The election


Guest Scott
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is that how it would work?  I thought that it was not a majority of the electors who "attend" but the total number of total number "slated"* for lack of a better word.  So, Biden would have a plurality, not a majority.

At that point, all electors are released.  But in today's political climate that doesn't mean much.

So, it would go to the House.

*Slated vs attended: I'm basing this off of the fact that I don't know of any precedent where some state simply did not send electors, and the principle that a Constitutional amendment cannot be passed by 3/4 of the states who vote.  But by 3/4 of all the states, period.

The Twelfth Amendment states:  “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”

I read that as being a majority of the electors *actually appointed* by the state governments, not a majority of the electors that *could be* appointed if all the states actually had chosen to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Twelfth Amendment states:  “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”

I read that as being a majority of the electors *actually appointed* by the state governments, not a majority of the electors that *could be* appointed if all the states actually had chosen to do so.

Yes, I don't see that being read any other way.  But it would still be unprecedented.

So, I see the "bicameral objection" being a possible path to victory for Trump.  I think we'd have much more success than Maxine Waters.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Sharpies are black markers, not pens. It would be similar to calling a highlighter a "yellow ink pen."

Semantics aside, it surprises me that optical readers would be able to pick up one kind of ink but not the other.  The only potential issues I can see are “bleed through” in double-sided ballots, which supposedly should be an issue in Arizona because the ballot columns are deliberately offset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Semantics aside, it surprises me that optical readers would be able to pick up one kind of ink but not the other.  The only potential issues I can see are “bleed through” in double-sided ballots, which supposedly should be an issue in Arizona because the ballot columns are deliberately offset.

Growing up, with these type of ballots (even in school for tests) we were specifically informed never to use sharpies for the reason you gave. That was the main reason. Another reason was that it didn't always record the answer (so even if you chose the right answer it marked it wrong because it couldn't read it).

This is why I am surprised they were even handed out knowing full well the errors that have resulted from markers or Sharpies being used. It is the reason why I looked for a ball point pen when filling out my vote because I knew the pens I like are more liquid and could cause bleed through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know that “faithless electors” is really an issue here.  IIRC, SCOTUS had a case in the last 2 or 3 years where they affirmed a state’s right to punish/nullify the vote of a faithless elector; so that issue isn’t something we are likely to see anytime soon.

Yes, you are correct, and that is why I specifically only pinpointed states that do not have laws or a legal mechanism in place to punish or nullify a faithless elector.  See for yourself:
https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws

6 hours ago, Godless said:

These talking points sounds very similar to the things Dems were saying in 2016.

Yes!  And we had 4 successful Faithless Electors in 2016, and three that were replaced.

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Are you sure that's the word you mean to use?

Nope, I meant immense. (fixed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say this and it isn't meant to be sarcastic. I know it's hard for the president to accept defeat, but he lost (the history professor was right after all). When the counting is over, it's time for the president to call for unity and leave the White House with his head up and dignity. His rants on social media, his baseless allegations are both sad and borderline absurd at this point. I hope someone can actually reason with him because I don't believe this is the way he wants to be remembered when he leaves the oval office (hopefully, willingly!).

Perhaps, agree with his own opinion? (this tweet is real).

twitter.jpg

Edited by Suzie
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2020 at 3:03 PM, Scott said:

  Despite much repentance, the guilt still isn't completely gone, but repenting and making the vow of never supporting the coal industry in any way helps.  I still consider going to work for the coal industry as being one of the two most wicked things I have ever done.  I rationalized it by my wife's need of a heart surgery, but what I did was very very wrong.

Scott- Don't beat yourself up over it. I'm sure we have all done something that we are not happy about and guilt over because we are decent people who understand the difference between right and wrong (I am in that group too). If it makes you feel any better- I'm sure that working in the coal industry was not listed in the Ten Commandments and I have never have heard it written that thou shalt not work in or with coal. 

Repenting is the best thing we have done to bring ourselves closer to our Heavenly Father, and He has said that He will no longer remember the sin and our souls are wiped clean. 

I have to keep reminding myself of that when Satan pops those thoughts and reminders of things I have done in the past that I was not proud of.... trying to make me miserable and feel unworthy........ but remembering the things the Lord has said just pops those thoughts and regrets out of my mind. I am so thankful for that. 

Off subject here...... sorry folks.... but if I start in on politics and the mess it has all caused family, friends and the nation..... I'll just start crying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

I'm going to say this and it isn't mean to be sarcastic. I know it's hard for the president to accept defeat, but he lost (the history professor was right after all). When the counting is over, it's time for the president to call for unity and leave the White House with his head up and dignity. His rants on social media, his baseless allegations are both sad and borderline absurd at this point. I hope someone can actually reason with him because I don't believe this is the way he wants to be remembered when he leaves the oval office (hopefully, willingly!).

Perhaps, agree with his own opinion? (this tweet is real).

twitter.jpg

Al Gore did not accept defeat in his election until the Supreme Court ruled against him...

