Guest Scott

The election

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, at this point I think they have less than 6 days.

6 days around the walls of Jericho, perhaps the horns can sound during that time as well. 😉

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

December 13th 2000 - Al Gore concedes.

So, you're saying there is still time for Biden to concede. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, at this point I think they have less than 6 days.

In the filing from Texas is says:

Quote

This Court is the only forum that can delay the
deadline for the appointment of presidential electors
under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy
at this unprecedented moment and restore public
trust in the presidential election, this Court should
extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant
States’ certification of presidential electors to allow
these investigations to be completed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have our first SCOTUS action on election litigation. They rejected a request to delay certification of the PA election result. No dissents were recorded.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-court-pennsylvania/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-republican-challenge-to-bidens-pennsylvania-win-idUSKBN28I35L?il=0&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the empirical evidence brought forth it is still sad to see people denying fraudulent activity. I recognize, people dislike/hate Trump, and it is very sad to see such hate supersede integrity.

@NeedleinA - the case with the individuals pulling suitcases of votes (without supervision) is clear empirical evidence, and yet we still see people denying anything happened (calling it a circus), and yet I haven't seen the mainstream big tech firms (Facebook, Twitter, Google) help make this known like they would if the roles were reversed. That in and of itself should be sufficient, but people are still denying that happened and giving excuses (even with video evidence -- didn't happen -- its a circus) -- truly sad seeing integrity lost.

I don't really care if people like or hate Trump. But I do care when I see people ignoring overtly fraudulent activity simply due to their political platform, and act with an air of superiority denying what is at face value for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I don't really care if people like or hate Trump. But I do care when I see people ignoring overtly fraudulent activity simply due to their political platform, and act with an air of superiority denying what is at face value for all to see.

 

I see the rule of law being flushed down the toilet in this nation.  The street goes both ways.  How many people are going to want to listen to a person who cheated their way into the office Presidency through fraud?  The mountain of evidence speaks for itself.  It's a sad day for Americans in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

I see the rule of law being flushed down the toilet in this nation.  The street goes both ways.  How many people are going to want to listen to a person who cheated their way into the office Presidency through fraud?  The mountain of evidence speaks for itself.  It's a sad day for Americans in my opinion.

Right now it appears that maybe the Supreme Court is still honoring and enforcing the rule of law.  I mean they have three Trump appointees, and a conservative majority but they are not breaking on party lines to find in favor of Trump's cases.  This to me is the best indicator that the Supreme Court is working as it is suppose to.  This is not to say that there is not fraud but rather Team Trump has not yet been able to meet the high requirements of the Rule of Law for them to act.

Of course the people who crowing about Trumps losses at the Supreme Court level, will conveniently forget this proof of the Supreme Courts alignment if Team Trump start making their cases.

Either way the evidence of fraud should be alarming to everyone...But it is going to require the voters in each state to clean up their state,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Despite the empirical evidence brought forth it is still sad to see people denying fraudulent activity.

The political swamp must be so incredibly intertwined. Everyone must have mounds of dirt on one another to sit and be silent like this. The MSM has totally been silent on the evidence presented during the hearings but SUPER excited to share any dismissal of a republican lawsuit. If there is any doubt that the MSM isn't absolutely actively involved in shaping the political narrative, then people haven't been paying attention, at all.
 

11 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

How many people are going to want to listen to a person who cheated their way into the office Presidency through fraud?

I would happily accept a legal Trump win.
I would begrudgingly accept a legal Biden win, ughhh.

BUT... what I won't accept is either candidate using fraud to gain the win.
There are too many people who have watched & read the evidence presented, we are not going to just wake up on Jan 20th to a Biden presidency and forget what we have seen.
By blatantly ignoring the evidence and dismissing it as a "circus", those judges and politicians are the ones who have destroyed the confidence in America's election process for millions of Americans.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Team Trump

Side note: There are many groups who have filed lawsuits fighting election fraud, Trump's Official Legal Team is only one of many.
Trump's Legal Team has actually filed very few lawsuits when compared to the many done by private citizens, volunteer lawyers, GOP lawmakers, etc.

The vast majority of the dismissals or defeats that the MSM like to glorify have nothing to do with Trump's actual Legal Team.
Team Trump hasn't presented anything to the Supreme Court yet.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know how many caught the December 8th evening broadcast of Tucker Carlson on Fox News.  It appears that one of the Democratic congressmen from California has been working with and colluding (sleeping) with a Chinese agent since they were a city councilman.  The irony is that this congressman sat on the Security Committee and openly accused Trump of Russia collusion even after a Chinese nationalist and spy (they were sleeping with) worked on his campaigns bundling campaign money.  He also strongly, in public, demanded Trump be impeached for working with and assisting Russian interests - while he was doing exactly that with China.

