SCOTUS recently ruled that physicians who resented the possibility that a woman who had had an abortion could show up in their offices for follow-up care had standing. Before this, to have standing you had to have been actually injured. Now that people only have to imagine being injured have standing it makes standing available to anyone. Standing may end up being a requirement only in cases SCOTUS doesn't like.

True, but for Federal matters you can go to any district court in the country. There's one in a small town in Texas that has been taken over by litigants because of its bench's favoritism to their causes.

Who had been provided universal pensions, medical care, the 40-hour work-week, minimum wages, safe workplaces, college educations, subsidized home mortgages, highways, food stamps, and more by the work of the Democratic party over the objections of the Republican party.

Rich Republicans have been misusing them forever.

There are rich Democrats and intellectual Democrats, usually not the same people. What's wrong with intellectuals? We wouldn't have computers or heart transplants without them.

She pointed out that supporters of Liddle Donnie included frank racists, islamophobes, antisemites, homophobes, identified them as deplorables, not all of his supporters.

I thought it hurt her. She doesn't have the style to put that over; she comes across as a prissy librarian. 'Basket' is a silly word.

Such people were too few. Gustavo Arellano opined that Mexican supporters of Liddle Donnie had an appetite for caudillismo. Clinton won 3 million more votes.

Hilary would have done more to address their material concerns, as Democrats have done beginning in 1933, over the objections of Republicans. But man doesn't live by bread alone; he must hurt a notional inferior.
George Orwell wrote, in his review of Mein Kampf, There's nothing wrong with populism, in itself. Populism used to hurt people you don't like, to suborn legal and democratic institutions - that's what's wrong.

Although I hate to use the term after so many have been co-opted by MAGA, it's not really populism, it's fake populism. The Donald will never deliver on what he says, any more than he pays his bills, even to poor people in his employ. Again, at the moment of his birth he had a net worth in the millions. Look it up if you have any doubt. It's a bit more posh than a silver spoon. It's not even as "kindly" as stated by Anthony Hopkins character in the film "Howards End" - "The poor are poor. One feels sorry for them, but there it is."

Once he is in power we should know he won't deliver because he doesn't have to and he's already proved that when he did get the power. If you doubt this, name what he did in 4 years that was beneficial to the working class. This fact does not depend on any news service real, fake or otherwise. It's a matter of record and historical fact

He delivers the psychic gratification of making some people hurt that they enjoy seeing hurt.

I believe she put half of Trump's supporters in the 'deplorables' basket. Tens of millions of people and as opined by hazel - a self inflicted wound.
I wonder how much Hydergine they will have to pump into 'Dementia Joe' to get him lucid for tonight's 'State of the Union' address?

The reason I asked is that your first sentence read, at least to me, as if the link included such info. After reading it twice I looked up 2 of the people charged with crimes and couldn't find if the ballots alleged to be fraudulent went for Biden, Trump or if it was simply a case of sick and or disabled residents of the nursing homes not being aware of votes cast in their name. Both cases involved 'only' 50 ballots.
Paraphrasing your link, there was "far less than 1% voter fraud." True enough but in a very tight 'battle ground' State it's not completely implausible that ballot stuffing could swing a race, especially down ballot contests. In the case of Georgia only 1 vote in 400 could have swung the vote for Trump, exceeding the 11,799 votes by which Biden won the State.

Georgia - 4,935,487 x .0025 = 12,339
Michigan - 5,500,000 x .0025 = 13,750

I assert that there is abundant evidence of, and by now a very clear understanding of, a nationwide Federal Crime which as of today has still gone unpunished – even though it still could be.

Most damningly, every Court who could have heard the case – simply refused to do its duty. They never said anything about the merits or demerits of the cases: they simply refused to hear them at all. This was obviously the greatest conspiracy of them all, because it happened from the very bottom to the very top. The SCOTUS, for example, told several US States, who had come to the only Court that the Constitution allows them to come to in such a situation, and simply told them to "go away." (I wonder if they're having "buyer's regret" now ...)

