Brian Hagedorn, the Government Man playing judge, whines that Trump's suit would 'disenfranchise' all the Wisconsin voters who--following the advice of the W.E.C.--signed their walk-in absentee vote requests and subsequently voted.
So, says Brian the Government Man, because the bad-nasty people at W.E.C. told them to do wrong, why should the voters be blamed when that 'blame' takes away their vote??
Because, Brian--the W.E.C.'s "license to fraud" ALSO disenfranchises most of the voters in the State of Wisconsin who showed up on Election Day to vote in person.
But those voters..........the election-day voters.........they didn't earn the sympathy of Brian, the Government Man.
Pffffffffffft, said Brian.
Hagerdon is right.
ReplyDeleteSee, the problem is not him, but Trump's lawyers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lawyers-legal-ethics/2020/11/20/3c286710-2ac1-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html
“The Trump legal team does not seem to have identified any kind of global litigation strategy that has any prospect of changing the outcome of the election, and all of the court filings to date underscore that — as do all of the court rulings that have been issued to date,” said Robert Kelner, a Republican lawyer who chairs the election and political law practice group at Covington & Burling, an international law firm based in Washington.
Part of the problem is that Trump’s approach has been backward: Declare crimes first, then look for proof afterward.
Again and again, the president or his allies said they’d found evidence that would stun the public and swing the election.
But, when Trump and his team revealed that evidence, it often was far less than they had promised. A “dead” voter turned out to be alive. “Thousands” of problematic ballots turned out to be one. Election-changing problems turned out to involve a few dozen, or a few hundred, ballots.
Oh, right. The WaPo.
ReplyDeleteThe very first "real-life" scene presented by the UCLA egghead was a shaded lie. Describing a Trump lawyer's side-skaddle re the 'number of observers' in a room, the lawyer acknowledge there were more than one. OK......
But the "ethics prof" forgets to mention that the observer(s) were also a GREAT DISTANCE AWAY from being able to "observe," which was the whole objective.
Yes, lawyers shade stuff. So does the WaPo and the "ethics" clown they hired.
Yes, the WaPo.
ReplyDeleteSince I'm in the Christmas spirit, I'll give you a lesson.
Upon self-reflection on how we as humans conduct themselves, especially if we are searching for a particular avenue to convince others that there is but one specific way of behaving, we delude ourselves into believing we have found the ultimate answer. But that response is run roughshod by our own confirmation biases. Stated another way, we must be wary of how fundamental attribution error affects our analysis of the human condition.
Now, while it makes perfect sense to categorize humans in your schema, the way by which how the categorization is employed becomes nonsensical. What ends up inevitably occurring is you conveniently and neatly arranging your ideological proponents and opponents into these compartments. The end result? A self-fulfilling prophecy and “evidence” your distinctions is entirely accurate. While people may TEND to be rational or impulsive, one must carefully take into account the situation and context of that behavior, as well as their own prejudices. Again, you are being prone to situational and dispositional attributions, considering that rationality and impulsivity runs on a continuum.
Indeed, when confronted with conflicting evidence that challenges one’s world view, there is self-denial and convoluted arguments by the Alt Right, which you fit to a T. Be mindful that in a series of studies from 2005 and 2016, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. “The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance”.
"GREAT DISTANCE AWAY from being able to "observe," which was the whole objective."
I didn't realize within feet of someone is a "great distance away" in your world. That is odd. The reality is that Republican observers and his own team members were in close proximity and directly monitoring, per state and local law, where ballots were being processed, as well as there were several battleground states that set up Live Streams with different camera angles to show the process.
When pressed in open court by judges, Trump's lawyers did not submit the type of evidence of widespread voter fraud that would necessitate hundreds of thousands of ballots to be invalidated.
Trump lost, friend.
Dave, old man, your moralizing is really disgusting. Don't you have a school board to save, or something?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you're not paid by the word here. The Jesuits would give you a "D" for your blatherous excess.
Trump won. Theft-by-Fraud is not "winning." It's theft-by-fraud, no matter what some Intellectualoid wants to call it.
were in close proximity
ReplyDeleteEver try to match signatures from six feet?
Trump won.
They did legitimately match signatures. Tens of millions of them.
ReplyDeleteTrump lost, my Christian friend.