snafu

I guess it is up to the accuser to do more than tweet about it. That's not going to overcome the denial and story burial. The reaction of the Governor's office (including leaks) is probably textbook.

The AG story is the real story here. The accuser may absolutely be telling the truth, but the timing of when the story came out seems like someone is using it to derail the AG appointment.

Gorilla? Orangutan?

Okay. Nobody's stopping you from believing what you want to believe.

Yes, the standing hurdle is why I said: "IF it gets to the merits (BIG if)". Your initial post referred to Texas challenging other State's laws, not the failure of Officials failing to follow the laws. There's a difference. Though I'd say that 18 States' Attorneys General argue that they do have standing. I'm not saying whether I agree with them because I'm not going to read the laws and cases they cite to form my opinion when we shall find out very soon.

Read the Texas filing. It goes into detail for each State. The link was posted above. It's not my complaint. It is their complaint. I was just pointing out that Texas isn't trying to overturn any other State's laws, like the other poster said.

8 other AG's joined the case. Are they all looking for pardons? Whatever the standing or merits issues are, your conspiracy theory is unjustified. The Texas case has very little to do with "fraud". They ruled on whether an injunction should be issued, not on the merits of the case. Though, you're right that it's a loss for the PA guy who brought the case. I'm not sure this decision rises to GFY level. The Texas case (IF it gets to the merits, BIG if) isn't about Texas complaining about the content of the other states' laws. Texas is saying that the elections officials in the other states didn't follow their own laws without leave of the legislature.

The issue is with congregants who choose to obey the guidelines. If people don't adhere to the guidelines, then their particular church can rightly be shut down. But you can't come at the issue with the presumption of disobedience.

You want to move the goalposts to "religion = no science"? There are no religious scientists, no religious doctors? Your position is not consistent with the real world. As for the general welfare, laws that abridge constitutionally protected freedoms must be limited, not broad-brushed. You may have a distaste for religion and religious people, but they have constitutionally protected rights. Do you have any proof that churchgoers are violating social distancing guidelines? Do you think they get together for big non-masked group hugs and then go out to the community to spread their Covid disease they don't believer in science?

What Supreme Court decision forces the non-religious to do anything? In this decision, they're limiting the government from preventing people from practicing their religion as they see fit. The Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to limit the government, not empower it. This decision is consistent with limiting the government. You're "just saying", but you're inventing an issue that doesn't exist.

My younger days: friday. Thursday nights were great to go out drinking. These days: monday. It is easier to play catch up on Tuesday and run the backlog through the week. And fewer people take Mondays off, so beach days or grocery runs, etc. would be less crowded. The only downside to mondays is that's when most of the holidays fall, so if I'd be missing days off because of monday holidays, then I'd need to re-think that. Looking at the results so far, anyone who voted for Wednesday, should actually choose Tuesday or Thursday. Looks like those are days that nobody takes off. Talk about quiet time.

The guy asked for an update. He got an update.

Well, this happened today... https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-robert-mueller-statutes-elections-ae0275b4eb23981c1e6fbf9fc49c3239 So there's an update for you.

There's an app my wife and I use to play each other (called Chess Time). You can set the length of time between moves up to two days. That's good because usually I get a notification that it is my turn while I'm driving or on the phone and when I get to see what she did I have a while to think about what I want to do without being distracted by life at the same time. We have long running battles since we are pretty evenly matched. She used to win all the time because my level of concentration was never fully there. I just didn't care enough whether I won or lost. But we took a long time off and since then, I try hard to focus -- especially when we are playing face to face in person. Our son (13) kicks our asses at chess. He's good. We use a timer. 8:00 per side. You need to go quick. Pretty much the same with our kid. Except someone asked my wife to start up the team. Now they both study moves and she gets some Chess people to teach the kids on the team.

Back to the thread subject... Yes Biden is a lame duck. Harris will likely run in 2024. The House’s super slim margin will paralyze Pelosi until 2022 at best. So that’s a check on Biden The Court is 5-3-1 (Roberts) so that’s also a check against him. Senate remains to be seen. Let’s see how many anti-Trump voters show up in January once everyone knows Trump isn’t coming back. The only thing he’s going to accomplish is not acting like Trump, which is to say very little. Everyone likes to to focus on domestic policy but the real problem is going to come from China (trade, technology, Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, NKorea, India). What, if anything, Biden does to contain China’s attempts at expansion will be a big deal. I hear a lot about how the US needs to re-set it’s pimary position internationally. China will test that.

Well, all my note was going to say was: don't do anything different. (maybe a couple stock tips) And then: Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Aramathea: "He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castle of AAARGH"

I'd either hand it to me or mail it to me.

I haven't read any of this thread. I will after I post. My three words would be "read my letter".

I wouldn’t worry about any future trump runs. Not at all. Impeached (and convicted) or otherwise.

Other than the constitution, is there an emoluments law that someone can be prosecuted for? Are there statutory penalties? Is it a civil or a criminal offense? Honest questions.

There is an open FBI investigation. It was opened in 2019.

Maybe Trump is taking Hillary’s advice to Biden from earlier this year regarding conceding. https://www.washingtonpost.com And she didn’t disavow this beauty: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/14/celebrities_led_by_martin_sheen_beg_republican_electors_not_to_vote_for_trump.html By the way — go back and re-read what I said.

The far left isn't going to gain any traction in Congress at the moment because the margin is too slim and the moderate D's want to keep their jobs and the majority wants to keep its majority. The way-too-powerful executive branch on the other hand...they've got to pay the progressives back for the coalition they made to get into office. That's going to be ugly..

Why do you presume that States will impose broad restrictions? Many states don't. People move from one location to another all the time. They do this because of more or less social restriction and or tax or healthcare benefits from one jurisdiction to another. They do it to suit their needs or desires. Local governments provide this specialization (or don't). A one-size Federal government can't. And you're forgetting a big reason to support states rights. It removes the unnecessary duplication of many regulations to slim down the Federal Government. I don't really believe that the Federal Budget, the NYS Budget and the NYC budget (to name one where I live) are efficiently aligned, and there's a lot of excess and wast and frankly, taxes and regulatory fees are heaped upon each other. So who does get your vote? Because the other major party isn't about liberalism. If you aren't going to vote for the only party that could possibly give you a chance at what you're seeking, then do you go to the other party which would never come close to providing it?

He could have included it in his report to Congress and Congress could have impeached him and the Senate have convicted him.