|
On November 09 2018 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 13:14 Plansix wrote:
Our elections are a joke. But it is funny to watch the guys who spent their entire career trying to keep the “wrong people” from voting loose their minds that it might not have been enough. It is funny as hell.
Who filed a lawsuit to stop the initial vote count? Seriously? We all know that if it went the other way, and if Gillum and Nelson won the first count by the same margins we saw on Tuesday, Danglars and co. would be cheering the discovery of additional votes and a possible recount. As would every other person saying these votes should be discounted or destroyed. America, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave. And sometimes your vote gets lost and destroyed. Hope that's no biggie.
Danglars didn't say anything more than, essentially 'JESUS CHRIST FLORIDA STOP BEING SHIT'. Which is a sentiment everyone seems to agree on.
This is the worst sort of election drama, because it leads to both sides doubting the outcome of the election.
|
They are not even trying any more. Close elections often take days to certify a winner, but Scott and others want an investigation. An investigation into the election his administration is responsible for.
We have hit peak Florida.
|
I tend to think the Trump administration's treatment of immigrants and changes to the immigration system are one of the most important storylines of his presidency, and it's a shame they aren't covered or discussed more than they are. With that in mind, CNN is reporting today that Trump is changing the rules in his administration to make it harder to seek asylum. Specifically, people who enter the country illegally won't be eligible for asylum, but will be sent back to ports of entry to apply for asylum.
I'll give some background as best I can from my limited understanding. If you remember the "child separations" scandal, you might remember that it was caused by the administration wanting to prosecute people who immigrate illegally in order to claim asylum. You may have even heard a conservative talking point that these people aren't as deserving of our sympathy because asylum isn't an excuse to immigrate illegally; you're supposed to go to ports of entry to apply for asylum.
The problem with that is the administration is drastically limiting people's ability to apply for asylum at ports of entry. If I'm not mistaken, they're legally obligated to process all asylum claims as they arrive - no wait lists, no nothing - but they're simply not doing it. The administration claims they don't have the facilities or resources to process all those claims, although those same facilities were able to process a lot more claims 2 years ago. There are so many people waiting in Tijuana for a chance to apply for asylum that the asylum seekers have created their own wait list in a notebook to manage who gets one of the limited slots to apply each day. Since neither the US not the Mexican government can legally keep such a list, because they're obligated to process everyone immediately in theory, the list is maintained by one of the asylum seekers; when his or her turn comes up, they pass the notebook onto someone else.
This is not even to get into the processing of immigration-related applications, where the administration is applying various tricks to deny as many people as possible (for instance, waiting months to send an application back, only to deny it for missing certain pieces of documentation, often when those pieces of documentation were, in fact, included in the original application). Long story short, the administration is blatantly violating both US law and international treaties to give as few people the chance to apply for asylum as possible.
From my understanding of the facts, I'd think the administration's activity here is morally indefensible, but I'd be very interested to hear either where people think I have the facts wrong (definitely possible, I'm no immigration law expert) or how they think these policies are defensible.
|
On November 09 2018 22:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:On November 09 2018 13:14 Plansix wrote:
Our elections are a joke. But it is funny to watch the guys who spent their entire career trying to keep the “wrong people” from voting loose their minds that it might not have been enough. It is funny as hell.
Who filed a lawsuit to stop the initial vote count? Seriously? We all know that if it went the other way, and if Gillum and Nelson won the first count by the same margins we saw on Tuesday, Danglars and co. would be cheering the discovery of additional votes and a possible recount. As would every other person saying these votes should be discounted or destroyed. America, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave. And sometimes your vote gets lost and destroyed. Hope that's no biggie. Danglars didn't say anything more than, essentially 'JESUS CHRIST FLORIDA STOP BEING SHIT'. Which is a sentiment everyone seems to agree on. This is the worst sort of election drama, because it leads to both sides doubting the outcome of the election.
No you're right. If he leaves it at that, I'll give him credit. Mea culpa.
I've made my peace with the outcome we got on Tuesday, since it's very unlikely to actually change. So the last thing I want is to start seeing bitter aspersions being cast.
|
On November 09 2018 23:10 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 22:50 iamthedave wrote:On November 09 2018 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:On November 09 2018 13:14 Plansix wrote:
Our elections are a joke. But it is funny to watch the guys who spent their entire career trying to keep the “wrong people” from voting loose their minds that it might not have been enough. It is funny as hell.
