Ah...real presidential material for sure.....Derek27 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:11 pmTrump out to 22 I'm afraid.knightwire2 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:04 pmLooks like Biden price has already gone up to 1.05, Trump coming in to 18 now!
Looks like the possibilities of him being arrested wont even be needed anyway at this rate!
How silly of me to lay Biden, i must have been talking out of my bottom this whole time!
By the way, Biden has just been convicted of first-degree murder and given a life sentence but his team is keeping quiet about it for now.
US Presidential Election 2020
-
wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
DT is cooked and done ready to be served to those flogging dead horses.Derek27 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:11 pmTrump out to 22 I'm afraid.knightwire2 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:04 pmLooks like Biden price has already gone up to 1.05, Trump coming in to 18 now!
Looks like the possibilities of him being arrested wont even be needed anyway at this rate!
How silly of me to lay Biden, i must have been talking out of my bottom this whole time!
By the way, Biden has just been convicted of first-degree murder and given a life sentence but his team is keeping quiet about it for now.
https://youtu.be/7brmwrDyGso
Well of course he is, but insanely, his price came in below 20 again, presumably on the back of that big new lawsuit where Texas is suing other states , which all legal experts have branded 'garbage'.
Absolutely nothing will dissuade the Trump cultists - the thing is that it's just futile to try to argue anyone out of irrational views and personal biases, as Peter points out, people will literally jump off a cliff rather than admit they're idiots.
The lying Ted Cruz is behind that one. He is desperate to push any case to the Supreme Court where they hope to bank on ACB and her fellow conservatives. Ted is such a hypocrite and full of double standards .Zenyatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:17 amWell of course he is, but insanely, his price came in below 20 again, presumably on the back of that big new lawsuit where Texas is suing other states , which all legal experts have branded 'garbage'.
Absolutely nothing will dissuade the Trump cultists - the thing is that it's just futile to try to argue anyone out of irrational views and personal biases, as Peter points out, people will literally jump off a cliff rather than admit they're idiots.
It’s always good not to argue with inmates that are in charge of the asylum. The law expects you to know the difference and keep off. Ted was flogged into submission by trump , he then joined the trump asylum and he is now in charge of it in Texas.
https://youtu.be/PJO8LuZzAiE
-
wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
I always thought he was good in Mission Impossible...decomez6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:04 amThe lying Ted Cruz is behind that one. He is desperate to push any case to the Supreme Court where they hope to bank on ACB and her fellow conservatives. Ted is such a hypocrite and full of double standards .Zenyatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:17 amWell of course he is, but insanely, his price came in below 20 again, presumably on the back of that big new lawsuit where Texas is suing other states , which all legal experts have branded 'garbage'.
Absolutely nothing will dissuade the Trump cultists - the thing is that it's just futile to try to argue anyone out of irrational views and personal biases, as Peter points out, people will literally jump off a cliff rather than admit they're idiots.
It’s always good not to argue with inmates that are in charge of the asylum. The law expects you to know the difference and keep off. Ted was flogged into submission by trump , he then joined the trump asylum and he is now in charge of it in Texas.
https://youtu.be/PJO8LuZzAiE
fox -i'll get your coatwearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:29 amI always thought he was good in Mission Impossible...decomez6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:04 amThe lying Ted Cruz is behind that one. He is desperate to push any case to the Supreme Court where they hope to bank on ACB and her fellow conservatives. Ted is such a hypocrite and full of double standards .Zenyatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:17 am
Well of course he is, but insanely, his price came in below 20 again, presumably on the back of that big new lawsuit where Texas is suing other states , which all legal experts have branded 'garbage'.
Absolutely nothing will dissuade the Trump cultists - the thing is that it's just futile to try to argue anyone out of irrational views and personal biases, as Peter points out, people will literally jump off a cliff rather than admit they're idiots.
It’s always good not to argue with inmates that are in charge of the asylum. The law expects you to know the difference and keep off. Ted was flogged into submission by trump , he then joined the trump asylum and he is now in charge of it in Texas.
https://youtu.be/PJO8LuZzAiE
May be the outfox-ted version . He is running around like a headless roadrunner, the coyote plucked his head Off!wearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:29 amI always thought he was good in Mission Impossible...decomez6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:04 amThe lying Ted Cruz is behind that one. He is desperate to push any case to the Supreme Court where they hope to bank on ACB and her fellow conservatives. Ted is such a hypocrite and full of double standards .Zenyatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:17 am
Well of course he is, but insanely, his price came in below 20 again, presumably on the back of that big new lawsuit where Texas is suing other states , which all legal experts have branded 'garbage'.
