• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judge rejects challenges to Georgia voters before Senate runoffs

OpportunityCost said:
Any appearance of impropriety or favoritism is to be avoided so as to prevent accusations of bias and favoritism. Its called ethics.

Don't even try to play the orange man bad card, it doesn't alleviate ethical decisions on the part of judges.
Click to expand...
What exactly appears to be inappropriate here?
 
OpportunityCost said:
You should title it Political Bullshit from the left during the Trump Administration.
Click to expand...

You make my point:

- The "political" choice was to either call into question an American President's inheritance of foreign assistance while his National Security Advisor lied about secret meetings...or shrug.

- The "political" choice was to either criticize an American President who defended Russia against American institutions and ideologies...or support that betrayal.

- The "political" choice was to either chastise an American President who asked a foreign government to interfere in an American election...or support that treason.

- The "political" choice was to either deny an American President's National Security Advisor's call for the military to freeze the Constitution...or support that sedition.

- The "political" choice was to either accept that there still remains no true evidence of election fraud...or encourage Trump's blatant assault on American democracy.


You see, there was and is nothing "left" about this. It was certainly never Bullshit. And none of this should have ever been political. The funny thing is that you people still think you can preach to the left from a righteous position of nationalism and constitutionalism. You all helped Trump sink that boat.

Trump is a traitor. Each time he got away with escaping responsibility, he was more emboldened to worsen his treachery. He went from accepting foreign aid in 2016, to actually asking for it in 2019. And Trump's shrugging followers proved to be just as bad with their consistent support for his betrayal, treason, sedition, and routine assault on American democratic institutions.

But to avoid what you all supported and what you all did to yourselves, you choose to drop Trump's appointed conservative judges into your fantasized "deep state," to continue playing the perpetual victim of the left. You simply deny and call the documented history Bullshit. You choose to pretend that Trump's position as one of the very worst in American history is simply a matter of partisan politics. Same routine. "Fake news"..."deep state"..."QAnon"... "Democrat election fraud"... anything to avoid the truth and to keep denying it.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
So? What role did Stacey play in this lawsuit?
Click to expand...
That is a direct conflict. If you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict, I really can't help you.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
And I'm not supposed to question the impartiality of this particular judge?

Really?
Click to expand...
Fine, question her bias. The ruling was, according to the article, based on legal prohibitions of voter purges within 90 days of an election without giving those voters notice and an opportunity to respond. If you think her ruling didn't interpret the LAW correctly, which is what matters, then make your case for that. If not, then "bias" because she's a sister of no one running for office in GA isn't all that relevant.

And then maybe tell us when a judge must recuse. Trump's lawsuits were heard in front of a slew of judges he appointed and presumably were loyal to the actual plaintiff, Trump, or who'd benefit, Trump, and yet...they didn't recuse.
 
MSgt said:
You make my point:

- The "political" choice was to either call into question an American President's inheritance of foreign assistance while his National Security Advisor lied about secret meetings...or shrug.

- The "political" choice was to either criticize an American President who defended Russia against American institutions and ideologies...or support that betrayal.

- The "political" choice was to either chastise an American President who asked a foreign government to interfere in an American election...or support that treason.

- The "political" choice was to either deny an American President's National Security Advisor's call for the military to freeze the Constitution...or support that sedition.

- The "political" choice was to either accept that there still remains no true evidence of election fraud...or encourage Trump's blatant assault on American democracy.


You see, there was and is nothing "left" about this. It was certainly never Bullshit. And none of this should have ever been political. The funny thing is that you people still think you can preach to the left from a righteous position of nationalism and constitutionalism. You all helped Trump sink that boat.

Trump is a traitor. Each time he got away with escaping responsibility, he was more emboldened to worsen his treachery. He went from accepting foreign aid in 2016, to actually asking for it in 2019. And Trump's shrugging followers proved to be just as bad with their consistent support for his betrayal, treason, sedition, and routine assault on American democratic institutions.

But to avoid what you all supported and what you all did to yourselves, you choose to drop Trump's appointed conservative judges into your fantasized "deep state," to continue playing the perpetual victim of the left. You simply deny and call the documented history Bullshit. You choose to pretend that Trump's position as one of the very worst in American history is simply a matter of partisan politics. Same routine. "Fake news"..."deep state"..."QAnon"... "Democrat election fraud"... anything to avoid the truth and to keep denying it.
Click to expand...

