Uchaguzi US: 2020

[Kichuguu]

In the Texas vs Pennsylvania et al. case, 17 more states have joined The Lone Star state as Amici curiae, according to this SCOTUS PDF. The states are: Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They want to be part of the litigation as docketed in the SCOTUS.

Interesting times.

It shows that the republican is a party of morons today, and it is very dangerous to give power to a moron!! I wish Biden will deal with them knowing that they are just morons, and so should not feel reserved on applying pressure upon them, including prosecuting DJTrump to the fullest extent of the law for all proven crimes committed by him.

 

[Zakumi]

In the Texas vs Pennsylvania et al. case, 17 more states have joined The Lone Star state as Amici curiae, according to this SCOTUS PDF. The states are: Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They want to be part of the litigation as docketed in the SCOTUS.

Interesting times.

Some of the states that have joined the state of Texas in the lawsuit did actually allowed absentee and email-in ballots. So, the iron there is why do the attorney generals of these state think that the electoral college votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin should be invalidated?

 

[Zakumi]

Indeed it predicted the obvious. However, in JF, even perhaps in this very thread, if we expressed anything other than expecting Biden's resounding victory, the post was treated with disdain. So far, while I have not expressed in public the GUTA theory itself, I have expressed what it predicts: Trump ultimate victory, no matter-what. The rest were my speculations on how that Trump victory would arrive; and also whether the GUTA theory have hitherto been debunked (it has not, so far). I guess, with the test of time, by January 21 2021 latest we would know whether or not the GUTA theory was worth the electrons lost in talking about it.

I hear your complains. Majority of Tanzanians are left leaning and by default they tend to support Democrats in the US and Labor in the UK in general elections. So, that is the conventional wisdom and you will look like a pariah if you to try to take a different or an opposite stance.

Personally, I am an amateur data analysis who apply dynamics and data on the ground for my primitive prognostications. So, I am data driven and try to be open to other point of views. For instance, in 2016, I told the members of my Tanzanian community where I live that Trump was going to win. Right away I was dubbed a Trump supporter even though I wasn’t.

For work, I used to travel around the country and the fervor that imbued Trump’s supporters in rural areas or red states was something to behold. I never seen something like that in urban areas or in predominant Democrats areas.

Even though Trump couldn’t give coherent speeches during the campaign like most presidential candidates, his supporters viewed him in a new light. For them, he was the relentless defender of their values and that was enough for them. Additionally, he was the candidate from the major political party. Therefore, I gave him 50 50 chance of winning the presidency.

Regardless of his poor performance on managing COVID19 respond, the odds for Trump to win the 2020 election was still 50 50 because he was the candidate of the major political party and also an incumbent president. Again, the preference of foreigners doesn’t change in anyway the dynamics in American politics.

With regards to the next general election in 2014, if Trump decides to seek the republican nomination, his odds will be lower in the primaries because he will have to compete with other candidates within the party. However, once he passes that huddle, his odds will improve to 50%. As Tanzanian, I have my bias in politics and probably I would prefer another republican to win the nomination. But that is wishful thinking.

 

[Mlenge]

It shows that the republican is a party of morons today, and it is very dangerous to give power to a moron!! I wish Biden will deal with them knowing that they are just morons, and so should not feel reserved on applying pressure upon them, including prosecuting DJTrump to the fullest extent of the law for all proven crimes committed by him.

I do not have a horse in that Dem-GOP fight... but this lawsuit is not GOP suing Dems. It is one state (joined by 19 others at the time of writing) suing four states for contravening the US constitution. Contrary to a popular belief, The United States is not a democratic nation. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is simply the tyranny of majority. USA is ruled or supposed to be ruled by the constitution.

 

[Mlenge]

Some of the states that have joined the state of Texas in the lawsuit did actually allowed absentee and email-in ballots. So, the iron there is why do the attorney generals of these state think that the electoral college votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin should be invalidated?

They are suing for constitutional violation: not mail-in ballots per se.

 

[Mlenge]

I hear your complains. Majority of Tanzanians are left leaning and by default they tend to support Democrats in the US and Labor in the UK in general elections. So, that is the conventional wisdom and you will look like a pariah if you to try to take a different or an opposite stance.

Personally, I am an amateur data analysis who apply dynamics and data on the ground for my primitive prognostications. So, I am data driven and try to be open to other point of views. For instance, in 2016, I told the members of my Tanzanian community where I live that Trump was going to win. Right away I was dubbed a Trump supporter even though I wasn’t.