The Law means nothing, and dissuades no evildoer, if that Law is not only "not enforced," but "not tried." There are over 336 million plaintiffs, because a crime against the election process damages every citizen of the country at the same time. You suffered "actual damages." No matter who nor where you are. Election Fraud is anything but "a victimless crime."

Here's what's supposed to happen: you present your case. The case is tried. You present your evidence and arguments, and the opposing side does the same. The evidence is weighed and a verdict is reached, with an accompanying explanation. You can appeal. But, the judicial process actually happens. Here, it simply did not – and still has not.

Election Fraud boldly occurred also in 2020, and we must have no illusions that it will not happen in 2024. In order to "win," Trump Supporters must manufacture more fake ballots than the opposition does, and somehow force those fake ballots to be counted along with the other fakes. And then prevent some DBA somewhere from simply executing an SQL "UPDATE" query. I assert this because: no legislature is taking any steps (that I know of) to timely change their laws and/or to reverse the extra-legal decisions that were made by various state officials and judges, specifically to facilitate fraud. And, courts still refuse to hear any election-fraud cases. Therefore, the 2024 elections and all future ones will be fraudulent. And 336 million people just lost their right to vote, forever. You may as well not show up: you will have "voted" anyway. Welcome to the United States of Banana.

Really? Show us the evidence.

Almost anything is plausible but I will just go with Occam's razor.

I hope there are future elections...

In Court, I am entitled to do so.

I am supposed to be able to go to the Honorable Court and declare under penalty of perjury, "I have been wronged – I have suffered actual damages – by this party and in this way!" And the Honorable Court shall lend an ear. Then, in the Court's presence and mine, the accused shall hear my accusations and they shall make their defense. Both sides are entitled to cross-examine the other, and to call witnesses and experts to support their version of the case. The Honorable Court then renders a verdict, which is subject to appeal. But finally, and in this way, the matter will be settled and the final verdict will stand.

None of this ever happened. Yet.

I assert that "a monstrous Federal Crime has been committed in broad daylight against every citizen of this nation, including you and me," and that not one Court has ever yet convened to formally decide the matter. As, I aver, they are required to do. Like every other voter, and every State, in this country, "I do 'have standing.'" I am legally entitled to be heard – and thereafter, to win or to lose.

- - -

An equally-troublesome aspect to this problem is that, even when people have been caught red-handed on surveillance video, apparently committing a Federal Crime, the State and Federal prosecutors who are supposed to be the ones to bring criminal charges ... "seem curiously unconcerned."

Anyone who is at all familiar with organized crime understands very plainly: "The Fix Is In."

Any case should have some merit or basis in fact. It is the right of any court to dismiss a case. As an example the lower courts found no evidence to substantiate the claim there was massive mail in ballot fraud and so was rejected by SCOTUS.

@sundialsvcs: you seem to be asserting that anybody be hauled up in front of a court, based on baseless allegation alone. That's not how any legal system works - unless in Banana Republics...

Harvard Crimson article:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...tion-lawsuits/

Slight correction: Democrats, Progressives, and constitutional scholars refused to criticize BLM protesters: because they were not causing damage and were exercising their constitutional rights under the law. EVERYONE was willing to criticize rioters (who were mostly NOT BLM protesters but rioting AGAINST the BLM protesters) because they WERE breaking the law AND causing damage. The problem was that many conservatives lumped the two groups together, even when local law enforcement was reporting that the protesters were helping them catch and identify the rioters! The conservative stories based upon conspiracy theories are still more widespread than the truth, and might always be. I wonder what THAT will look like in the history books? (We will probably all look silly and primitive.)

Addressing the issues that resulted in the first (and hopefully ONLY) Trump election success: Democrats have always (since the 1960's) better supported real people and the working class while Republicans supported corporations and political ideals NOT supported by their voting population but that paid them in dollars and power. The problem with that is that Democrats did not always do the job WELL and really failed at communicating properly. They also slid more conservative with time and discarded some of the more progressive and ambitious goals that their constituents NEED! Between the trends and lack of good communication making them appear too much like the Republicans they still won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

The Democratic party needs to #1 communicate better, #2 keep their goals aligned with the needs of the constituents even when that hurts a bit in the short run, and #3 listen to the progressives and young members who are fresh off the stump and life outside of politics and have the strong feel for the trends and opinions of their communities. On everything other than budget they tried to blow off Bernie Sanders for decades, but he had the most consistent policies, goals, and support among voters. They cannot afford to keep making those kinds of errors, and WE cannot afford that either!

