types, beyond Obama. Big business is sucking up big time having made a judgement on that need.
If this were a tragedy from Ancient Greece we now await the Deus ex machina to sort it out.
An opinion of a journalist supporter. Poor strategy.
Trump was right to pursue his claims. The question is should he have backed off at some point?
Court after court refused to hear evidence, and, then, the Supreme Court refused to take the Texas case. After that maybe the revised case and others could be heard, but too late -it is possible to imagine the case being accepted but it is not possible at that stage to imagine a remedy being allowed.
The SCOTUS is understood to be conscious that if anything were to occur that would overturn the putative result, all hell would break out, the likes of which would put this year's BLM riots in the shade. Cowardice- yes, abnegation of duty- yes, but there it is.
The opinion given is that at the point when the court refused to hear the Texas case, Trump should have realized it was over. Then without conceding, kept a low profile.
Reader's comments-
A suggestion that is what perhaps he did? Any 'mature and measured' careful dignified behavior would not have been reported.
Another comment, the refusal view has some validity.
My thoughts-
Are there good arguments for lack of standing?
The letter from the military chiefs seems to be over the top, deliberately? It contradicts other opinions about the military. Were those the Obama appointees?
The Italian connection, looks credible to me but it comes too late for a court to do anything (if they would even look at it).
Biden's (or whoever) selections: Janet Yellin, mainstream more of the same, several others are real scary! Not the LBJ, Carter, Bush, Clinton types, beyond Obama. Big business is sucking up big time having made a judgement on that need.
If this were a tragedy from Ancient Greece we now await the Deus ex machina to sort it out.
Voting by mail - I do it all the time for motor clubs and such, the security is adequate for the purpose. For US states, security varies, I understand. There is often a difference between 'absentee' and 'mail-in' voting with absentee voting rules being quite strict. We have seen how the mail-in rules are malleable to the point of uselessness.
This kind of vote is necessary for people in hospital, military, remote location workers and such, should be done right. National rules? I'd say at least national standards.
It was rejected on the basis that Texas (and other states) had no standing to challenge the results of another state. It didn't have anything to do with the validity of the underlying concerns
The battle was really lost when the Court refused to interfere in the changing of the election rules to grease the skids for the flood of absentee ballots. Once ballots get put into the pile, you are pretty much doomed. There are no good answers even if you prove fraud so no one even wanted to look at it.
Best analysis of that case was a political cartoon showing the Supreme Court with three donkeys, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Coney-Barrett, and three chickens.
“Your PHP Installation Appears to Be Missing the MySQL Extension Which Is Required by WordPress”
Comment on your summary:
The courts are corrupt. The state governments involved are corrupt. The con-gress is corrupt. The Just-Us bureaucracy is corrupt.
Trump's people had to file all the cases to make that corruption obvious and to get the evidence out to those who care about fair elections.
It's now obvious and the solution to it has not been implemented ... yet.
I take WilliamS point, but in my naive view a sensible court, in view of the importance of the issue, would lean towards hearing the case, few require the use of technicalities, the public mostly would want hearing, discussion, yes or no, and remedy. Refusing to hear is 'too easy'.
-Do the job you are appointed, and paid, to do.
So from the view of the article, what should Trump have done?
I like your "...yet". Work in progress?
It won't happen unless Trump takes control via the military, which is the proper action, imo.
The Democrats made the US into a banana republic. Time to use the military to fix the corruption. Its that or secession for half the population..
The question has to be not if, but when a revolution occurs, and what form it will take. Normally, after the voters realize what hell they've brought upon themselves, the miscreants are voted out, but now that fraudulent voting is the norm, I don't think that will happen. The fraud will be even more obvious, but no one will have the cojones to throw the bastards out next election. As our quality of life descends into the gutter, the question will be whether or not there are enough with the courage to right the ship of state. If just the threat of violence (which was what drove the SCOTUS to duck their responsibilities) is sufficient to cow most of us, will there be enough willing to risk the persecution that is obviously coming?
We see people already being destroyed, with their lives torn apart for their political beliefs. The crazies are in charge, and they smell blood. In the end it may take the actual spilling of their blood to end the coming disaster.
My current favorite appointment is the appointee for the civil rights under the justice dept.
She has written an essay on how blacks are stronger, physically, mentally and spiritually (whatever that means) than whites, who are melanin-deficient.
Now, if this were true, or, more to the point,
if she really believes it to be true, then you would expect her to start affirmative action etc. to favor white people who are weaker, no?
I am looking forward to a nice sinecure for being white...
I can see several possible reforms to avoid it happening again. One way would be a new Voting Rights Act which would impose uniform federal requirements that ID be required, that all votes be auditable, that absentee voting be restricted and ballot harvesting banned, and most importantly that election day be early enough so that there is time for a full forensic audit of an election before inauguration day, and give every candidate standing to demand enforcement of all these things. (Yes, Congress does have these powers, in Article I, Section 4.) And allow private prosecution so that a successful cheater cannot prevent prosecutions of those who did it.
But to get these reforms in place we'll need another honest administration first. And I'm not sure we'll ever see one again in my lifetime.
Opposition to ID, I cannot see any explanation for this except a desire for damage.
Quadrant is one of my fav daily sites, stodgy, conservative, a bit too religious sometimes, I hope it is not another target.
-There are too many scares going round, I do not need to do it to myself..