Unseen

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night — And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Read the full article here:

Between the political machinations described below, an already conservative Supreme Court, possibly to become even more conservative in coming weeks, and the naked power mad hypocrisy of the GOP who for years now have t…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:

Do the legalities play a role when he has decided he is not leaving? March on DC Tcultists. Now what?

Depends on who follows the rules (and him losing the election), but once Biden is sworn in, Biden is the President and Trump can leave holding a cardboard box of the contents of his desk, or the Secret Service will treat him as…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

The only current swing states with a Republican trifecta is Florida. Ohio, Iowa and Arizona. I’ve taken a look at all four states and:Florida has the slimmest majority in the Senate. It’s unlikely a super contentious bill like that would pass there…especially in a state with a serious history of voting supression and electoral disas…

[Read more]

Jake, read that Newsweek article about how Trump can lose the election but remain President.

One of the things I fear the most is that Trump, having lost the popular vote, perhaps by an even greater margin, is still just a few EC votes away from winning. Since the GOP tends to run the state legislatures, especially in swing states, there is time…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Mitch didn’t waste much time, did he? Do the Democrats have a secret weapon to thwart a rapid Ginsburg replacement?

I love alternet.org but they are very aggressive in terms of forcing visitors to turn off their ad blockers. Unfortunately, I’ve found that even after you create an exception for them (called “…[Read more]

He’s already done so much damage along with that evil genius from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who has rammed through 216 Federal judges (lifetime terms) with 220 possible by Election Day. Thus, anything Biden does, should he win, would likely be run through a gauntlet of conservative (and in many cases unqualified) judges before it even got to…[Read more]

Things just got much worse. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Senator Mitch McConnell, who runs the Senate, has assured everyone that there will be a conservative replacement for the ultra-liberal Ginsberg before Inauguration Day. So this will happen no matter who wins the presidency. If Biden wins, he’ll have a very very conservative Supreme…[Read more]

I just thought of a good one: I was dead before I knew it.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Unseen, if you can transfer your consciousness onto a disc or into a Frankenstein or Adonis for that matter will you do it? Emmm…….do you not have maximum headroom to do so? 🙂

Frankenstein…I like he ring of that.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue

To pro-life people, it’s a “fact” that the foetus is a human being. To pro-choice people, more accurately in my opinion, it’s a proto-human being, not yet a human being. However, it has rights under the law, not to be killed in an assault. It’s one big g…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Is there a hidden agenda for pro-choice people?

Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue in order to create a rational world, but it’s futile. Emotional issues are generally not based on misunderstandings that a fact or two will change.

I love the way Simon and Davis are proving my point. Nothing either of you can offer as evidence will change either mind. It’s because your attitudes aren’t fact driven. You use facts to justify your position but no fact will prove your position.

Can anyone think of a seismic shift on a moral/ethical issue that was due to a fact rather than a widespread shift in the public’s attitude, or a fact that changed the public’s mind on a moral/ethical matter?

Davis wrote:

No it isn’t a fact that a foetus is “alive”. It is a functioning organism but whether it is alive depends on your definition of what is “alive”.

That’s my thesis. People use definitions that rule out inconvenient “facts,” and they do so in the service of preserving their attitude.

Simon Paynton wrote:

It’s not that the facts are irrelevant – it’s that they’re interpreted differently. Everyone knows that a foetus is alive, and is a tiny human. It’s just that “pro-life” people place very little importance on the life of the mother, while “pro-choice” people place comparatively little importance on the life of the foetus. In…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Here lies an atheist. All dressed up and nowhere to go.

Brilliant! I think I’ll use that one.