For work, I used to travel around the country and the fervor that imbued Trump’s supporters in rural areas or red states was something to behold. I never seen something like that in urban areas or in predominant Democrats areas.

Even though Trump couldn’t give coherent speeches during the campaign like most presidential candidates, his supporters viewed him in a new light. For them, he was the relentless defender of their values and that was enough for them. Additionally, he was the candidate from the major political party. Therefore, I gave him 50 50 chance of winning the presidency.

Regardless of his poor performance on managing COVID19 respond, the odds for Trump to win the 2020 election was still 50 50 because he was the candidate of the major political party and also an incumbent president. Again, the preference of foreigners doesn’t change in anyway the dynamics in American politics.

With regards to the next general election in 20[2]4, if Trump decides to seek the republican nomination, his odds will be lower in the primaries because he will have to compete with other candidates within the party. However, once he passes that huddle, his odds will improve to 50%. As Tanzanian, I have my bias in politics and probably I would prefer another republican to win the nomination. But that is wishful thinking.

Trump won't run in 2024, because even his supporters may not want him getting the third-term. Or there won't be the republic in which to run for the presidency. The Texas lawsuit is tricky trap to the SCOTUS. Something gotta give.

 

[Kichuguu]

I do not have a horse in that Dem-GOP fight... but this lawsuit is not GOP suing Dems. It is one state (joined by 19 others at the time of writing) suing four states for contravening the US constitution. Contrary to a popular belief, The United States is not a democratic nation. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is simply the tyranny of majority. USA is ruled or supposed to be ruled by the constitution.

Nothing like that mate! What you have is group of trumpian state AG trying to beat up his drums. Under the US constitution, elections are under the state jurisdiction locally; that is why Bush won FL in 2000, and how Trump won WI, MI, PA and NC in 2016. No state has the right to sue another state on how they run their local elections; this is all a political stunt to help keep Trump relevant when he leaves office. I wish the new Attorney General takes the job seriously and locks him behind bars to clear out this toxic atmosphere created by this dunderhead.

 

[Zakumi]

Trump won't run in 2024, because even his supporters may not want him getting the third-term. Or there won't be the republic in which to run for the presidency. The Texas lawsuit is tricky trap to the SCOTUS. Something gotta give.

The

They are suing for constitutional violation: not mail-in ballots per se.

Can you allude me what type of constitutional violation took place?

 

[Zakumi]

Nothing like that mate! What you have is group of trumpian state AG trying to beat up his drums. Under the US constitution, elections are under the state jurisdiction locally; that is why Bush won FL in 2000, and how Trump won WI, MI, PA and NC in 2016. No state has the right to sue another state on how they run their local elections; this is all a political stunt to help keep Trump relevant when he leaves office. I wish the new Attorney General takes the job seriously and locks him behind bars to clear out this toxic atmosphere created by this dunderhead.

They are humoring him. Tomorrow is the 10th. Let's see if they will win the case.

 

[Mlenge]

The


Can you allude me what type of constitutional violation took place?

The US constitution requires each state to follow its own constitution in administering federal elections. The four states did not follow their own constitutions, the 20 states allege.

So, in essence, The 20 states are asking The Supreme Court: Is the US Constitution still valid? If it is valid, then rule the elections in the four states as unconstitutional. Otherwise, if the SCOTUS sides with the four states, then it means that the US constitution is meaningless piece of paper, each state can choose if and when to adhere to it. Texas can therefore, for example, secede; because the Constitution is not as binding as it used to be.

 

[Mlenge]

Nothing like that mate! What you have is group of trumpian state AG trying to beat up his drums. Under the US constitution, elections are under the state jurisdiction locally; that is why Bush won FL in 2000, and how Trump won WI, MI, PA and NC in 2016. No state has the right to sue another state on how they run their local elections; this is all a political stunt to help keep Trump relevant when he leaves office. I wish the new Attorney General takes the job seriously and locks him behind bars to clear out this toxic atmosphere created by this dunderhead.

Then it is easy. Let the SCOTUS hear the crazy Texas arguments and throw out the case. After all, Biden won 80m votes; millions more than Trump. There is no voter fraud. Auditing and suing won't change a thing. So, why not let them Republicans waste their own time and money?

 

[Mlenge]

They are humoring him. Tomorrow is the 10th. Let's see if they will win the case.

Talking about humor, the following image has gone viral. It depicts in jest the Texas case.

