Extremely narrow wins are reasonably subject to recounts. Asking for a recount on a win by a single-digit number like that is not out of the ordinary or unreasonable.

Trump is asking for more than just recounts in elections that were won by much much larger margins.

It's apples and potatoes. — Pfhorrest

The recount was already conducted and the Republican win was confirmed and the result certified. This is an appeal to the House to hear evidence to determine if the vote was valid. It avoids judicial review and instead puts the issue before a committee chosen by the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

It's apples to apples. It'd be like submitting the presidential election dispute to the Senate for adjudication. How this is Constitutional , I don't know. It seems like a separation of powers violation to me to provide the legislative branch the power to conduct judicial review.
https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/rita-hart-us-house-appeal-marianette-miller-meeks-election-recount-20201202

Ffs, if Trump lost by 6 votes in one state, instead of tens or hundreds of thousands in multiple states no-one, including me, would be complaining about Republicans taking it to the wire. Your attitude is kind of like saying if a Dem sticks a pin in a Republican, the Republican is justified in chopping up the entire Dem's family with a machete. See how crazy that is Hanny?

she will forgo further legal challenges in Iowa and instead appeal directly to the U.S. House for additional recount proceedings.

Trump is no longer asking for recounts. He is asking for either state legislatures to appoint electors for him, despite the fact that he gained fewer votes in the state, or for the SCOTUS to somehow directly appoint him as President.

That's a fairly crucial detail. The other major detail would be his telling supporters he has air tight evidence of fraud, despite being unable to produce any. If he was dragging out recounts and not publicaly claiming he had won, people wouldn't be as upset.

The rhetoric certainly isn't apples to apples. The Arizona GOP showed a clip of Rambo and asked if Republicans were willing to give their lives for the effort to overturn the election. Trump's former National Security Advisor among others said Trump should have the military seize control of the country, abrogate the election, and that the military should be allowed to run a second election.

Trump is himself not appealing to non-partisan forces. He had made appeals to elected state judges and officials from his party and judged he appointed. His problem, and self-proclaimed lovers of liberty would know this if they actually read the filings, is that he has no evidence. Whilst the GOP says there is iron clad evidence on TV, the filings don't show that. The new Texas led suit does not allege evidence of fraud. Rather, the argument had to be reduced to:

1. Changes that allowed more mail in voting were illegal under states own laws;
2. The changes made it so hard to detect fraud, that you can't prove there wasn't fraud.

It's a shifting of the burden of proof, making someone prove a negative.

And, the remedy they want, Donald Trump appointed President by the judiciary, doesn't follow even if the other two were true. Wouldn't another election necessarily follow, since there is no evidence of wrong doing?

There is some surreal level of cope by GOP moderates too. "He's not trying to overturn the election, he is just pursuing all legal options to ensure the voted are counted correctly." The man has been Tweeting "RIGGED ELECTION!," and "#OVERTURN" every day.

Ffs, if Trump lost by 6 votes in one state, instead of tens or hundreds of thousands in multiple states no-one, including me, would be complaining about Republicans taking it to the wire. Your attitude is kind of like saying if a Dem sticks a pin in a Republican, the Republican is justified in chopping up the entire Dem's family with machetes. See how crazy that is Hanny? — Baden

My attitude is that I cannot support anyone who engages in undemocratic behavior. I recognize that Trump's interference with the democratic process exceeds that of what is occurring in the Iowa election. If Trump lost by 6 votes total and he was now trying to over-ride that 6 vote loss by having the Senate declare him the winner somehow, I would see that as very significant.

Anyway, it is possible to be incensed by the conduct of both parties even though one may be worse than the other. My guess is that the Republican will be seated, in part for the reasons I've pointed out, which is that it is very difficult to hold the moral high ground if your best argument is that you're unprincipled, but at least you limit your violations to a degree less than your opponent.

The rhetoric certainly isn't apples to apples. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But this wasn't what I was responding to in @Pfhorrest's post. He said it was not apples to apples because all the Iowa candidate wanted was a recount, but that was incorrect. She was appealing the election to the House. I've not suggested that the Iowa candidate and Trump have engaged in behavior of the same degree, so your itemization of the behaviors of the two candidates wasn't responsive to my concerns. So you know, I did not vote for Trump, do not support Trump, and believe him to be as terrible an actor as I imagine you do, which ought to be obvious from my condemnation of all things undemocratic, which he most certainly is.