Following the example set by the Democrats in contested elections we should expect Republicans (including Trump) to do the same..

It is a high level hypocrisy try to force someone else to a higher standard then one is willing to live themselves.

 

 

The courts will make the call if the allegations are truly baseless and absurd... Rather then those of us in the peanut gallery.

And I kind of hope they are.  If we think that our votes are truly important and necessary then they need to be treated that way by our elected officials. There should not be been any kind of scandals or hints of wrong doing in the voting process.  If there are then heads need to roll and be held accountable.  It is not like this kind of dive into the voting process is in any way a surprise or unexpected.

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Al Gore did not accept defeat in his election until the Supreme Court ruled against him...

Following the example set by the Democrats in contested elections we should expect Republicans (including Trump) to do the same..

It is a high level hypocrisy try to force someone else to a higher standard then one is willing to live themselves.

 

 

The courts will make the call if the allegations are truly baseless and absurd... Rather then those of us in the peanut gallery.

And I kind of hope they are.  If we think that our votes are truly important and necessary then they need to be treated that way by our elected officials. There should not be been any kind of scandals or hints of wrong doing in the voting process.  If there are then heads need to roll and be held accountable.  It is not like this kind of dive into the voting process is in any way a surprise or unexpected.

I agree . . . partly.  It’s one thing to say “we are concerned about irregularities in multiple states and we will petition the courts for redress”.  It’s another to say something along the lines of “I *know* I won, and if the numbers don’t show that then it’s prima facie evidence that someone cooked the books.”

Trump has not exactly been covering himself in glory here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree . . . partly.  It’s one thing to say “we are concerned about irregularities in multiple states and we will petition the courts for redress”.  It’s another to say something along the lines of “I *know* I won, and if the numbers don’t show that then it’s prima facie evidence that someone cooked the books.”

Trump has not exactly been covering himself in glory here.

No he is not... He is being the exact same Trump that was elected four years ago... The exact same Trump that was calling and pointing out potential election fraud months ago.  This is playing out exactly as anyone should have reasonably expected it to given the facts in evidence. 

I hope and expect the courts to shut him down hard.  Because otherwise that means we have incompetent and stupid fraudsters and that is just sad and annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you click on this video, please (just for once) forget who is saying it (this is not about Clinton). What is said from 2:29 to 3:18 is exactly how the president is (and you can tell by his body language he isn't denying it either). You can check the whole video, even then... he couldn't say if he would concede. He cannot fathom the idea of losing. This isn't about Clinton, this isn't about Biden. This is about Trump and when things don't go his way, it is because it is rigged.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Before you click on this video, please (just for once) forget who is saying it (this is not about Clinton). What is said from 2:29 to 3:18 is exactly how the president is (and you can tell by his body language he isn't denying it either). You can check the whole video, even then... he couldn't say if he would concede. He cannot fathom the idea of losing. This isn't about Clinton, this isn't about Biden. This is about Trump and when things don't go his way, it is because it is rigged.

 

Ayup.  A stopped watch can still be right twice a day.  Even if that watch will never, ever be President.  :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ayup.  A stopped watch can still be right twice a day.  Even if that watch will never, ever be President.  :D 

Miss Never Ever President... and the rest of the democratic party have no standing to be shocked and appalled at the mote of Trumps actions until they clear the beam of hypocrisy from there own actions.

In this case Trump is safely following the Democratic example as given by Al Gore.  Until the Supreme Court Rules against him.  When that happen (which I expect it will) then he will be out of line to continue to fight and everyone would be right to be shocked and appalled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Suzie said:

(this tweet is real).

twitter.jpg

FYI, especially now, just posting a screen cap of an alleged tweet and saying "this tweet is real", is just one step away from being someone's crazy aunt.  The only thing missing is ALL CAPS.

Especially when it's not that hard to cite the real tweet for real.  Here's how you search: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-to-use-twitter-advanced-search

And yes, the tweet is real.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" FYI, especially now, just posting a screen cap of an alleged tweet and saying "this tweet is real", is just one step away from being someone's crazy aunt."

Have I said anything that offended you? (seriously asking). Your post is hostile and you are getting personal, I don't appreciate it. Please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Suzie said:

I'm going to say this and it isn't meant to be sarcastic. I know it's hard for the president to accept defeat, but he lost (the history professor was right after all). When the counting is over, it's time for the president to call for unity and leave the White House with his head up and dignity. His rants on social media, his baseless allegations are both sad and borderline absurd at this point. I hope someone can actually reason with him because I don't believe this is the way he wants to be remembered when he leaves the oval office (hopefully, willingly!).