 

[Zakumi]

The US constitution requires each state to follow its own constitution in administering federal elections. The four states did not follow their own constitutions, the 20 states allege.

So, in essence, The 20 states are asking The Supreme Court: Is the US Constitution still valid? If it is valid, then rule the elections in the four states as unconstitutional. Otherwise, if the SCOTUS sides with the four states, then it means that the US constitution is meaningless piece of paper, each state can choose if and when to adhere to. Texas can, for example, secede; because the Constitution is not as biding as it used to be.

So why Texas isn't asking the SCOTUS to invalidate the results in Nebraska? Nebraska like the four states changed its elections rules to make sure people in their states exercise their rights to vote during the pandemic. As a matter of facts other states, red and blue, took a similar approach to accommodate their voters too . So, the seriousness of the case isn't there. If you invalidate vote in PA, one could argue that on the same grounds, you should invalidate the votes in California as well.

Additionally, it would have added some weights if the people in those four states were the ones who opened the case. For, they are the ones who could have questioned the whether the election laws in their states were constitutionally violated. As a matter of fact, some GOPs from PA tried that and lost it in SCORUS. So, I don't see if there's a merit in this case. That is my personal view.

 

[Mlenge]

The Grand Unified Theory of America [GUTA] still posits that Trump will be the inaugurated president in 2021. Here is a speculation on what may happen in the intervening time. Remember, speculation does not mean endorsement for or against any presidential candidate.

1. Biden may choose to take the higher road and concede, saying "United States is bigger than" himself and Trump. And that, "although I won, I decide to let Trump take second term if that is what will keep the republic." This speculation sounds least likely.

2. A judge or some legislatures may give Trump Electoral College electors despite Biden's ostensible win. Either Trump wins straight away or neither have the 270 seats required to win, therefore Trump wins through a Congressional vote.

3. The Supreme Court of United States hands the victory to Trump.

4. Both Biden and Trump remain relentless. Trump exhausts all legal and legislature options. Trump invokes The Insurrection Act and the Militia Act, and rule by decree, claiming he is to fix the electoral system. Things get kinetic and ugly.


Bases for these speculations:

1. [Was aired before the election].

2. Regular Session 2019-2020 Senate Resolution 0410 P.N. 2133

3. Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election | The White House

While the track number 3 (The SCOTUS Scene) plays out, there still appears to be things that are happening, that could not rule out the track number 4 (e.g., The Insurrection Act).

DOD cutting support to CIA

Pentagon plans to cut most of its support to CIA's counterterrorism m…

archived 10 Dec 2020 13:50:50 UTC

archive.is

Using troops to quell post-election violence

Can Trump call in troops to quell Election Day unrest?

On Saturday, peaceful participants at a rally in North Carolina to turn out the vote were pepper-sprayed by law enforcement officials. The Biden campaign canceled two events after a caravan of vehicles with Trump campaign flags swarmed a bus carrying campaign workers in Texas on Friday. Trump...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Mlenge]

So why Texas isn't asking the SCOTUS to invalidate the results in Nebraska? Nebraska like the four states changed its elections rules to make sure people in their states exercise their rights to vote during the pandemic. As a matter of facts other states, red and blue, took a similar approach to accommodate their voters too . So, the seriousness of the case isn't there. If you invalidate vote in PA, one could argue that on the same grounds, you should invalidate the votes in California as well.

Additionally, it would have added some weights if the people in those four states were the ones who opened the case. For, they are the ones who could have questioned the whether the election laws in their states were constitutionally violated. As a matter of fact, some GOPs from PA tried that and lost it in SCORUS. So, I don't see if there's a merit in this case. That is my personal view.

I have not followed closely the arguments in the case. My current understanding is this: when a state changes laws related to the federal elections, then the state's legislature needs to enact those changes. All of the states that changed their laws relating to election, used the legislature route, as required by the constitution. Of course, except the four sued states which used The Judiciary or The Executive to arrive at the same. It is made to look like the four states violated the US constitution. The questions that remain are:

1. Will the SCOTUS want to be in the spotlight to decide this powder-keg lawsuit, hence the election?
2. Will the SCOTUS choose to uphold the constitution angering the left, and risk BLM-style rioting, or disregard the constitution and anger the right of the US politics, potentially risking the break-down of the Union?

 

[Mlenge]

They are humoring him. Tomorrow is the 10th. Let's see if they will win the case.