Absolutely nothing will dissuade the Trump cultists - the thing is that it's just futile to try to argue anyone out of irrational views and personal biases, as Peter points out, people will literally jump off a cliff rather than admit they're idiots.
It’s always good not to argue with inmates that are in charge of the asylum. The law expects you to know the difference and keep off. Ted was flogged into submission by trump , he then joined the trump asylum and he is now in charge of it in Texas.
https://youtu.be/PJO8LuZzAiE
Article from Bloomberg which I can't link to...
Texas is trying to take the U.S. Supreme Court where it’s never gone before with a lawsuit that seeks to win a second term for President Donald Trump by overturning the election results in four other states carried by Joe Biden.
A case filed directly in the Supreme Court this week by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contending that state officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting has been hailed as game-changer by the president, who tweeted on Wednesday that it was “the big one” that “everyone has been waiting for.”
But legal experts see a different reality.
“At core, Texas is recycling legal claims that have already failed, but through a lawsuit that suffers from a whole host of additional procedural problems,” said Lisa Marshall Manheim, constitutional and election law professor at University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.
Here is a look at where the lawsuit stands and how it might play out in the coming days:
The Trump campaign and its allies have made similar claims before: that state officials, rather than legislatures, unconstitutionally changed election processes. Judges, including a number appointed by Trump, have rejected those arguments. Several said that, even if some violation were found, the remedy of disenfranchising millions of voters is unthinkable and would be a far greater constitutional violation than those alleged in the election challenges.
Manheim said the Texas case would face the same fate. “The law does not permit minor inconsistencies in an election to result in the invalidation of millions of validly cast votes,” she said. “Texas’ attempt to invalidate the votes of Americans in other states is unprecedented and is particularly hard to square with Texas officials’ purported commitment to state’s rights.”
Why do Trump and his allies claim the Texas case is different?
The main reason is because it was filed directly in the Supreme Court, and at least some on the right believe the justices might hear it. Trump has often mused that the high court and its 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices he appointed, could deliver a second term for him, but he has bemoaned the fact that he’s had to work his way up from the lower courts.
The Supreme Court so far has shown little interest in getting involved. The court on Tuesday rejected a request by some of Trump’s Republican allies to nullify Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania. The one-sentence rebuff carried no public dissents and came less than eight hours after Pennsylvania officials filed a response Alito requested.
But that case involved only a single state -- nowhere near enough to reverse Biden’s election -- and Trump and his allies appear to believe a case that tries to flip four states is different. “ALL CRITERIA MET,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday in apparent reference to the case’s suitability for high court consideration.
How is Texas able to file directly with the Supreme Court?
Federal law gives the Supreme Court so-called original jurisdiction over a handful of matters, including suits by one state against another. Filing that type of suit means asking the Supreme Court to function like a trial court -- considering evidence and making factual findings, rather than just ruling on legal questions.
Most original jurisdiction suits are over issues like water rights, and the court generally appoints a special master to consider the case and make recommendations. Those cases have been known to take years. The Texas suit, by contrast, asks the court to act in a matter of days -- faster than it’s ever acted in an original jurisdiction case, according to Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor whose specialties include federal courts and constitutional law.
Does the court have to consider the suit?
No. The court’s rules require litigants to file a motion seeking permission to press an original case. That means Texas will need five justices to agree to let the case go forward, one more than the four required when the court is considering whether to hear an appeal in one of its more typical cases.
Two conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- have previously said they don’t think the court can legally reject an original case. But other conservatives, including Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, declined to adopt that position when Thomas reiterated it in February.
Legal experts see very little chance the justices will hear a case that’s so obviously weak from a constitutional standpoint. “Before you even lose you have to get to the court,” said Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School. “And I don’t think they’re going to get to the court. It’s going to be a race to see if the court rejects this one faster than they did the one from Pennsylvania.”
What other hurdles does Texas face?