Or televisions or phones or radio or WiFi or cars or skyscrapers or cinemas or even simpler technologies like steam engines and sewerage systems... We basically wouldn't have had any of the technological progress of the last 200 years without intellectuals.

The "anti-intellectual" movement is something that has never sat well with me. A society should celebrate its best and brightest... but perhaps even more fundamentally, respect them at the very least. As we saw during the covid years, this is something that some in America don't seem to understand. For example, Mr. Trump's treatment of Dr. Fauci, (an established Doctor with decades of experience in immunology, whose only mistake was speaking truth to power) is the perfect example of behaviour that should not be tolerated in any decent society.

Can someone please explain why, here of all places, an internet forum dedicated to Linux, populated by computer nerds, we see someone denouncing intellectuals? What is that about?
I don't think you understand how the criminal justice system works. Hint: It's nothing like any of the TV shows you clearly watch.
Thank you wpeckham. Your posts here, along with those of enorbet and RandomTroll, give me hope that the majority of Americans are smart enough to know everything you've highlighted.

The allegations were, and still are, "anything but 'baseless.'" And a crime which has 336 million plaintiffs is definitely something to be investigated and resolved. But instead, they executed a "palace coup d'etat." And, to these ends, they systematically refused to allow anyone (so far ...) to "have their day in court."

I am of course quite familiar with the formal process for bringing criminal charges, the grand jury system and so on. And also with the fact that, despite widespread recognition by literally millions of people that "something seemed to be desperately wrong," this never took place.

But the "coup de grace" of the "coup de etat" was when several US States asked to be heard in the only(!) Court that they are entitled to go to, and they would not be heard. On the entirely absurd premise that, somehow, they "lacked standing" in spite of the very plain language of Article 3, Section 2. It is perfectly obvious that "election fraud," if committed on the Presidential level, creates "hundreds of millions of plaintiffs, and in every single State simultaneously. They tried, therefore, to "take it to Court," and were utterly rebuffed.

If you assert – with what you consider to be "very ample evidence" – that a crime of this truly-nationwide impact has just been committed, but you are then entirely denied "your day in Court," then you have no rights at all. As has been very-famously said: "It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes."

Maybe you're "perfectly okay with that." I'll check back with you in eight years.

You'll be speaking Russian by then.

C'mon ...

"This is our nation, not any of theirs." And, if the idea of "make [your_nation] great again" has been consigned to being nothing more than "an acronym on a red hat," the rest of the nations on this planet are surely already laughing at us. Because, you can be damned sure that they are doing everything within their power to advance their nations, as "any rational citizen thereof" of course would.

If you want examples of "election fraud," you can very-certainly go back to the various centuries of Rome, of which the most-reliable records now exist. But you can also look into a few episodes of our own nation's very-brief history. IIRC, it was first attempted in our nation's third Presidential election . . .

The essential question (to me ...) therefore becomes: "how much do [you(!)] actually care about what even might be happening to [you] right now?" (Once again using [brackets] to denote "the impersonal 'you.'") Does it actually concern [you] that such a momentous Federal Crime might(!) have just been perpetrated against ... [you(!)]?

I acknowledge: "maybe it actually doesn't."

Do you even inquire? Or is everything that has been supplied to you simply ... "okay?"

And, might I dare to suggest: "what, exactly, persuaded you to actually defend these people, whom you never even knew?" I think that this is a perfectly valid question here.

If you dare to seriously question where 'your' opinions actually came from ... of course your instinctive reaction will be to protect yourself. This is anticipated.

Because: "propaganda" is actually a very scientific topic of study that, generally, it is not a popular thing to admit to even having studied. Nor, having bended to. (Literary references omitted.)

And so, specifically without "anything further," I just want to leave you with that one ... thought question.