Perhaps, agree with his own opinion? (this tweet is real).

twitter.jpg

Without an investigation how do you know his allegations are baseless? Are you privy to information the rest of the public isn't? There is more than enough evidence to suggest highly irregular activities took place during the election to warrant an investigation. Was it enough to alter the results of the election? We don't know. If after an investigation it turns out that Biden received enough LEGAL votes to be elected then we can all have confidence that the will of the people was heard. But without an investigation how will we know whether that is what happened? That should matter to everyone but apparently not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, laronius said:

Without an investigation how do you know his allegations are baseless? Are you privy to information the rest of the public isn't? There is more than enough evidence to suggest highly irregular activities took place during the election to warrant an investigation. Was it enough to alter the results of the election? We don't know. If after an investigation it turns out that Biden received enough LEGAL votes to be elected then we can all have confidence that the will of the people was heard. But without an investigation how will we know whether that is what happened? That should matter to everyone but apparently not.

Its a very human flaw... What they want to be true becomes FACT even if they are no facts to back it up.    But they are very quick call other liers (aka Trump) when other proclaim as FACT things they do not want.  Just look at the press coverage of when Trump made the claim.  They cut him off within seconds of the claim.  He was declared as speaking unproven falsehoods... but they never even attempted to give him a enough time to offer any proof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I hope and expect the courts to shut him down hard.  Because otherwise that means we have incompetent and stupid fraudsters and that is just sad and annoying.

So long as they don't do so in the spirit of Lord Denning (who was so concerned that the police should "be seen to be" honest that he didn't want police corruption investigated - just in case it turned out to be true). If the election really was messed up, people need to know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So long as they don't do so in the spirit of Lord Denning (who was so concerned that the police should "be seen to be" honest that he didn't want police corruption investigated - just in case it turned out to be true). If the election really was messed up, people need to know that.

In theory the Supreme Court is conservative again.  If they truly are that means they will Rule according to Law and the Evidence provided.  Which is the way the courts should be.  The vote for President is a State vote not a individual one (aka the whole electoral collage thingy we have) and each state makes its own laws on how that vote is decided.  Thus team Trump will have to show that the 'Powers that Be' in the States they are challenging... violated their own laws.  That is much harder then just showing some irregularities. That is the only basis the Court can and should have to change things.  People not liking how or what the State's Laws allow is not a matter of the Courts, its a matter for the local  voters and legislators 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, estradling75 said:

In theory the Supreme Court is conservative again.  If they truly are that means they will Rule according to Law and the Evidence provided.  Which is the way the courts should be.  The vote for President is a State vote not a individual one (aka the whole electoral collage thingy we have) and each state makes its own laws on how that vote is decided.  Thus team Trump will have to show that the 'Powers that Be' in the States they are challenging... violated their own laws.  That is much harder then just showing some irregularities. That is the only basis the Court can and should have to change things.  People not liking how or what the State's Laws allow is not a matter of the Courts, its a matter for the local  voters and legislators 

Considering the fact that one of Trump's former lawyers is a convicted felon and one of his current ones is Rudy Giuliani, I wouldn't have much faith in the campaign successfully litigating election results in multiple states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Godless said:

Considering the fact that one of Trump's former lawyers is a convicted felon and one of his current ones is Rudy Giuliani, I wouldn't have much faith in the campaign successfully litigating election results in multiple states.

I don't understand. Do convicted felons and Rudy Giuliani lack standing in state court appeals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Godless said:

Considering the fact that one of Trump's former lawyers is a convicted felon and one of his current ones is Rudy Giuliani, I wouldn't have much faith in the campaign successfully litigating election results in multiple states.

This is a dictionary example of an ad hominem.  Attack the character of the individual rather than the merit of his arguments or position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2020 at 8:04 AM, estradling75 said:

If the appointed judges are not political shills but judging according to the law then they should be.  Having said that the burden of proof is high and I think your prediction will hold true.  I also think ultimately Trump will not be able to prove fraud. (which is not the same as saying there was no fraud) and the presidency will go to Biden.  If for no other reason then the fraudsters would have had to know this would be coming and had plenty of time to cover themselves.  If they didn't not only would they be fraudsters but they would be incompetent ones

There are some kinds of fraud that can be proven. 

  • If dead people were found to be voting, this is provable fraud.  And there were thousands of those found.
  • If voter ID was not presented (in the states which legally require it) but the vote was still allowed. This is provable.  This has been accused and is being brought to court.
  • If ballots were literally being stolen (like the postal worker who was found heading to Canada with thousands of ballots), this is provable if caught in the act.
  • If proper oversight and bi-partisan participation was not employed, this is provable.

There are many types of voter fraud that can be proven.

The only kind that cannot be proven is if the state sent out ballots "accidentally" to the wrong addresses to people they know to be registered to the "correct" political party, then the recipients fill them out themselves for "the correct" party votes, this will meet with stiff obstacles to being proven.

But for the most part, many complaints will simply be "they didn't follow the right procedures."  And often, lack of proper protocols will be indicative of fraud.  However, "indicative" isn't even as strong as "circumstantial evidence."  It's just "suspicious activity."  And that will really be for a court to determine if it is sufficient cause for a re-vote (if there is such a thing in this circumstance).

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share