Even if the justices say Texas can file the suit, they could quickly dismiss it. Legal experts are skeptical that Texas has standing, meaning that the state has suffered the type of concrete injury that entitles it to seek relief.
“There is nothing about the injury Texas claims it will suffer that is unique to Texas as compared to any other state,” Vladeck said. “And the Supreme Court is not going to be in a hurry to open the floodgates to states suing to vindicate generalized grievances.”
The campaign and its allies have had a number of lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing. Timing has also been an issue, with many courts saying Trump and his allies acted in bad faith by challenging election procedures as unfair only after votes were cast and the results were known. It could be concern for the justices that Texas is only suing four battleground states that went for Biden, though other states also made changes to their election rules.
And even when they decided cases on issues like standing, a number of judges unequivocally stated that claims that some voters’ equal-protection and due-process rights were violated because other jurisdictions had different voting procedures completely lacked merit.
What about Trump intervening in the suit?
Trump moved to intervene in the case on Wednesday afternoon, arguing that “the president’s participation in litigation critical to his election should be welcomed.”
But the president’s quest to involve himself might do him more harm than good. “If Trump intervenes, it actually is lethal to the argument that there needs to be original jurisdiction because this is a dispute between the states,” said Levinson.
It will take the votes of five justices to decide if Trump can participate.
What if the Supreme Court actually rules for Texas?
Legal experts are adamant that there is virtually zero chance of this happening. But if it did, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says it still might not hand the election to Trump.
Eliminating the four defendant states from the Electoral College would leave Biden with a 244-232 electoral vote advantage. Many conservatives believe that, because no candidate would have 270 electoral votes, the election would go to the House of Representatives -- where Republicans would have an edge because votes for presidents are cast by state delegations rather than individual members.
But Tribe begs to differ. “What the Texas strategy foolishly ignores is that the 12th Amendment tosses the election into the House only if no candidate has a ‘majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,’ and that ‘whole number’ would go down to just 475, not 538, if the Texas gambit were to work,” said Tribe.
Donald Trump’s campaign asked to join a Texas lawsuit challenging the president’s election defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court, as 17 other states filed in support of a case that has been called a publicity stunt.
While presenting no evidence of fraud, the campaign cited the fact that Trump won 12 million more votes than 2016 and a high percentage of non-white voters in his brief, along with the fact that he won both Florida and Ohio. “These things just don’t normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss,” according to the filing Wednesday. Trump must get permission from the Supreme Court to be allowed to intervene in the case.
Seventeen other states, led by Missouri, filed a brief Wednesday in support of the Texas suit, brought by the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton. Texas is seeking to prevent electors from Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania from participating in the Electoral College on Dec. 14. The Supreme Court on Tuesday evening gave the states until 3 p.m. Thursday to file responses.
Paxton will be among about a dozen Republican attorneys general who are to join Trump for lunch on Thursday, according to White House spokesman Judd Deere. He added that Trump plans to discuss “issues important to their citizens and the country, and ways to continue to advance the shared federal-state partnership.”
A White House official said that the meeting had been scheduled weeks ago.
The suit by Paxton -- who has been accused of bribery by some of his own aides -- repeats allegations about mail-in voting that have already been roundly rejected in dozens of courts across the nation, and legal experts say it has no chance of being heard by the Supreme Court. Top officials in the states he seeks to sue questioned the purpose of the suit on Tuesday.
“The motion filed by the Texas attorney general is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. “The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country.”
The Texas suit was filed on the same day as the Dec. 8 “safe harbor” date for states to certify their slates of electors to send to the Electoral College. The passing of that deadline means time is almost certainly up on Trump’s increasingly desperate effort to overturn his re-election defeat, in which he’s sought to pressure state legislatures to override voters and appoint alternative electors who would back him instead of President-elect Joe Biden.
Trump has described this suit as “the big one.” He also noted Wednesday that his campaign wasn’t part of a separate case, brought by a Pennsylvania congressman, that the Supreme Court rebuffed on Tuesday -- the first time the high court has weighed in on Republican litigation to try to overturn the election outcome.
In a one-sentence order, the court said Tuesday that it would not grant a request from plaintiffs including Representative Mike Kelly to void Pennsylvania’s election results.
