NC Supreme Court race - Riggs ahead +734 | NC Supreme Court stays certification pending appeal

[gtyellowjacket]

Q: Hey, GT, you said McDonalds would serve pizza if it could. You have an example of McDonalds ever trying to serve pizza?

GT: Here’s an example of Olive Garden serving lasagna.

Q: Yeah, that doesn’t have anything to do with McDonalds serving pizza.

GT: HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THEY’RE THE SAME THING????

I feel like it's the difference between a McDonald's in North Carolina and a McDonald's in Georgia.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Sure. I’ll correct that sentence to “Because many county election boards in NC have been Pub controlled . . . .” Doesn’t change the point I was making at all, but I’m happy to make that minor correction.

Ball’s in your court now, bud. What votes in Georgia were invalidated?

All votes by Cornell West and Claudia De La Cruz despite them being on the ballot and despite the Georgia elections commission ruling that they should be on the ballot. The Democrats also tried to invalidate all Jill Stein and Robert Kennedy votes but Robert Kennedy dropped out and the courts did rule that Stein's votes should count.

Any other "minor" changes you want to make bud?

 

[uncleradar]

Were the challenges you describe before or after the election? I can see the logic of challenging before the election; once votes are cast and counted, challenging them requires invalidating people's votes with no recourse.

 

[Centerpiece]

Q: Hey, GT, you said McDonalds would serve pizza if it could. You have an example of McDonalds ever trying to serve pizza?

GT: Here’s an example of Olive Garden serving lasagna.

Q: Yeah, that doesn’t have anything to do with McDonalds serving pizza.

GT: HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THEY’RE THE SAME THING????

Exactly. Great analogy. He doesn’t see his total whataboutism and bo-siding. He’s a tedious little tit and I’m not at all sure why 99% of the board hasn’t already super-ignored him. I’m thinking about 75% already has.

 

[lawtig02]

Were the challenges you describe before or after the election? I can see the logic of challenging before the election; once votes are cast and counted, challenging them requires invalidating people's votes with no recourse.

Before, of course. But GT is too proud to ever admit it.

 

[Centerpiece]

A tedious little tit

 

[altmin]

Q: Hey, GT, you said McDonalds would serve pizza if it could. You have an example of McDonalds ever trying to serve pizza?

GT: Here’s an example of Olive Garden serving lasagna.

Q: Yeah, that doesn’t have anything to do with McDonalds serving pizza.

GT: HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THEY’RE THE SAME THING????

And yes I know this information is about as relevant to this thread as engaging in someone who just wants your reaction for the sake of trolling.

 

[superrific]

All votes by Cornell West and Claudia De La Cruz despite them being on the ballot and despite the Georgia elections commission ruling that they should be on the ballot. The Democrats also tried to invalidate all Jill Stein and Robert Kennedy votes but Robert Kennedy dropped out and the courts did rule that Stein's votes should count.

Any other "minor" changes you want to make bud?

Not exactly. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that those candidates were not eligible for the election, and thus ordered them removed from the ballot. Except it was too late to remove them. So they had to stay on the ballot but their votes would not count. That was a decision from a Republican court.

More importantly, that challenge was filed in August. That's the correct time to file the challenge, and for the court to consider the challenge. That's what makes it nothing like the situation here. What Griffin should have done was challenge these votes in this manner before the election. After the election is not an appropriate time. He might have done so -- Myers' opinion mentioned a bunch of previously filed actions in the case and I don't remember who filed what. I do remember that all the cases were thrown out, I think by the 4th Circuit. So they were meritless then, and even more meritless now.

Imagine there's a soccer game scheduled on a day there's a snowstorm. This happens in the UK and Germany sometimes. And the officials have to make a call whether to hold the game. Now, if one of the teams thinks that the game shouldn't be held, the time to make that protest is before the game. And a reasonable referee would consider whatever argument that team has to make. This is our position. After the game starts, the outcome will be accepted by all parties. You can't try to change the rules after the fact.

Your position is that it's OK for the team that loses to then complain, afterwards, that the game shouldn't have been played and seek to have the result invalidated. And even you can understand why that is an idiotic idea. It's not a coincidence that, to the best of my knowledge, it has never happened. And if it did happen, the relief requested by the losing team has never been granted (or at least virtually never). And the officials don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, because it's an easy question and obviously the protest should be rejected on its face.

Before the election is when these questions of law should be decided. Not afterwards. Litigation after the election should concern only whether the votes cast were valid under the rules being enforced at election time. Like, if the person showed a fake ID, that vote could be thrown out.