We will see if there will be any investigation into any Democratic official (including Biden and his son) assisting Chinese agents access - not only to information but Chinese influence into US political policies - not just within the Democratic Party but inside influence in official US policies.  Perhaps even in voter corruption?

Even if we assume that Tucker Carlson has reported "fake news" with fake evidence - We shall see if there is even an investigation - even of what Tucker reported or if it all disappear under the political and news carpet.  

Does China influence high tech -TicTok, Twiter, Facebook?  Sports - National Basketball Association and players?  Government information and policy concerning the COVID (Chinese) pandemic - especially from Democrats?  Liberal and mainstream news outlets?

How deep is our election problem?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching wind that Texas is not alone, but up to 8 other states are going to join them.
Missouri's Attorney General just posted this:
Untitled-3.jpg.8558257cb12e1ae87a41d19b5e98eb39.jpg

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I do not know how many caught the December 8th evening broadcast of Tucker Carlson on Fox News. 

You lost me at this sentence. I trust Tucker as a reliable news source as much as you might trust Rachel Maddow (and for the record, I don't trust her either). And therin lies the most frightening part of our current relationship with news media. The 24hr news networks have spent years paying controversial blowhards to editorialize current events and dress it up as news. It used to be merely obnoxious, but the degree to which many Americans rely on Carlson, Hannity, and yes, Maddow to inform them about what's going on in the country is becoming increasingly alarming. They're not journalists, they're highly-opinionated entertainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Godless said:

You lost me at this sentence. I trust Tucker as a reliable news source as much as you might trust Rachel Maddow (and for the record, I don't trust her either). And therin lies the most frightening part of our current relationship with news media. The 24hr news networks have spent years paying controversial blowhards to editorialize current events and dress it up as news. It used to be merely obnoxious, but the degree to which many Americans rely on Carlson, Hannity, and yes, Maddow to inform them about what's going on in the country is becoming increasingly alarming. They're not journalists, they're highly-opinionated entertainers.

I understand that Tucker is biased.  Swalwall now admits there was a relationship between him and a Chinese agent but claims he did nothing wrong.  The problem for the Democrat is that what is there is more there than what he specifically claimed from what was there with Trump.   So I wonder - if you believe this should be investigated as deeply as was demanded with Trump?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

They're not journalists, they're highly-opinionated entertainers.


To be fair, this is the main issue with MOST so-called “journalists” these days. 
 

News is more info-tainment than ever before. And nobody takes them to task based on their erroneous reporting. If a journalist was caught lying or misreporting in years past, they would have lost credibility and most likely their job. 
 

Nowadays the wagons of their political “team” get circled in a tighter pattern around them when their journalistic integrity is brought into question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rumblings this morning, but now we have 17 states joining Texas.

The following 17 states have signed the amicus brief:

  • Missouri
  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Florida
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Utah
  • West Virginia

From what I've been hearing, this "is" the big dog attempt with the Supreme Court.
Bless my state for being on the list!

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

So I wonder - if you believe this should be investigated as deeply as was demanded with Trump?

Should it be investigated? Sure. Should the election be held hostage because if it? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Godless said:

Should it be investigated? Sure. Should the election be held hostage because if it? No.

So lets say a year in to the Biden Presidency the Courts Rule he is a fraud...  What is your proposed solution to a "President by Fraud"?

And how would such a finding/restorative action be less disruptive then delaying things a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So lets say a year in to the Biden Presidency the Courts Rule he is a fraud...  What is your proposed solution to a "President by Fraud"?

And how would such a finding/restorative action be less disruptive then delaying things a bit?

Originally, electors were NOT actually beholden to the public vote.  They COULD be, but they were not necessarily so.  Even today, in several states they do not hold that electors MUST vote the way that they were chosen to vote. 

This makes it evident that the party SHOULD ensure they have faithful electors, instead of faithless electors...but several states do not enforce faithless elector laws upon faithless electors.

Part of this is because electoral votes were seen as the insurance against an easily led and swayed public, even a public that was supposed to be better informed and educated (the landowners and such) than the general public.  This meant that the REAL election is the electoral vote, and though today many electors are held by law to vote in the way that their public voted, it is still the electoral vote...NOT the public votes...that determine the next President.

The Fraud then, even if true, even if proven, could in theory, have no effect upon the actual (the electoral) election.  It is actually, though highly influenced BY the general public vote, not dependent or necessarily reliant entirely upon the general public vote.  It is, in and of itself, a separate, if generally controlled by the public vote, election for who gets to be the next President of the United States of America.

