*****Election day 2023 thread*****
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
With all this talk of Biden getting smoked, we'll see how things go. I'm guessing the Dems cover the spread and do better than expected. I don't see the anger over Dobbs subsiding. Virginia will be a good test. All 140 seats of the general assembly are up for election. That'll provide a lot of information of where we're at.
Did I see some Democrat was caught dumping a large number of ballots in their own primary election? Just wondering if anyone else saw it? I believe it was a mail-in-ballot box.
Queue the "it was rigged" responses when the Cons lose, but not a peep about election fraud if they win. Rinse and repeat their boring BS.
Not sure I've lost track of the Villages people in FL and their attempts at voting more than once though.
Mayoral candidate in a primary election: See two previous posts on this topic:
Do we finally have actual election fraud?
maybe... Democrats claim election fraud is a myth. But videos don’t lie. Roll the tapes: On Nov. 1, Connecticut Judge William Clark overturned the results of the Bridgeport mayoral primary, calling video evidence of fraud “shocking.” The vice chair of the Democratic Town Committee appears...
iowa.forums.rivals.com
So, fun already here in VA:
Having spent the morning listening to the Scotus argument about denying 2A rights to people who are a danger based on civil commitment orders, this fellow strikes me as a prime target. (BTW, Hurtt is actually a nice fellow who doesn't get in people's faces; the guy was ranting when he went in, so Hurtt record when he came out). Also, you will all be pleased to know that my friend wrote in my name to be Commonwealth Attorney in place of our current Soros designee, Teresa ****ing-Asshole.
Speaking of the scotus argument, Some interesting nuggets from 2A argument...
- SG: 2A right can be curtailed if not "law abiding" (felony) or "responsible" (squishier); failure to store properly would constitute basis for precluding ownership under the latter
- CJ concern about potential breadth of 'responsibility'; SG says it's focused specifically on responsibility w/r/t firearm use or "dangerousness"
- ACB notes that domestic violence would seem to be satisfy dangerousness, and notes that specific factual predicate of dangerousness in the record
- KJB asking some cagey questions about dom violence protective orders which I suspect are actually designed to suggest that it doesn't even take dangerousness, even though she's not showing her cards
- SA asking about expiration/rights to challenge protective orders; SG says no federal rights, only state rights, and that curtailment only lasts as long as the protective order
[had to break for a call, but no hunter biden references yet!]
- Defendant counsel (fed public defender) emphasizes facial challenge; as I listen to this argument, it seems to me that he is probably not the ideal person to be doing this argument "for" the 2A; relatively poor preparation and confusing the court; he is definitely no Paul Clement
- NG asking about due process associated with protective order and counsel is fumbling
- EK asks if argument around facial challenge is simply that the G has to show a historical antecedent specific to domestic violence, per Bruen; counsel waffles and she ultimately says he seems to be running away from his argument
- SA seems to ask if in reality he's arguing that only the felony is really a disqualifier, and counsel argues no because it depends on whether the possession would result in serious penalties/danger
- SS asks about mental illness; counsel suggests yes
- BK asks whether, if he wins, the background check system would need to be modified; oddly, he says not necessarily, because state laws picked up by the system might have an allowable prohibition (which seems really weird to me) and because acquisition and possession may be different constitutionally
As much as people like to suggest that the court is in the bag on various issues, including guns, I'm pretty sure the G wins this one, for two reasons. First, there's enough of them who are still very cognizant of the real practical risks of dangerous people having guns. Second, counsel did a poor enough job imo that it would simply be too much heavy lifting on their own part to create a rule. I suspect what you'll get is something that says basically that if a person has been determined to create a risk of violence though a legal proceeding, they can have their 2A rights curtailed consistent with that risk.
Having spent the morning listening to the Scotus argument about denying 2A rights to people who are a danger based on civil commitment orders, this fellow strikes me as a prime target. (BTW, Hurtt is actually a nice fellow who doesn't get in people's faces; the guy was ranting when he went in, so Hurtt record when he came out). Also, you will all be pleased to know that my friend wrote in my name to be Commonwealth Attorney in place of our current Soros designee, Teresa ****ing-Asshole.
Speaking of the scotus argument, Some interesting nuggets from 2A argument...
- SG: 2A right can be curtailed if not "law abiding" (felony) or "responsible" (squishier); failure to store properly would constitute basis for precluding ownership under the latter
- CJ concern about potential breadth of 'responsibility'; SG says it's focused specifically on responsibility w/r/t firearm use or "dangerousness"
- ACB notes that domestic violence would seem to be satisfy dangerousness, and notes that specific factual predicate of dangerousness in the record
- KJB asking some cagey questions about dom violence protective orders which I suspect are actually designed to suggest that it doesn't even take dangerousness, even though she's not showing her cards
- SA asking about expiration/rights to challenge protective orders; SG says no federal rights, only state rights, and that curtailment only lasts as long as the protective order
[had to break for a call, but no hunter biden references yet!]