Who filed a lawsuit to stop the initial vote count? Seriously? We all know that if it went the other way, and if Gillum and Nelson won the first count by the same margins we saw on Tuesday, Danglars and co. would be cheering the discovery of additional votes and a possible recount. As would every other person saying these votes should be discounted or destroyed. America, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave. And sometimes your vote gets lost and destroyed. Hope that's no biggie. Danglars didn't say anything more than, essentially 'JESUS CHRIST FLORIDA STOP BEING SHIT'. Which is a sentiment everyone seems to agree on. This is the worst sort of election drama, because it leads to both sides doubting the outcome of the election. No you're right. If he leaves it at that, I'll give him credit. Mea culpa. I've made my peace with the outcome we got on Tuesday, since it's very unlikely to actually change. So the last thing I want is to start seeing bitter aspersions being cast.
Not to mention, his sentiment is now doubly true because Florida's governor wants to sue his own administration for its handling of the election that he's running in.
Florida has entered a mobius strip of electoral idiocy. No beginning, no end, just pants stuck on their head, running around in circles making weird gurgling noises while disembodied numbers fly around their head like birds in flight. If ever there was an argument against states' rights, it is being made as we speak.
|
Jesus Christ, can you guys read or must you reflexively swallow idiotic Democrat talking points hook, line, and sinker? Rick Scott isn't suing his own administration. His campaign is suing "Dr. Brenda Snipes in her capacity as Broward County Supervisor of Elections." The Florida governor (much less his campaign) does not run Broward County.
|
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted.
Edit: and because I know it will make it into this thread.
If there are any problems with this country, it was the Secretary of State’s responsibility to rememdy it.
|
On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted.
Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address.
|
On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address.
Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting.
And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job.
|
On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job.
Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint.
|
On November 10 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job. Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint.
The man bringing the complaint literally said voter fraud it taking place with zero evidence to back it up. He said liberals are trying to steal the senate seat. Just because they drafted a complaint that won’t get them yelled at by a judge doesn’t change the fact they he has presented no evidence to back up these claims.
|
On November 10 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job. Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint. The man bringing the complaint literally said voter fraud it taking place with zero evidence to back it up. He said liberals are trying to steal the senate seat. Just because they drafted a complaint that won’t get them yelled at by a judge doesn’t change the fact they he has presented no evidence to back up these claims.
What Scott says in public has no bearing on what is in his campaign's complaint or whether he's entitled to that relief. That you don't understand this is shocking.
|
On November 10 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job. Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint. The man bringing the complaint literally said voter fraud it taking place with zero evidence to back it up. He said liberals are trying to steal the senate seat. Just because they drafted a complaint that won’t get them yelled at by a judge doesn’t change the fact they he has presented no evidence to back up these claims. What Scott says in public has no bearing on what is in his campaign's complaint or whether he's entitled to that relief. That you don't understand this is shocking.
Your naked attempt to disregard the context surrounding the legal complaint wouldn’t even fly before a judge, let alone here. He is the plaintiff and I will not entertain any argument that his statements in public do not matter. Take that intellectually dishonest nonsense elsewhere.
The man is alleging fraud in an election that he might lose, rather than relying on the process. Or simply protecting his rights with a TRO and keep his mouth shut. His efforts right now only hurt the election process and the outcome, even if it is in his favor.
|
On November 10 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job. Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint. The man bringing the complaint literally said voter fraud it taking place with zero evidence to back it up. He said liberals are trying to steal the senate seat. Just because they drafted a complaint that won’t get them yelled at by a judge doesn’t change the fact they he has presented no evidence to back up these claims. What Scott says in public has no bearing on what is in his campaign's complaint or whether he's entitled to that relief. That you don't understand this is shocking. Your naked attempt to disregard the context surrounding the legal complaint wouldn’t even fly before a judge, let alone here. He is the plaintiff and I will not entertain any argument that his statements in public do not matter. Take that intellectually dishonest nonsense elsewhere.The man is alleging fraud in an election that he might lose, rather than relying on the process. Or simply protecting his rights with a TRO and keep his mouth shut. His efforts right now only hurt the election process and the outcome, even if it is in his favor.
This is why you are a paralegal and not an attorney. I really don't care what you think. You're wrong. It's really that simple. Judges only consider what it is before them. If Snipes has violated Florida open records laws (and it looks like she did looking at what's in the complaint), then action is going to roll forward. Whether Scott thinks that the election is being stolen from him is immaterial at this point. He might be right. He might be wrong. The open records request was the first step in determining what's going on, and the lawsuit that his campaign has brought is the next logical step to take after Snipes refused to comply with the request.
|
Appears as though trump is trying to distance himself from the acting AG. Interesting.
|
On November 10 2018 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 02:07 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2018 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:
Don’t explain elections to me, thank you. I spent a lot of time studying the mechanics of democracy in college and after. Some of us voted in the 2000 election.