In otherwords, as it is it's own election and the REAL election...if they vote and Biden wins that vote, I do not see a court case that is currently being pursued as actually being able to overturn that election after the fact.  The electors can opt to be faithless, even in light of faithless elector laws, as it is given that they are supposed to be able to think for themselves in the matter and take matters into their own hands should a situation where the public has been misled.

In that light, I would assume that unless the actual electoral election is stopped or delayed, which could create a constitutional crisis (or at least a mini crisis), I don't see how the current case could actually invalidate the electoral votes after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Originally, electors were NOT actually beholden to the public vote.  They COULD be, but they were not necessarily so.  Even today, in several states they do not hold that electors MUST vote the way that they were chosen to vote. 

This makes it evident that the party SHOULD ensure they have faithful electors, instead of faithless electors...but several states do not enforce faithless elector laws upon faithless electors.

Part of this is because electoral votes were seen as the insurance against an easily led and swayed public, even a public that was supposed to be better informed and educated (the landowners and such) than the general public.  This meant that the REAL election is the electoral vote, and though today many electors are held by law to vote in the way that their public voted, it is still the electoral vote...NOT the public votes...that determine the next President.

The Fraud then, even if true, even if proven, could in theory, have no effect upon the actual (the electoral) election.  It is actually, though highly influenced BY the general public vote, not dependent or necessarily reliant entirely upon the general public vote.  It is, in and of itself, a separate, if generally controlled by the public vote, election for who gets to be the next President of the United States of America.

In otherwords, as it is it's own election and the REAL election...if they vote and Biden wins that vote, I do not see a court case that is currently being pursued as actually being able to overturn that election after the fact.  The electors can opt to be faithless, even in light of faithless elector laws, as it is given that they are supposed to be able to think for themselves in the matter and take matters into their own hands should a situation where the public has been misled.

In that light, I would assume that unless the actual electoral election is stopped or delayed, which could create a constitutional crisis (or at least a mini crisis), I don't see how the current case could actually invalidate the electoral votes after the fact.

I have repeatedly stated... That nothing has been delayed yet because of the challenges.

The popular vote has had issues before and it was not a constitutional crisis... Even the electoral vote has had it share of shenanigans with out it being a crisis..  Only the guilty or clueless think this is something new that system can not handle.  (The fact that it needs to handle it.... is a different story... and well worth doing something about)

By the Constitution the States choose their Electoral vote.  Nothing in the Constitution dictates HOW the States choose their Vote.  That is defined by the State's own laws.  If the Supreme Court is running correctly it has two ways to challenge things.  Are the Laws the States set up Constitutional? (Which is really broad in this case since the Constitution is silent on How), and did the State Obey its own laws?  Then if they find something the Court's actions will be dictated by what the findings are.  Most likely what does the State's own laws require in this case.  This is why I do not think the challenges will change the outcome, because most-likely this will put it in the hands of the local authorities.

Even if the Best Case happens for Team Trump and the and the Court's order the votes switched, that is still just one state. And more then one of the contested States is needed to change the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2020 at 3:37 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Originally, electors were NOT actually beholden to the public vote.  They COULD be, but they were not necessarily so.  Even today, in several states they do not hold that electors MUST vote the way that they were chosen to vote. 

This makes it evident that the party SHOULD ensure they have faithful electors, instead of faithless electors...but several states do not enforce faithless elector laws upon faithless electors.

Part of this is because electoral votes were seen as the insurance against an easily led and swayed public, even a public that was supposed to be better informed and educated (the landowners and such) than the general public.  This meant that the REAL election is the electoral vote, and though today many electors are held by law to vote in the way that their public voted, it is still the electoral vote...NOT the public votes...that determine the next President.

 

I think you are correct on this Johnson.  I think the Founding Fathers original intent for the Electoral College was the electors were not beholden to the public vote and could cast their vote for someone else for President if they felt that the person who won the popular vote was a tyrannical threat.  It's sad we have strayed from this in my opinion. 

But I am also of the opinion that States should cast their Electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine.  It should not be an all or nothing in my opinion for Electoral votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 day to December 12th - the day the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore.
2 days to December 13th - the day Al Gore gave his concession speech.

I'm guessing the current thing before the SCOTUS will be shot down soon, ending Trump's hopes.   If that happens, I am hopeful next week, we'll hear a Trump concession speech.

