Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)

The only Trump property I have ever set foot in is Trump Tower, about 15 years ago, when I took wife to NYC for first time.  She obviously wanted to see Fifth Avenue stores, and there it was, just kind of sitting there, so we went in, in no small part because it was raining.

It has a relatively tiny footprint, so the public areas on the lower floors really aren't that impressive.  Frankly, a lot of NYC office buildings, even some of the bigger and older ones, are like that, compared to Class A buildings in Dallas or Houston.  Trump Tower is probably pretty gaudy in decoration by anyone's standards, for fairly obvious reasons.

BFD.  Fuck Trump.

Oh wait.  I lied.  We did stroll around the Plaza Hotel, which was not then a Trump property.  It is impressive, despite his ownership.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Be careful when ascribing ownership. He has a lot of things under his brand that he does not actually own. Because in reality, most people on this board have a higher net worth than he does.

True enough.  I actually think it was the subject of his first bankruptcy.  I think, though, that most people give the fat bastard, or more accurately his first eurotrash wife, credit for rejuvenating the old "lady."

But you are dead accurate in that the stupid fucking bastard figured out that ownership and actual work are for the birds if you can sucker some dumbshit into just paying for your name.  Very Kardashian.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ve been to the Trump Tower in Vegas.  There’s no gambling in the building, which I assume is b/c Trump couldn’t secure a gambling permit. 

Donald Trump built a high rise hotel in Las Vegas that doesn’t have a casino. 
 

Let me repeat that, Donald Trump built a high rise hotel in LAS VEGAS that doesn’t have a CASINO. 

So if you want to travel to Vegas and can’t afford the Wynn but want to stay somewhere gaudy but semi nice and don’t mind having to take a cab to a casino then trump’s hotel is your place.
 

There’s a reason why it consistently charges the lowest rates of the 4 star hotels by a lot and that was before the shithead became president and made sure 60 percent of the country would never set foot there. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted

Pretty nice and snarky piece by Cilizza on Gohmert's farce. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/louie-gohmert-mike-pence-lawsuit/index.html

Quote
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Gohmert is successful. And rather than just playing the ceremonial role of president of the Senate on January 6, Pence was empowered to choose which electors are "legal," which, I suppose, would exclude the electors from states where President-elect Joe Biden won but Trump has falsely suggested there was fraud, like Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania. 
By doing so, Pence would single-handedly install Trump as president for the next four years. And would set a precedent that the vice president would retain the power to choose the president going forward -- no matter what the actual popular vote or Electoral College looked like.
Uh, yeah.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinningIsHard

WinningIsHard 4002

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Discount them 50%, and I just might be tempted to reserve several rooms, check in under a fake name, and shit on the carpet of every single one of them.

You gotta be cheap while being a prick? The fake name thing should really confuse them too, great thinking. You should run for president next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29146

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Wut?  I don't follow CNN people as a rule, that appeared on my google feed.  What's wrong with Cilizza?

He's probably the absolute worst in all of political media in terms of covering politics as a game. Also he's objectively dumb as shit.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WinningIsHard said:

You gotta be cheap while being a prick? The fake name thing should really confuse them too, great thinking. You should run for president next. 

1 -- I'm always a cheap bastard.  Always.  When I'm being a prick, when I'm not being a prick....always.

2 -- Nice to meet you.  My name IRL is Barron.  John Barron.

3 -- I once did a decent and honorable thing, many years ago.  Based on the precedent set the last few years, I therefore am utterly disqualified from holding the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's probably the absolute worst in all of political media in terms of covering politics as a game. Also he's objectively dumb as shit.

Like I said, I don't follow any of them closely, so I know nothing of their reputations.

I rely on NPR, AP, and Reuters and figure it out for myself with the able assistance of you assholes.  I just got a chuckle at the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29146

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Like I said, I don't follow any of them closely, so I know nothing of their reputations.

I rely on NPR, AP, and Reuters and figure it out for myself with the able assistance of you assholes.  I just got a chuckle at the article.