Texas is trying to take the U.S. Supreme Court where it’s never gone before with a lawsuit that seeks to win a second term for President Donald Trump by overturning the election results in four other states carried by Joe Biden.
A case filed directly in the Supreme Court this week by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contending that state officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting has been hailed as game-changer by the president, who tweeted on Wednesday that it was “the big one” that “everyone has been waiting for.”
But legal experts see a different reality.
“At core, Texas is recycling legal claims that have already failed, but through a lawsuit that suffers from a whole host of additional procedural problems,” said Lisa Marshall Manheim, constitutional and election law professor at University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.
Here is a look at where the lawsuit stands and how it might play out in the coming days:
The Trump campaign and its allies have made similar claims before: that state officials, rather than legislatures, unconstitutionally changed election processes. Judges, including a number appointed by Trump, have rejected those arguments. Several said that, even if some violation were found, the remedy of disenfranchising millions of voters is unthinkable and would be a far greater constitutional violation than those alleged in the election challenges.
Manheim said the Texas case would face the same fate. “The law does not permit minor inconsistencies in an election to result in the invalidation of millions of validly cast votes,” she said. “Texas’ attempt to invalidate the votes of Americans in other states is unprecedented and is particularly hard to square with Texas officials’ purported commitment to state’s rights.”
Why do Trump and his allies claim the Texas case is different?
The main reason is because it was filed directly in the Supreme Court, and at least some on the right believe the justices might hear it. Trump has often mused that the high court and its 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices he appointed, could deliver a second term for him, but he has bemoaned the fact that he’s had to work his way up from the lower courts.
The Supreme Court so far has shown little interest in getting involved. The court on Tuesday rejected a request by some of Trump’s Republican allies to nullify Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania. The one-sentence rebuff carried no public dissents and came less than eight hours after Pennsylvania officials filed a response Alito requested.
But that case involved only a single state -- nowhere near enough to reverse Biden’s election -- and Trump and his allies appear to believe a case that tries to flip four states is different. “ALL CRITERIA MET,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday in apparent reference to the case’s suitability for high court consideration.
How is Texas able to file directly with the Supreme Court?
Federal law gives the Supreme Court so-called original jurisdiction over a handful of matters, including suits by one state against another. Filing that type of suit means asking the Supreme Court to function like a trial court -- considering evidence and making factual findings, rather than just ruling on legal questions.
Most original jurisdiction suits are over issues like water rights, and the court generally appoints a special master to consider the case and make recommendations. Those cases have been known to take years. The Texas suit, by contrast, asks the court to act in a matter of days -- faster than it’s ever acted in an original jurisdiction case, according to Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor whose specialties include federal courts and constitutional law.
Does the court have to consider the suit?
No. The court’s rules require litigants to file a motion seeking permission to press an original case. That means Texas will need five justices to agree to let the case go forward, one more than the four required when the court is considering whether to hear an appeal in one of its more typical cases.
Two conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- have previously said they don’t think the court can legally reject an original case. But other conservatives, including Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, declined to adopt that position when Thomas reiterated it in February.
Legal experts see very little chance the justices will hear a case that’s so obviously weak from a constitutional standpoint. “Before you even lose you have to get to the court,” said Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School. “And I don’t think they’re going to get to the court. It’s going to be a race to see if the court rejects this one faster than they did the one from Pennsylvania.”
What other hurdles does Texas face?
Even if the justices say Texas can file the suit, they could quickly dismiss it. Legal experts are skeptical that Texas has standing, meaning that the state has suffered the type of concrete injury that entitles it to seek relief.
“There is nothing about the injury Texas claims it will suffer that is unique to Texas as compared to any other state,” Vladeck said. “And the Supreme Court is not going to be in a hurry to open the floodgates to states suing to vindicate generalized grievances.”
The campaign and its allies have had a number of lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing. Timing has also been an issue, with many courts saying Trump and his allies acted in bad faith by challenging election procedures as unfair only after votes were cast and the results were known. It could be concern for the justices that Texas is only suing four battleground states that went for Biden, though other states also made changes to their election rules.
And even when they decided cases on issues like standing, a number of judges unequivocally stated that claims that some voters’ equal-protection and due-process rights were violated because other jurisdictions had different voting procedures completely lacked merit.
What about Trump intervening in the suit?