(Shortly after that, you will be able to find me on social media, wagging my finger of disapproval at all the liberals for worrying about coups and MagaMilitia taking over court houses and all that.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

I think you are correct on this Johnson.  I think the Founding Fathers original intent for the Electoral College was the electors were not beholden to the public vote and could cast their vote for someone else for President if they felt that the person who won the popular vote was a tyrannical threat.  It's sad we have strayed from this in my opinion. 

This came up four years ago as well. I wouldn't hold my breath for electors to defy the popular vote.

50 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

But I am also of the opinion that States should cast their Electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine.  It should not be an all or nothing in my opinion for Electoral votes.

These days a lot of Dems want to abolish the EC completely. I'm not opposed to that, but I know it'll never happen. I definitely wouldn't mind revisiting the distribution of electoral votes, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

This came up four years ago as well. I wouldn't hold my breath for electors to defy the popular vote.

These days a lot of Dems want to abolish the EC completely. I'm not opposed to that, but I know it'll never happen. I definitely wouldn't mind revisiting the distribution of electoral votes, though.

I'm ABSOLUTELY against the way many of the Liberals want to do this...because it equates a tyranny that the founding fathers were absolutely against, the Tyranny of the Majority.  If 5 cities rule the entire country because the majority of the population lives there, there is no benefit for the rest of the 46 states. 

The US is supposed to be a UNION...not a tyranny where the demands of three or four states can be implemented upon every other state of the union.  This is why there is a division of Houses, but ALSO why we saw how they implemented the creation of States in regards to both houses of Congress.

If they WISH to implement an increase of representatives (which I am not opposed to, as long as they create a BALANCED approach where the minority populated states can be represented alongside the majority populated states) they ALSO need to create more states so that areas can also represent minority interests (minority in this instance meaning those from less populated areas).  This was one of the BIG issues in writing our Constitution, and though people are wanting to ignore this idea now, the BALANCE of representation is actually a pretty important and foundational idea of our national Constitution. 

When we capped the number of representatives, it caused a problem...but the problem was already starting because we capped the number of States.   Of course, part of this is because of how the Constitution defines how an area can become a state, and almost no state wants to give up it's power in order to allow it to be broken into smaller states...OR...as in the case of California...we see the representation of the majority overruling the minority population by tyranny and as such, no state can be formed no matter how much those in the areas that are no longer truly represented wish to have their own state.

If ONE could balance the representation, where more states were produced and thus would also have at least one representative and two senators...I think there would be more acceptance to return to the old ways of getting more representatives in regards to the amount of population.

However, MOST liberals do not even mention this because it is NOT balance of representation they are after, but the tyranny of the majority...an item which SHOULD be deeply offensive to anyone who is truly respectful of how and why our nation was formed and the REASONS the Constitution was written.

Many in favor of the increase of representatives without an increases of states (and thus representation of the minority population) among the liberals are those who are ignorant of history...but there are others who are simply just as evil as they argue their conservative counterparts are.  They simply want to dictate to everyone else what everyone else HAS to do, with no regard to what their wishes may be.  They want this tyranny because they THINK (not that it will always be that way) that the tyranny of the majority they implement will favor the ideas that they wish to promote or push.

I am against this type of idea....HOWEVER...I also understand why many also feel that the way we currently do things with our representation is also not in line with what was originally intended, and why those in Los Angeles or San Francisco (though, ironically, they feel free to disregard any and all of the ideas from the rural areas of California where certain restrictions are placed upon the citizens in those areas with no regard with what those citizens actually desire or want) may feel less represented in their votes than someone from Wyoming or South Dakota in regards to the Presidential election. 

The fix then is NOT simply to increase the number of representatives in the House to favor only the majority of the population, as well as the number of electoral votes lest we get a President that only represents those in a few states without the say of any others, but to find a balance which creates a representation for both the majority and the minority populated areas of the US.  This can ONLY be done (in my opinion) with the creation of more states from the states that already exist.

This is why you have such a barrier to the creation of more representatives as a whole currently.  Those in rural areas see what has happened in the West (in California and other areas which implemented the tyranny of the majority) and absolutely do not want to allow that to occur in the rest of the Union.  Those who want to even out the representation are so set in their ways that they will not even consider alternatives which would favor better representation for everyone, and thus you have the great divide and the great problem where we have uneven representation among the electoral choices in such things as the Presidential election, as well as uneven representation in the House of Representatives (for example, some of the areas of California which sway more conservative do not have that representation in the US Congress due to being lumped into more Liberal areas of California because of the limitations on representatives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This man had an interesting thought on the election results in my opinion:

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman (sic), have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future or our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."  -- Allen West

https://www.theblaze.com/news/texas-gop-chairman-allen-west-floats-secession-in-reaction-to-scotus-shooting-down-election-suit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.