I agree the principle of certified elections being final should hold in the Dems case too. She ought to suck it up. I don't see anything remotely like a comparable attack on Democracy though. So, my emotional disgust is mitigated in proportion.

I agree the principle of certified elections being final should hold in the Dems case too. She ought to suck it up. I don't see anything remotely like a comparable attack on Democracy though. So, my emotional disgust is mitigated in proportion. — Baden

Well, you can't decontextualize this either. For a Democrat whose party currently holds the moral high ground on this issue, now is not the time to waver in your principles and provide your unworthy opponent an opening to argue that being undemocratic isn't a violation of principle, but instead it's a matter of nuance that Democrats know better how to apply than Republicans. Ffs, fight the good fight.

And for the record, I now know what "ffs" means because you always fill me in on all the hip terms the kids are using.

They aren't the same process. The appeal to the House is the appeal for a second recount.

The requests from Trump since he lost his recounts haven't been for additional recounts, it's to have state legislatures award him their electors despite him losing the certified vote, or to somehow have a judge appoint him as President. The difference is "I think I may have won, count them again," vs "it says I lost but there was foul play, so I should be awarded victory anyhow."

The House and Senate probably shouldn't be in charge of recounts, but that's how the Constitution is written, and it makes more sense in the very poor quality of some state governments going back to the 19th century.

The recount was already conducted and... confirmed. — Hanover

I accuse you of cherry picking the article, which in our present political climate I consider egregious and without plausible excuse. The issue is not the count but whether some votes that should have been and should be counted, have not been counted. I think you're too smart to miss the distinctions and differences between the two issues, but whatever your reason(s), they are on their face ignorant. Care to try to account for yourself?

I accuse you of cherry picking the article, which in our present political climate I consider egregious and without plausible excuse. The issue is not the count but whether some votes that should have been and should be counted, have not been counted. I think you're too smart to miss the distinctions and differences between the two issues, but whatever your reason(s), they are on their face ignorant. Care to try to account for yourself? — tim wood

No, the issue is whatever the challenger makes the issue and the power of the House is anything from ordering a new election to deciding which of the two candidates to seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Contested_Elections_Act

No, the issue is whatever the challenger makes the issue — Hanover

Six votes difference out of almost 400,000 cast, and, among other issues:
"Hart’s campaign alleges there are legal ballots, including ones cast by military members overseas, not counted on election night...".
That is, .0015% difference. Fifteen ten-thousandths of a percent!

Which seems a fair issue. A fair settlement, though perhaps not easy, is either count the votes, all of them, or a run-off election.

And if you think under some variant of noblesse oblige Hart should yield then you suffer a profound failure to understand the circumstances.

If on a good count she loses by six or even one vote, then lose she did. But it's pretty clear no one can say that's the case.

And v. Republicans it's as simple as black and white, good v. evil. Hart wants the right thing, the right count. Trump wants the wrong thing, to pole-axe the count. Can you tell the difference?

Which seems a fair issue. A fair settlement, though perhaps not easy, is either count the votes, all of them, or a run-off election. — tim wood

I'm all for fairness, which is what the courts are used for, not generally this rarely used law that permits legislators to act as judges. Legislators are really good at advocating for their constituency, and asking them to put aside their biases seems an unreasonable ask even should the legislator be of pure intent.

I'm all for fairness, which is what the courts are used for, not generally this rarely used law that permits legislators to act as judges. Legislators are really good at advocating for their constituency, and asking them to put aside their biases seems an unreasonable ask even should the legislator be of pure intent. — Hanover

Fair comment. I accept it as corrective and advisory. It points towards recount or runoff - to let the thing speak (finally and both in- and conclusively) for itself.

The recent SpaceX landing is similar to the Texas lawsuit challenging election results?

Yep. They dismissed the case.

Delusional Trumptards told to fuck off yet again. Hopefully this time it will stick. Sad, pathetic, loons.

The fascists have really got their swastikas in a twist over this one.

Texas GOP now wants to secede because... democracy.

With these fanatics in power it might yet come to blows.

I expect some condemnation from both sides over this. Alan West is a nut job. He previously argued in favor of the Confederate monuments. A pro-Trump, African American Confederate secessionist is an oddity.