1. Initially it was just Texas vs Pennsylvania et al. The 19 states were just "friends of court".
2. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have now joined Texas as plaintiffs. So, it is now Texas et al vs Pennsylvania et al.
3. President Donald J. Trump have also joined in as a plaintiff.
4. More than 100 members of Congress have joined the case as "friends of court" for Texas et al.
5. The Speaker, and, The Majority Leader of Pennsylvania House have joined as "friends of court" for Texas et al.
6. More states, jurisdictions, groups, individuals and others have joined as "friends of court" for either plaintiffs or defendants.
7. The four sued states have responded.

This is big.

 

[Mlenge]

The


Can you allude me what type of constitutional violation took place?

The following link summarises a 2020 SCOTUS ruling
( https://archive.is/WCB3N )

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules"

 

[Zakumi]

1. Initially it was just Texas vs Pennsylvania et al. The 19 states were just "friends of court".
2. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have now joined Texas as plaintiffs. So, it is now Texas et al vs Pennsylvania et al.
3. President Donald J. Trump have also joined in as a plaintiff.
4. More than 100 members of Congress have joined the case as "friends of court" for Texas et al.
5. The Speaker, and, The Majority Leader of Pennsylvania House have joined as "friends of court" for Texas et al.
6. More states, jurisdictions, groups, individuals and others have joined as "friends of court" for either plaintiffs or defendants.
7. The four sued states have responded.

This is big.

Yes that is big. But remember, bigger isn't always better. The court isn't going to side with plaintiffs because their in a number is bigger than that of defendants. It doesn't work that way. The court will listen the arguments and examine the facts and then make the decision. To me, the efforts of other states and groups to join Texas as plaintiffs or friends of court do not strengthening the case at all. It is a sign of desperation and it might backfire.

Besides, in the American judicial system, the punishment doesn't exceed the violation or crime committed. So, I am not sure whether the SCOTUS will go all the way to invalidate the voices of millions. You have to remember that voters on those states did nothing wrong on their part.

 

[Zakumi]

The following link summarises a 2020 SCOTUS ruling
( https://archive.is/WCB3N )

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules"

I have read the article. It is a good read. But to me the article weakens the Texas case. For, if one reads the last two paragraphs, the person will be convinced, the way I am, that the states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ran clean elections. The election procedures for those states were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and everything was cleared before election. So, it will be a hard sell for the Supreme Court to reverse its own early decisions. Do you think the addition of the new consertivative justice will tip the scale?

Therefore, if you exclude Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, you remain with Georgia and Michigan. In all four states, Georgia ran the cleanest election. Personally, I don't know why Georgia is in that list anyway. First, the republicans are responsible to run election in that state and the same system was in place two years ago during the mid-term election. Second, they recounted the votes two times to make sure everything was followed the book. To me, you should exclude Georgia from that list too.

If you do so, you remain with one state, Michigan. You can make an argument about that, but eventually the numbers from that state won't make up for the losses.

 

[Mlenge]

I have read the article. It is a good read. But to me the article weakens the Texas case. For, if one reads the last two paragraphs, the person will be convinced, the way I am, that the states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ran clean elections. The election procedures for those states were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and everything was cleared before election. So, it will be a hard sell for the Supreme Court to reverse its own early decisions. Do you think the addition of the new consertivative justice will tip the scale?

Therefore, if you exclude Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, you remain with Georgia and Michigan. In all four states, Georgia ran the cleanest election. Personally, I don't know why Georgia is in that list anyway. First, the republicans are responsible to run election in that state and the same system was in place two years ago during the mid-term election. Second, they recounted the votes two times to make sure everything was followed the book. To me, you should exclude Georgia from that list too.

If you do so, you remain with one state, Michigan. You can make an argument about that, but eventually the numbers from that state won't make up for the losses.

From what is floating around in the internet, it appears to be true that, by the letter of the constitution, the four states contravened the constitution by changing the rules of election without involving their own legislatures. But the remedies sought are tricky as you have pointed out. Therefore it is likely the following events will take place:

1. The SCOTUS will conduct hearing of the Texas et al. vs Pennsylvania et al case.
2. The SCOTUS will rule against parts of the plaintiffs requested remedies.
3. The SCOTUS will agree with the plaintiffs that indeed the constitution was infringed, and hence EITHER the SCOTUS will rule to:

A: Toss the extra ballots counted after voting ended, handing Trump the win straight-away; OR
B: Toss the election results of the four states, and direct The Congress to elect the President and the Senate elect the VP.

SCOTUS decisions 9-0 or 5-4.