- Defendant counsel (fed public defender) emphasizes facial challenge; as I listen to this argument, it seems to me that he is probably not the ideal person to be doing this argument "for" the 2A; relatively poor preparation and confusing the court; he is definitely no Paul Clement
- NG asking about due process associated with protective order and counsel is fumbling
- EK asks if argument around facial challenge is simply that the G has to show a historical antecedent specific to domestic violence, per Bruen; counsel waffles and she ultimately says he seems to be running away from his argument
- SA seems to ask if in reality he's arguing that only the felony is really a disqualifier, and counsel argues no because it depends on whether the possession would result in serious penalties/danger
- SS asks about mental illness; counsel suggests yes
- BK asks whether, if he wins, the background check system would need to be modified; oddly, he says not necessarily, because state laws picked up by the system might have an allowable prohibition (which seems really weird to me) and because acquisition and possession may be different constitutionally
As much as people like to suggest that the court is in the bag on various issues, including guns, I'm pretty sure the G wins this one, for two reasons. First, there's enough of them who are still very cognizant of the real practical risks of dangerous people having guns. Second, counsel did a poor enough job imo that it would simply be too much heavy lifting on their own part to create a rule. I suspect what you'll get is something that says basically that if a person has been determined to create a risk of violence though a legal proceeding, they can have their 2A rights curtailed consistent with that risk.
@cigaretteman, thanks. I thought I saw it and got busy and couldn't find it again.Mayoral candidate in a primary election: See two previous posts on this topic:
Do we finally have actual election fraud?
maybe... Democrats claim election fraud is a myth. But videos don’t lie. Roll the tapes: On Nov. 1, Connecticut Judge William Clark overturned the results of the Bridgeport mayoral primary, calling video evidence of fraud “shocking.” The vice chair of the Democratic Town Committee appears...
Dudes got a point on every last gripe he had in this rant. If Rs want to commit coups and strip people of bodily rights, they deserve to be called out for it.
Dude is unhinged. When a poll volunteer offers you a sample ballot you don't want, you say no thank you, you enter the polling place, you cast your vote, and you go home. Honestly, I'm really not sure how someone -- anyone -- can be so angry so early in the morning without some serious underlying mental health issues.
The Rs are trying to destroy our democracy. My question is why you aren't equally as pissed? I applaud him for pushing back on these junior Nazis.
Generally people who care about their country and our Democracy would be in this scenario.
on 1/6, i was quite pissed at the goings on on the hill, notwithstanding that it was basically a ragtag band of chowderheads that posed zero actual risk to the continuity or transition of government. i have no problem with what has happened to them. it's routine law enforcement at this point.
But, nearly two years down the road, in a society that as far as i can tell is still pretty damned pluralistic on a virtually infinite number of levels, on an election day for which there were precisely zero federal offices on the ballot (and, in a jurisdiction for which there is precisely zero chance that any republican or even any independent is going to be elected to a local office), i most definitely do not get up early in the morning so angry that I am locked and loaded to drop a two minute stream of f-bombs at a volunteer poll worker whose sole offense is to passively hand out sample ballots to those that are willing to accept them at a polling station.
This guy is everything that is wrong with both extremes of our polity.
Republicans are everything that is wrong with polity. When Dems lose, they concede. When Rs lose, they light a match. You can't both sides this. And again, I have zero problem cussing out a poll worker who supports the match lighting.
Wow that guy needs to be beaten badly!! What is wrong with him? He seems like he needs to be evaluated for psych issues. You can’t act like that at polling places. Unhinged is right.
"Zero actual risk"? Yikes, that's some serious revisionist history, disappointed to see intelligent citizens like yourself state something like that.
You pretty much lose all credibility when you start ranting about “Soros designees”.
Grow up.
This guy aside, it looks like the Dem wins Kentucky Governor.
It seems Ohio wants a constitutional right to abortion.
Virginia probably won't be decided tonight, but so far the Dems are up in both chambers
Would Beshear ever be a POTUS nominee? He’s super popular in a red state.
Once again, the GOP's position on abortion is showing to be very popular even in red states!
It's just a football game to many people like this. They just want their team to win so they can rub it in the face of the other side. "Own the libs" is one of the biggest examples of projection on this board.
Someone's an angry elf tonight. Enjoy the loss. Your abortion bullshit earned it.
Or some people just like seeing the voting process work.....instead of attempting to overturn it.
Dems win! Kentucky Governorship called for Andy Beshear!