Trump moved to intervene in the case on Wednesday afternoon, arguing that “the president’s participation in litigation critical to his election should be welcomed.”
But the president’s quest to involve himself might do him more harm than good. “If Trump intervenes, it actually is lethal to the argument that there needs to be original jurisdiction because this is a dispute between the states,” said Levinson.
It will take the votes of five justices to decide if Trump can participate.
What if the Supreme Court actually rules for Texas?
Legal experts are adamant that there is virtually zero chance of this happening. But if it did, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says it still might not hand the election to Trump.
Eliminating the four defendant states from the Electoral College would leave Biden with a 244-232 electoral vote advantage. Many conservatives believe that, because no candidate would have 270 electoral votes, the election would go to the House of Representatives -- where Republicans would have an edge because votes for presidents are cast by state delegations rather than individual members.
But Tribe begs to differ. “What the Texas strategy foolishly ignores is that the 12th Amendment tosses the election into the House only if no candidate has a ‘majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,’ and that ‘whole number’ would go down to just 475, not 538, if the Texas gambit were to work,” said Tribe.
Donald Trump’s campaign asked to join a Texas lawsuit challenging the president’s election defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court, as 17 other states filed in support of a case that has been called a publicity stunt.
While presenting no evidence of fraud, the campaign cited the fact that Trump won 12 million more votes than 2016 and a high percentage of non-white voters in his brief, along with the fact that he won both Florida and Ohio. “These things just don’t normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss,” according to the filing Wednesday. Trump must get permission from the Supreme Court to be allowed to intervene in the case.
Seventeen other states, led by Missouri, filed a brief Wednesday in support of the Texas suit, brought by the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton. Texas is seeking to prevent electors from Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania from participating in the Electoral College on Dec. 14. The Supreme Court on Tuesday evening gave the states until 3 p.m. Thursday to file responses.
Paxton will be among about a dozen Republican attorneys general who are to join Trump for lunch on Thursday, according to White House spokesman Judd Deere. He added that Trump plans to discuss “issues important to their citizens and the country, and ways to continue to advance the shared federal-state partnership.”
A White House official said that the meeting had been scheduled weeks ago.
The suit by Paxton -- who has been accused of bribery by some of his own aides -- repeats allegations about mail-in voting that have already been roundly rejected in dozens of courts across the nation, and legal experts say it has no chance of being heard by the Supreme Court. Top officials in the states he seeks to sue questioned the purpose of the suit on Tuesday.
“The motion filed by the Texas attorney general is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. “The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country.”
The Texas suit was filed on the same day as the Dec. 8 “safe harbor” date for states to certify their slates of electors to send to the Electoral College. The passing of that deadline means time is almost certainly up on Trump’s increasingly desperate effort to overturn his re-election defeat, in which he’s sought to pressure state legislatures to override voters and appoint alternative electors who would back him instead of President-elect Joe Biden.
Trump has described this suit as “the big one.” He also noted Wednesday that his campaign wasn’t part of a separate case, brought by a Pennsylvania congressman, that the Supreme Court rebuffed on Tuesday -- the first time the high court has weighed in on Republican litigation to try to overturn the election outcome.
In a one-sentence order, the court said Tuesday that it would not grant a request from plaintiffs including Representative Mike Kelly to void Pennsylvania’s election results.
-
Trader Pat
- Posts: 4327
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm
Worth noting too that Ken Paxton is under indictment on charges of securities fraud so its not a stretch to think he's only doing this to curry favour with Trump in the hope of getting a presidential pardon
Trump's having a mental breakdown on Twitter - even tweeting a video of a woman faxing the office sandwich list twice. 
Given the amount of money traded, I don't think there's much chance of a resettlement, with people withdrawing their millions in liabilities as soon as the market gets settled.
tbh I'm far more curious about why bob dylan has flogged his entire portfolio.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55213529
Much more interesting than the final writhings of an orange bulldozer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55213529
Much more interesting than the final writhings of an orange bulldozer.
There is a high profile Poker player offering odds of evens that a case gets to the supreme court.
He's v shrewd.
Has been laying 10/1 Trump - and getting lots of action - so, probably the right price for a case to even be heard is about 2/1
He's v shrewd.
Has been laying 10/1 Trump - and getting lots of action - so, probably the right price for a case to even be heard is about 2/1