He is challenging the results before they are certified. If there is a problem with the way the election is run, he can bring an action after the Republican Secretary of State certifies the results. One does not challenge the counting of votes before they are counted. Snipes/Broward County are grossly out of compliance with Florida law regarding ballot counting and election reporting. They are further obstructing lawful into inquiries into what is going on. There obviously is something wrong going on down there. Someone has been or is being disenfranchised (and it's not necessarily republicans). This is precisely the type of situation that emergency injunctive relief is meant to address. Then the Secretary of State can get involved, not one of the candidates. Or both candidates can file a joint TRO to assure voters that both candidates are being fairly represented. That isn’t what is happening. The complaint is for “rampant fraud” but provides no supporting evidence of it and demands the candidate, Rick Scott, have representatives overseeing the counting. And Florida’s compliance laws seem to have some unreasonable expectations of instant reporting of total votes. And if a county is out of compliance, the Secretary of State can step in. That is literally their job. Once again, go read the actual complaint, because you have no idea what the law is or what's even alleged. "Rampant fraud" isn't alleged. "Lack of transparency rais[ing] substantial concern about the validity of the election process" is alleged, the basis of which is Snipe's failure to comply with lawful open records requests. Scott's campaign has clear standing to bring this complaint. The man bringing the complaint literally said voter fraud it taking place with zero evidence to back it up. He said liberals are trying to steal the senate seat. Just because they drafted a complaint that won’t get them yelled at by a judge doesn’t change the fact they he has presented no evidence to back up these claims. What Scott says in public has no bearing on what is in his campaign's complaint or whether he's entitled to that relief. That you don't understand this is shocking. Your naked attempt to disregard the context surrounding the legal complaint wouldn’t even fly before a judge, let alone here. He is the plaintiff and I will not entertain any argument that his statements in public do not matter. Take that intellectually dishonest nonsense elsewhere.The man is alleging fraud in an election that he might lose, rather than relying on the process. Or simply protecting his rights with a TRO and keep his mouth shut. His efforts right now only hurt the election process and the outcome, even if it is in his favor. This is why you are a paralegal and not an attorney. I really don't care what you think. You're wrong. It's really that simple. Judges only consider what it is before them. If Snipes has violated Florida open records laws (and it looks like she did looking at what's in the complaint), then action is going to roll forward. Whether Scott thinks that the election is being stolen from him is immaterial at this point. He might be right. He might be wrong. The open records request was the first step in determining what's going on, and the lawsuit that his campaign has brought is the next logical step to take after Snipes refused to comply with the request.
It is 100% true that there are issues with Broward county’s reporting and the process has been mismanaged.
But Scott announce this lawsuit and said that he would not allow liberal actives to find ballots until they won the election. He asserts that his TRO is necessary because of the potential for fraud, which he provides zero evidence of. So it begs to question, what will he and his campaign do once he has access to Boward county’s counting process and records? He has asserted, without evidence, that there are liberal actives among them fabricating ballots. What is to stop him from doing the same thing once he has access to the process? I don’t really put much stock in your legal opinion that a judge won’t find this relevant. You are, in fact, not the only attorney I’ve discusses this matter with today.
Your hyper focus on the complaint it typical, because it is the most favorable version of the events before us. It removes the pesky conspiracy theory about liberal activist and voter fraud and distillate Scott’s efforts into a simple request for access. How reasonable of him. He just wants to know what is going on. And maybe find some votes that shouldn’t be counted. Because that will be the follow up once he has access more information.
Of course, none of this mattered until his lead got tight. He didn’t care about reporting or the process in his state until it might cost him the senate seat.
|
I think we know why trump doesn't want to speak to Mueller. Hes a liar.
|
That is most definitely a crime, given how campaign finance laws work. Of course, no one is shocked. And nothing will come of it.
|
On November 10 2018 00:51 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus Christ, can you guys read or must you reflexively swallow idiotic Democrat talking points hook, line, and sinker?
Says the man still seriously talking about Hilary's e-mails. Thanks for the laugh there.
|
On November 10 2018 04:26 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 00:51 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus Christ, can you guys read or must you reflexively swallow idiotic Democrat talking points hook, line, and sinker? Says the man still seriously talking about Hilary's e-mails. Thanks for the laugh there.
And whose throat is in a perpetual state of relaxation to accept trump kool aid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