Point of fact: this guy must really like to hear himself talk. No one cares about your wall of text response to a single sentence.
 
JasperL said:
Fine, question her bias. The ruling was, according to the article, based on legal prohibitions of voter purges within 90 days of an election without giving those voters notice and an opportunity to respond. If you think her ruling didn't interpret the LAW correctly, which is what matters, then make your case for that. If not, then "bias" because she's a sister of no one running for office in GA isn't all that relevant.

And then maybe tell us when a judge must recuse. Trump's lawsuits were heard in front of a slew of judges he appointed and presumably were loyal to the actual plaintiff, Trump, or who'd benefit, Trump, and yet...they didn't recuse.
Click to expand...
Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?
 
Last edited:
Jack Fabulous said:
Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?
Click to expand...
You mean from the orange right-wing messiah that said this?
​
"I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.​
​
and
​
“I value loyalty above everything else—more than brains, more than drive and more than energy,” Trump once said.​
 
poweRob said:
You just don't like Stacy ergo her sister should recuse despite Stacy having nothing to do with this case. That is your logic.

Now if Stacy's sister were to go on a hunting trip with the defendant days before the case was heard, you might have a point about there being some kind of conflict. But there is none here.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff argued voter suppression. Abrams' 501c stated mission is to combat voter suppression. Judge rules for plaintiff that this is voter suppression, Abrams' 501c benefits. Judge rules that this is not voter suppression, Abrams' 501c is hurt.

Not rocket science.
 
Rawley said:
Plaintiff argued voter suppression. Abrams' 501c stated mission is to combat voter suppression. Judge rules for plaintiff that this is voter suppression, Abrams' 501c benefits. Judge rules that this is not voter suppression, Abrams' 501c is hurt.

Not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Did Stacy have anything at all to do with this case? No? Then sit down.
 
poweRob said:
Did Stacy have anything at all to do with this case? No? Then sit down.
Click to expand...
So you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Got his number?
Click to expand...

Yes the Whitehouse number is public knowledge, just look it up.
It was actually a trivial pursuit question.
You can find it yourself if you're smarter than the average tadpole....
 
poweRob said:
I still don't have much confidence in Ossoff and Warnock winning. The stakes are massive and the election is run by Republicans.
Click to expand...
And as they are running around screaming "fraud!" it is virtually a certainty that they are actually engaging in fraud.

I'm becoming more convinced that trumpists can easily believe that all democrats are scandalous because they themselves are scandalous people. Cheat on their spouses, cheat at golf, lie, steal. Like a real man!
 
Anyone identified anything wrong with the decision yet, or are we still bogged down in "other tribe therefore bad"?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?
Click to expand...
Show me where the judge here "pledged her loyalty" to her sister, who is not running for office, and who you're ignorantly accusing of bias. When was the judge here asked to pledge her loyalty to her sister or her sister's causes?

If you have a legal argument, make it. Otherwise, the assumption is she did her damn job, according to THE LAW, same as those Trump appointed judges did who are as "biased" as Abrams' sister. Similar attempts to purge 100s of thousands of voters AFTER VOTING BEGAN have been thrown out across Georgia, apparently because, you know, the LAW wasn't on their side.
 
rahl said:
Was the judges sister a party to the lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Considering her involvement in the election, get out the vote methods, ballot harvesting, interest in the election itself, the appearance of impropriety is there.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Considering her involvement in the election, get out the vote methods, ballot harvesting, interest in the election itself, the appearance of impropriety is there.
Click to expand...
I’ll type it slower, maybe that will help. Was the sister a party to this lawsuit?
 
rahl said:
I’ll type it slower, maybe that will help. Was the sister a party to this lawsuit?
Click to expand...

Oh, good, you're one of those. Do everyone a favor and type it so slow that you never post here again.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Oh, good, you're one of those. Do everyone a favor and type it so slow that you never post here again.
Click to expand...
I accept your concession. Thank you for acknowledging there was no reason the judge should have recused herself.
 
rahl said:
I accept your concession. Thank you for acknowledging there was no reason the judge should have recused herself.
Click to expand...

The guy talking post comprehension can't read a post.
 
Rawley said:
So you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict.
Click to expand...
Stacy has nothing to do with this case. The only "appearance" issue is you fabricating some connection that doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom