I'm vigorously agreeing that no lawyer is required to pursue frivolous lawsuits which is the thing that would be embarrassing. Ethical lawyers will pursue valid lawsuits for embarrassing clients.
"The lawsuits are frivolous, lack merit, and are brought by a bunch of sycophants and toadies"
In response to both you and Philip.
To connect the dots more explicitly... if you undermine all Legal representation as sycophantic and toadish and threaten them with economic and cultural sanctions, then when they withdraw their support it doesn't have the desired effect of illustrating that the suits are frivolous and without merit. Instead, it heightens the fact that some people/teams may not be 'entitled' to legal representation... rather than the system working through ordinary channels.
This is a combination of 'the way the world works' and another example of how Trump was just a historically bad President who didn't know how to manage the office of the President.
I'm not a fan of the term 'Deep State' because it implies a sort of coordinated anti-state when the reality is that we have hundreds of mini-states that pursue objectives that have internal coherence to their mission and objectives.
It would be closer to the truth to say the US is almost ungovernable in the way we imagine governance working... but the sociology of Mass Democratic Institutions is not really an unknown phenomenon. It goes back to the least sexy thing I keep harping on with regards Politics... there's no top-down change without a bottom-up army.
The interesting thing is that Porter Wright is withdrawing from representation in PA (breaking) and Jones Day is perhaps wavering.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would be the beginning of a precipitous end to the legal challenges...
But the targeting of Law Firms with the intent of denying representation to clients by threating social and economic sanctions undermines whether Porter Wright is abandoning the lawsuits for being frivolous and unsubstantiated - which would end the debate - or whether they are doing it out of self-interest - which fuels the debate.
Bottom line... Kristin has a point... the only norms that exist are the ones you bind yourself by.
I'm on the business side and my experience of our new releases is that they are not as bullet-proof as they used to be... but boy do the problems get fixed fast... once we identify them.
In 1989 I was doing document reviews as part of a college internship for a law firm.
In 2009 I was selling adjacent tech to e-Discovery software that automates document reviews.
In 2019 my industry is working to eliminate the need for expensive Sales Professionals to manage complex software projects... and have very nearly succeeded.
I'll also add as someone who travels the Bible Belt solving Tech Problems that "they" absolutely will relocate to places where "evangelicals have a lot of pull over education" RTP in North Carolina is a representative example from my experience.
...and that non-competes have been dead for at least 20-years, except as noted for a tiny subset of people who have intimate knowledge of the IP - and even there it's narrowly focused on direct competitors... and generally does not include people who 'merely' code. And even then, we hire people from direct competitors all the time outside of California.
Further... while we're headquartered in Silicon Valley... all of our development happens in tech hubs outside of CA. It's not until you get to the SVP/GM level that I'm calling someone in CA... VPs of Development, Product Managers, and R&D aren't in CA anymore. Our single biggest tech hub is, in fact, in India. SV is a destination now, not an entry point. There's still a lot of money sloshing around in SV, but the downward trajectory of "Tech Work" is already in full swing. It's the same problem that stalks all the other issues of wages mentioned in this thread... labor arbitrage and productivity gains captured by equity.
Then there's nothing to discuss or worry about... the process is working. The overwhelming evidence will be reviewed by the people who have authority to review and take appropriate action. Right?
"The [insert prior here] proved that [insert preferred example of said prior here]. The lack of [insert same prior here] in 2020 means [insert wildest dream outcome here]."
Not necessarily, no. The state laws govern when a recount is even available (and often who pays). The states can, and will, refuse to do a recount if it falls outside their statutes. GA, WI (I got that wrong) and AZ do *not* have automatic recounts... PA does.
The main point is that the States determine the conditions under which they will do a recount. Candidate's wishes and willingness to pay are sometimes necessary, but not sufficient causes.
Fair enough
PA: Trump needs approx 13k more votes for automatic recount (0.5%)
GA: Recount may be requested... Biden needs 13k more votes to exceed threshold (0.5%)
WI: Automatic recount will be triggered (1%)
AZ: Trump needs approx 14k votes for recount (very high threshold 0.1% - would qualify @ 0.5%)
But this is why Trumps actual chances are vanishingly small... he'd have to qualify for all 4 *and* flip them all in a recount. As I read it, candidates may request a recount (if qualified) within a period of days once the vote is certified. Have any of the votes been certified? based on a quick search on Georgia, it appears not... counties have until 11/13 and the state has a deadline of 11/20.
Plus, all it would take would be one of the states to close the re-count window and it wouldn't matter if any of the other states flipped. Once that happens... then sure, start the transition process. Maybe that has happened... but that would be the best counter-argument.
Eh... enough of the votes in a few states are close enough that they should be audited. There's nothing wrong with that. I assume the states have built in professional audit standards and practices. (Right?). I personally have no expectation that the audits will turn up anything unusual (but they theoretically could) and aside from Georgia audits/recounts don't swing tens of thousands of votes. But given the < 1% margin in AZ, GA, WI and PA it's hard to see objecting to an audit/recount. I expect some of these states already have statues that require it anyway.
This isn't anything like 2000... we forget that the issue in 2000 was not that it was close, but that we had doubts as to the mechanics of the actual ballots... butterfly punch ballots malfunctioned and we were in the odd scenario of having to attempt to 'discern' voter's intentions after the fact. The whole 'hanging chad,' 'dimpled chad' chadastrophic episode that isn't analogous to the current situation.
As I say, I'm convinced Biden has won the election... which is why I'm unconcerned about the audits/recounts; I'm a little concerned about the notion that "President Elect" Biden is something other than a media honorific. He's not President Elect until all the votes are certified - hence the whole audit thing - and the EC votes for him. I also have no problem with the media short-hand calling him "President Elect" as it represents the most likely outcome, and pedantically calling him "Provisionally President Elect" is probably unhelpful.
But, for the norm loving, process following, non-fascist, above board left... audit and recount (where appropriate) should be the stated preference. Biden won the election, there's no rush... and if these norms and processes I keep hearing about are so important, we should be bolstering them.
Perdue's senate race just dipped below 50% (still called for him), so if that holds it means a double run-off in GA.
That's gonna be a rumble. Control of the Senate with two (Runs-off? Run-offs?) tie-breakers.... Heck, I might even drive down and illegally vote in it.
There's the fact that Trump's business dealings probably include things that may or may not be illegal. It's debatable whether anyone should be 'investigated' simply by running for office... but if planning to run for office, be prepared to be investigated is probably a good rule. Call it the Icarus Rule.
Less clear to me are all the yappings about this or that thing that he did as President. If we're going to put a President on trial for a war-crime level offense, then I expect the political capital would have been invested in the election for a mandate to do so. To bring a president up on charges of misusing the public purse for charging market rates to the Secret Service? That's just dumb; and, one, you'll get back twice what you serve and two you've probably just spent your political capital for no gain.
So make the distinction clearer on what's happening... I don't think there's much objection to illegal activities being illegal. But if the notes behind your legal activities show illegal reasons for doing those things - well, President Trump and his DOJ have some lessons learned to pass along.
On “Let’s Just Let This Play Out”
I specifically included "(the collective You in Kristin’s post)" for the avoidance of doubt. So any offence you are taking is yours alone.
"
I'm vigorously agreeing that no lawyer is required to pursue frivolous lawsuits which is the thing that would be embarrassing. Ethical lawyers will pursue valid lawsuits for embarrassing clients.
"
Excatly... “Still representing commies and faggots?” undermined by "sycophants and toadies"
Principled enough for the former, but concerned about the latter.
I'm quite vigorously agreeing with you.
My point is that you've (the collective You in Kristin's post) undermined the win... and set us up for another round of defections.
"
What a strange notion. No. I can see why Regan-era Chip ghosted away.
"
"The lawsuits are frivolous, lack merit, and are brought by a bunch of sycophants and toadies"
In response to both you and Philip.
To connect the dots more explicitly... if you undermine all Legal representation as sycophantic and toadish and threaten them with economic and cultural sanctions, then when they withdraw their support it doesn't have the desired effect of illustrating that the suits are frivolous and without merit. Instead, it heightens the fact that some people/teams may not be 'entitled' to legal representation... rather than the system working through ordinary channels.
Don't do that.
"
That's a head scratcher to me... if I needed a definition of external social pressure, I'd use your description to describe it.
"
This is a combination of 'the way the world works' and another example of how Trump was just a historically bad President who didn't know how to manage the office of the President.
I'm not a fan of the term 'Deep State' because it implies a sort of coordinated anti-state when the reality is that we have hundreds of mini-states that pursue objectives that have internal coherence to their mission and objectives.
It would be closer to the truth to say the US is almost ungovernable in the way we imagine governance working... but the sociology of Mass Democratic Institutions is not really an unknown phenomenon. It goes back to the least sexy thing I keep harping on with regards Politics... there's no top-down change without a bottom-up army.
"
"bunch of sycophants and toadies"
The interesting thing is that Porter Wright is withdrawing from representation in PA (breaking) and Jones Day is perhaps wavering.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would be the beginning of a precipitous end to the legal challenges...
But the targeting of Law Firms with the intent of denying representation to clients by threating social and economic sanctions undermines whether Porter Wright is abandoning the lawsuits for being frivolous and unsubstantiated - which would end the debate - or whether they are doing it out of self-interest - which fuels the debate.
Bottom line... Kristin has a point... the only norms that exist are the ones you bind yourself by.
On “Attention Must Be Paid: The Electoral Lessons of the Working Class”
Quantity is a Quality of its own.
I'm on the business side and my experience of our new releases is that they are not as bullet-proof as they used to be... but boy do the problems get fixed fast... once we identify them.
"
In 1989 I was doing document reviews as part of a college internship for a law firm.
In 2009 I was selling adjacent tech to e-Discovery software that automates document reviews.
In 2019 my industry is working to eliminate the need for expensive Sales Professionals to manage complex software projects... and have very nearly succeeded.
My job will not exist in 2029.
"
I'll also add as someone who travels the Bible Belt solving Tech Problems that "they" absolutely will relocate to places where "evangelicals have a lot of pull over education" RTP in North Carolina is a representative example from my experience.
...and that non-competes have been dead for at least 20-years, except as noted for a tiny subset of people who have intimate knowledge of the IP - and even there it's narrowly focused on direct competitors... and generally does not include people who 'merely' code. And even then, we hire people from direct competitors all the time outside of California.
Further... while we're headquartered in Silicon Valley... all of our development happens in tech hubs outside of CA. It's not until you get to the SVP/GM level that I'm calling someone in CA... VPs of Development, Product Managers, and R&D aren't in CA anymore. Our single biggest tech hub is, in fact, in India. SV is a destination now, not an entry point. There's still a lot of money sloshing around in SV, but the downward trajectory of "Tech Work" is already in full swing. It's the same problem that stalks all the other issues of wages mentioned in this thread... labor arbitrage and productivity gains captured by equity.
On “And Now All Eyes Are on Georgia. May God Have Mercy on Us All.”
In fairness to Georgia... all *our* elections should be structured this way. They're doing it better.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Brace Yourself, Confirmed Priors Are A’Comin’”
Quite so.
On “Confidence Interval and The 2020 Election”
Then there's nothing to discuss or worry about... the process is working. The overwhelming evidence will be reviewed by the people who have authority to review and take appropriate action. Right?
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Brace Yourself, Confirmed Priors Are A’Comin’”
"The [insert prior here] proved that [insert preferred example of said prior here]. The lack of [insert same prior here] in 2020 means [insert wildest dream outcome here]."
Yes, but my priors are correct.
"
Whomever they pick, if Sir Sean were still around I'd have him ceremonially host the first post-Trebek game. Alas.
"
Pity Sean Connery passed as well...
On “Confidence Interval and The 2020 Election”
If there's evidence of rigging, then the violation of those laws will determine what recourse is available.
Make that case, the courts are open.
But absent any substantiations of rigging? Yeah, the State(s) in question will Nigerian Funeral Dance their certifications on in.
"
Not necessarily, no. The state laws govern when a recount is even available (and often who pays). The states can, and will, refuse to do a recount if it falls outside their statutes. GA, WI (I got that wrong) and AZ do *not* have automatic recounts... PA does.
The main point is that the States determine the conditions under which they will do a recount. Candidate's wishes and willingness to pay are sometimes necessary, but not sufficient causes.
"
Fair enough
PA: Trump needs approx 13k more votes for automatic recount (0.5%)
GA: Recount may be requested... Biden needs 13k more votes to exceed threshold (0.5%)
WI: Automatic recount will be triggered (1%)
AZ: Trump needs approx 14k votes for recount (very high threshold 0.1% - would qualify @ 0.5%)
But this is why Trumps actual chances are vanishingly small... he'd have to qualify for all 4 *and* flip them all in a recount. As I read it, candidates may request a recount (if qualified) within a period of days once the vote is certified. Have any of the votes been certified? based on a quick search on Georgia, it appears not... counties have until 11/13 and the state has a deadline of 11/20.
Plus, all it would take would be one of the states to close the re-count window and it wouldn't matter if any of the other states flipped. Once that happens... then sure, start the transition process. Maybe that has happened... but that would be the best counter-argument.
"
Eh... enough of the votes in a few states are close enough that they should be audited. There's nothing wrong with that. I assume the states have built in professional audit standards and practices. (Right?). I personally have no expectation that the audits will turn up anything unusual (but they theoretically could) and aside from Georgia audits/recounts don't swing tens of thousands of votes. But given the < 1% margin in AZ, GA, WI and PA it's hard to see objecting to an audit/recount. I expect some of these states already have statues that require it anyway. This isn't anything like 2000... we forget that the issue in 2000 was not that it was close, but that we had doubts as to the mechanics of the actual ballots... butterfly punch ballots malfunctioned and we were in the odd scenario of having to attempt to 'discern' voter's intentions after the fact. The whole 'hanging chad,' 'dimpled chad' chadastrophic episode that isn't analogous to the current situation. As I say, I'm convinced Biden has won the election... which is why I'm unconcerned about the audits/recounts; I'm a little concerned about the notion that "President Elect" Biden is something other than a media honorific. He's not President Elect until all the votes are certified - hence the whole audit thing - and the EC votes for him. I also have no problem with the media short-hand calling him "President Elect" as it represents the most likely outcome, and pedantically calling him "Provisionally President Elect" is probably unhelpful. But, for the norm loving, process following, non-fascist, above board left... audit and recount (where appropriate) should be the stated preference. Biden won the election, there's no rush... and if these norms and processes I keep hearing about are so important, we should be bolstering them.
"
"Black Men and Hispanic men who thought he was more macho macho"
This is pretty much how you shrink a coalition, but please keep explaining to those people how they are voting.
On “Election Day, Le Troisième Jour: UPDATED Recap, Open Thread, and Latest News”
Perdue's senate race just dipped below 50% (still called for him), so if that holds it means a double run-off in GA.
That's gonna be a rumble. Control of the Senate with two (Runs-off? Run-offs?) tie-breakers.... Heck, I might even drive down and illegally vote in it.
"
I think these are two different sorts of things.
There's the fact that Trump's business dealings probably include things that may or may not be illegal. It's debatable whether anyone should be 'investigated' simply by running for office... but if planning to run for office, be prepared to be investigated is probably a good rule. Call it the Icarus Rule.
Less clear to me are all the yappings about this or that thing that he did as President. If we're going to put a President on trial for a war-crime level offense, then I expect the political capital would have been invested in the election for a mandate to do so. To bring a president up on charges of misusing the public purse for charging market rates to the Secret Service? That's just dumb; and, one, you'll get back twice what you serve and two you've probably just spent your political capital for no gain.
So make the distinction clearer on what's happening... I don't think there's much objection to illegal activities being illegal. But if the notes behind your legal activities show illegal reasons for doing those things - well, President Trump and his DOJ have some lessons learned to pass along.
"
That's how you get perpetual war with Eastasia