What you quoted is quite possibly the most intelligent thing he's ever said. He's the worst of the worst at the inane horserace focus of political commentary that completely elides the substance of any issues that actually affect people.  And he makes over $1 million per year to be utter dogshit, which has something to do with why basically all real political journalists who take their jobs seriously and work for peanuts absolutely hate his guts.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52233

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 -- I'm always a cheap bastard.  Always.  When I'm being a prick, when I'm not being a prick....always.

2 -- Nice to meet you.  My name IRL is Barron.  John Barron.

3 -- I once did a decent and honorable thing, many years ago.  Based on the precedent set the last few years, I therefore am utterly disqualified from holding the office.

Vegas plays by different rules, so maybe it’s ok to pay for many rooms with cash. Maybe they accept chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only Trump property I have ever set foot in is Trump Tower, about 15 years ago, when I took wife to NYC for first time.  She obviously wanted to see Fifth Avenue stores, and there it was, just kind of sitting there, so we went in, in no small part because it was raining.

It has a relatively tiny footprint, so the public areas on the lower floors really aren't that impressive.  Frankly, a lot of NYC office buildings, even some of the bigger and older ones, are like that, compared to Class A buildings in Dallas or Houston.  Trump Tower is probably pretty gaudy in decoration by anyone's standards, for fairly obvious reasons.

BFD.  Fuck Trump.

Oh wait.  I lied.  We did stroll around the Plaza Hotel, which was not then a Trump property.  It is impressive, despite his ownership.

After the Texas v. Maryland debacle in the FKA Redskins Stadium, I got roped into meeting some buddies at the Trump Hotel bar in DC. I was actually kinda pissed that I enjoyed it, I was fully prepared to nitpick the shit out of the place. Somebody in that fucked up organization did a damn fine job with that hotel lobby and bar. The blind squirrel found a nut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Some chick told me to meet her at the bar at the plaza hotel, wear a jacket and a tie...

Did she also tell you 9 o'clock?  She musta meant P.M.!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

And I just thought she was a raging alcoholic.  

Speaking of political commentators---I have to give some modicum of credit to Matthew Dowd.  It's been said a thousands times in a thousand different ways but he was the first on my radar to say something to the effect of (and this was in early 2016)..."Donald Trump didn't invent this movement.  He's just tapping into something that is already lying in wait in America."  I didn't realize, nor appreciate, what he meant by that until 2018.  Anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2167

Posted
Posted

The Gohmert suit is as silly as the Plaintiff's name would indicate.  Leaving aside the obvious questions about standing, whether there is an actual "case or controversy", etc., the argument in the Complaint is that there is a conflict between the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act concerning the method of resolving objections.  Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the ECA "limits or eliminates [Pence's] exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and  replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President."  In other words, Gohmert is arguing that Pence, as President of the Senate has almost unbridled authority to conduct the voting process on Jan. 6, and by creating a structure for resolving disputes, the ECA impinges on that authority.  The basic premise of that argument is that Pence does in fact have such authority.

All the 12th Amendment says is: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates [of the elector's votes] and the votes shall then be counted."  This is a perfunctory duty  -  open the certificates and count the votes.  There is not one word in the Constitution about objections to electors, how the objections must be lodged, or how objections are to be resolved.  No additional authority is given to the VP to do anything but open the certificates and count the votes.  

By arguing that the ECA resolution dispute process is unconstitutional, there must be an assumption that objections are allowed in the first place.  The Constitution does not provide for objections; that right is only granted by the ECA itself.  The internal inconsistency in the logic is staggering. Gohmert, et al are arguing that Congress has the power to create a mechanism for lodging objections (not found in the Constitution) but not the power to set up a process for resolving the objections.  The VP's duty to open the certificates and count the votes is being construed as absolute authority to do whatever he pleases.  So much for strict construction.  If the ECA is unconstitutional, then arguable there is no right to object at all.

Only the electors selected by the various states, in the manner determined by their legislatures, can have their votes opened and counted.  Those electors are the ones certified by the states - not the ones determined by Pence.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45439

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Horndog said:

The Gohmert suit is as silly as the Plaintiff's name would indicate.  Leaving aside the obvious questions about standing, whether there is an actual "case or controversy", etc., the argument in the Complaint is that there is a conflict between the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act concerning the method of resolving objections.  Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the ECA "limits or eliminates [Pence's] exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and  replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President."  In other words, Gohmert is arguing that Pence, as President of the Senate has almost unbridled authority to conduct the voting process on Jan. 6, and by creating a structure for resolving disputes, the ECA impinges on that authority.  The basic premise of that argument is that Pence does in fact have such authority.

All the 12th Amendment says is: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates [of the elector's votes] and the votes shall then be counted."  This is a perfunctory duty  -  open the certificates and count the votes.  There is not one word in the Constitution about objections to electors, how the objections must be lodged, or how objections are to be resolved.  No additional authority is given to the VP to do anything but open the certificates and count the votes.  

By arguing that the ECA resolution dispute process is unconstitutional, there must be an assumption that objections are allowed in the first place.  The Constitution does not provide for objections; that right is only granted by the ECA itself.  The internal inconsistency in the logic is staggering. Gohmert, et al are arguing that Congress has the power to create a mechanism for lodging objections (not found in the Constitution) but not the power to set up a process for resolving the objections.  The VP's duty to open the certificates and count the votes is being construed as absolute authority to do whatever he pleases.  So much for strict construction.  If the ECA is unconstitutional, then arguable there is no right to object at all.

Only the electors selected by the various states, in the manner determined by their legislatures, can have their votes opened and counted.  Those electors are the ones certified by the states - not the ones determined by Pence.  

That's a really long way to say they are pieces of shit that are trying to fraudulently overturn an election and go against the will of the people.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Horndog said:

The Gohmert suit is as silly as the Plaintiff's name would indicate.  Leaving aside the obvious questions about standing, whether there is an actual "case or controversy", etc., the argument in the Complaint is that there is a conflict between the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act concerning the method of resolving objections.  Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the ECA "limits or eliminates [Pence's] exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and  replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President."  In other words, Gohmert is arguing that Pence, as President of the Senate has almost unbridled authority to conduct the voting process on Jan. 6, and by creating a structure for resolving disputes, the ECA impinges on that authority.  The basic premise of that argument is that Pence does in fact have such authority.

All the 12th Amendment says is: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates [of the elector's votes] and the votes shall then be counted."  This is a perfunctory duty  -  open the certificates and count the votes.  There is not one word in the Constitution about objections to electors, how the objections must be lodged, or how objections are to be resolved.  No additional authority is given to the VP to do anything but open the certificates and count the votes.  

By arguing that the ECA resolution dispute process is unconstitutional, there must be an assumption that objections are allowed in the first place.  The Constitution does not provide for objections; that right is only granted by the ECA itself.  The internal inconsistency in the logic is staggering. Gohmert, et al are arguing that Congress has the power to create a mechanism for lodging objections (not found in the Constitution) but not the power to set up a process for resolving the objections.  The VP's duty to open the certificates and count the votes is being construed as absolute authority to do whatever he pleases.  So much for strict construction.  If the ECA is unconstitutional, then arguable there is no right to object at all.

Only the electors selected by the various states, in the manner determined by their legislatures, can have their votes opened and counted.  Those electors are the ones certified by the states - not the ones determined by Pence.  

Great analysis.  Also, in this suit, and from time to time, you see that state governors have a "role" in choosing electors in the event of a contest, which they complain violates the Electors and Elections Clause of Article II.  That's not really spelled out in the ECA, as it appears from the text that the governor's role is ministerial (sealing and forwarding the results to the Archivist and others), just as is the VP's in opening the sealed votes and counting them.

It may be that some state's laws, in "compliance" with the ECA, delegate some election dispute mechanism to the governor, but that should be okey dokey.

I see also that there is some general idea afloat that maybe the ECA generally exceeds Congress' power to legislate in the area, but not tied to any of the complaints lodged by Gohmertco.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

They don't appear to have anything like the Trump Doral's excellent "Naked Burger" on the menu of either in-room dining or the Benjamin Lounge, so it's a hard pass for me. 

i am shouldered with the burden of "bodies in trees" that i must carry around like Sisyphus...you have  the "naked burger."

yours wins...

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8058

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Discount them 50%, and I just might be tempted to reserve several rooms, check in under a fake name, and shit on the carpet of every single one of them.

Round up some cold homeless people and put them up in the hotel for the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...