I am no scholar of American constitutional law, but surely the Trump campaign/GOP are veering really close to actual sedition.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

I guess it would be politically unpalatable to charge Donald Trump with sedition in that it would utterly paralyse relations between the two sides of politics. Still think it would be justifiable.

Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney are the only big names so far I've seen stand up to Trump. I suspect after the Senate races are over, more will, but Trump has already more or less succeeded in taking the Republican party down with him. He and his fellow loons are fully in charge of the asylum and I don't see that changing even when he's left office.

I guess it would be politically unpalatable to charge Donald Trump with sedition in that it would utterly paralyse relations between the two sides of politics. Still think it would be justifiable. — Wayfarer

He'd pardon himself! Lol.

Trump has already more or less succeeded in taking the Republican party down with him. — Baden

Everything Midas touched turned to gold, and what good did that do him? How much worse Trump, when everything and everyone he touches turns to....

But here I'd like to credit Michael Cohen. He being much scathed, but appears to have emerged a decent man - and likely he always was a decent man, but whom Trump, the dark one, touched. And apparently no one else that comes to my mind. Can anyone name anyone (else) in Trump's orbit, who is not themself a horror of one or several types?

I still think don’t think Cohen comes across well. Neither does Anthony Scarmucci, even though both of them have turned on Trump.

I think a lot of state-level Republicans and electoral officers have shown a lot of guts standing up to him. Also might be noted that no GOP senators joined the amicus brief for Texas. But Trump has undeniably corrupted the Republican Party, completely bent it to his will.

I still say the so-called ‘conservative media’ are co-conspirators in all of this. They’re feeding hundreds of millions of people completely lies and fantasies, there is no journalistic integrity whatever. While ever Trump’s lies are not being called out by them and the Republican Party the situation is basically corrupt.

https://thesuburbiareport.com/2020/12/12/we-cant-be-hand-wringing-about-fraudulent-elections-every-four-years/

"All of the hand-wringing after 2016 about a supposed conspiracy involving both the Trump campaign and the Kremlin resulted in a conglomerate of steadfast “resistance” liberals that felt compelled to endlessly tweet about how Trump and his base were poised to tear down every pillar of our democracy, and then pat themselves on the back when such obviously ludicrous and hyperbolic conjectures never panned out. Four years later, we now have a faction of Republicans more or less conducting themselves in a very similar manner, with the Texas GOP Chair even suggesting succession in the wake of the Supreme Court refusing to hear a case regarding overturning the victory of President-elect Biden.

Meanwhile, who suffers most of all at the end of all of this? The voters.

Two election cycles in a row now have seen grave concerns being raised and temper-tantrums being thrown at least from one side of the political spectrum over the results of the presidential election. The populace though managed to keep itself from descending into mayhem and pandemonium after 2016, and looks set to also unanimously accept the 2020 results without any widespread militant uprisings or civil wars (which were anticipated rather comically).

But the political elite and the mainstream press have a substantial responsibility in the coming years to make sure that this type of hyperbolic anguish does not nearly get the same degree of airtime and exposure once 2024 rolls around. Otherwise, is it really that far-fetched to say that Republican elites in 2024 will bemoan another loss, and claim the election was stolen by “socialists” that had hijacked the Democratic ticket? And how doubtful is it that, after a 2024 loss, the Democrats and all their friends in cable news will spout speech after speech, and run segment after segment about how a supposed “Putin-puppet” such as Mike Pence or Tom Cotton is an “existential” threat to the fabric of our democracy?"

The recent SpaceX landing is similar to the Texas lawsuit challenging election results? — praxis

That SpaceX first flight actually went awesome.

Yeah, in the end one of the Raptor engines didn't work. Still...way to go!!! :up:

A nice debrief of what actually happened! :razz:

Interesting.

I guess the Texas lawsuit probably went awesome too, in that it may have helped to generate more donation$ and merchandise sales, as well as giving the Trump herd something motivating to focus on.

I am no scholar of American constitutional law, but surely the Trump campaign/GOP are veering really close to actual sedition. — Wayfarer

Filing frivolous lawsuits is not an act of sedition. Stupid, harmful to political discourse, divisive? Yes. But not close to seditious.

Attempting to strike out the votes of millions of citizens is not a frivolity. It's close to seditious.