What you seem not to know is that Griffin DID challenge votes during the recount. So did Riggs, presumably (as would be her right). And the recount found that actually Riggs had a slightly larger margin than before the recount. And that should have been the end of it. Griffin lost. Sucks for him, but that's what happens in elections. Someone has to lose. It was Griffin. End of story.

No amount of your bullshit is ever going to change these facts.

 

[lawtig02]

And yes I know this information is about as relevant to this thread as engaging in someone who just wants your reaction for the sake of trolling.

Ha! Had that been the actual discussion, I would have stood corrected.

And I’ll stop now. I do know from the countless prior examples GT that will never admit his bad faith in the comments he makes about Dems on this board.

 

[Centerpiece]

A tedious little tit

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Were the challenges you describe before or after the election? I can see the logic of challenging before the election; once votes are cast and counted, challenging them requires invalidating people's votes with no recourse.

They were before but voters did have their votes invalidated. I know this wasn't you but there were a number of people implying that the Democrats would never use the court system to invalidate votes and I just don't think that's the case. Both parties are going to do it with the people out of power doing the legal challenges, and frankly they should.

 

[lawtig02]

They were before but voters did have their votes invalidated. I know this wasn't you but there were a number of people applying that the Democrats would never use the court system to invalidate votes and I just don't think that's the case. Both parties are going to do it with the people out of power doing the legal challenges, and frankly they should.

This is a lie, uncleradar. No votes were invalidated in Georgia. All Georgia voters were warned before they voted that votes for West and De la Cruz would not be counted, per a legal decision by Georgia conservatives. Just don’t want you to be deceived by the lies that are being posted here.

 

[superrific]

They were before but voters did have their votes invalidated. I know this wasn't you but there were a number of people applying that the Democrats would never use the court system to invalidate votes and I just don't think that's the case. Both parties are going to do it with the people out of power doing the legal challenges, and frankly they should.

The Democrats did not use the court system to invalidate votes and I really wish you would stop lying out of your ass.

 

[Calheel]

The second worst chamber was Garland, though for a different reason: he was so thorough with his research and writing that he was always late.

So Garland took too long to make decisions, huh? Can't see where that would ever become a problem as AG.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

This is a lie, uncleradar. No votes were invalidated in Georgia. All Georgia voters were warned before they voted that votes for West and De la Cruz would not be counted, per a legal decision by Georgia conservatives. Just don’t want you to be deceived by the lies that are being posted here.

Do you know what invalidated means?

 

[lawtig02]

Do you know what invalidated means?

Of course. To undo the validity of a ballot. Which obviously doesn’t apply to ballots that were deemed to be invalid before they were cast.

I know you think you’re being clever here, but you’re just cementing your reputation as one who shoots from the hip and is then too proud to admit your mistake. It’s a bad look.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Of course. To undo the validity of a ballot. Which obviously doesn’t apply to ballots that were deemed to be invalid before they were cast.

I know you think you’re being clever here, but you’re just cementing your reputation as one who shoots from the hip and is then too proud to admit your mistake. It’s a bad look.

Did the votes count?

 

[DiehardHeelFan]

Did the votes count?

If I would have written in a vote for Obama last November for President would the vote have counted?

 

[lawtig02]

Did the votes count?

Sure, in the same way it counted when you wrote “I want Mickey Mouse to be president” on a gum wrapper and flushed it down the toilet. If anyone disregarded the instructions given to them by Georgia officials before they voted, then guess what? They. Didn’t. Vote. And that’s not because of the Dems. It’s because of a decision the Georgia courts made before the election.

Now, if you’ll like to stop dissembling and get back to the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting your statement that Dems would do the same thing the NC GOP is doing in the Supreme Court race, I’m happy to keep discussing. But you’re so far out in left field now we can’t even see you, and I’m done helping you pollute this thread.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

If I would have written in a vote for Obama last November for President would the vote have counted?

And I'm wrong again. It depends on the state you live in. In North Carolina and Georgia it would not have counted. In some states like South Carolina, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and New Jersey it would have counted.

But to be clear, these candidates were not write-in candidates. They were candidates who claimed they that collected enough valid signatures to be on the ballot, the state election committee ruled they were valid and Democrats went to court to challenge those signatures. Democrats were hoping to keep the candidates off the ballot initially, and keep votes for those candidates from counting there after the ballots were printed. They ultimately won with some and lost with other candidates.