- Joined
- Mar 3, 2018
- Messages
- 16,876
- Reaction score
- 7,397
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
They do their classic appeal to authority. He can do it, therefore it’s not illegal and it’s not wrong. If you are offended, concerned, or say Trump killed democracy, they will gaslight you like always. Just another day in America where libs are having a meltdown over nothingThey're looking to trigger the civil war they've been itching for, huh? I sure can't think of a better way to do it then to openly steal an election like that. They must truly hate American democracy. They want their tinpot fascist to exact revenge on 'the left' for all the imagined slights Fox sold them.
I'd say "watch them make up excuses if they actually move to do this", except things will be bad enough that we'll have greater concerns than what Trumpists say to excuse the havoc they created.
More bullshit from The Atlantic?
I do have a thread on this.
Reminds me of the "National Popular Vote" movements to give electors to people who lose state votes. Neither is a particularly good idea.
I agree it is hard to elect someone when more people vote against a candidate than for them. When it happens to all the candidates in an election, some sort of fall back/tie breaker should trigger.We really need to come up with a system where, say, if one candidate got less votes than his opponent, he would still win.
Use it in State elections too.
The Trump/Traitor thread?
Yes.
Your video was removed from the server (thought It might not have been when I posted, however.....) I didn't see anything in your title that indicated to me it was about the recent ploy by time Trump to install loyalist electors. Had you done that, I would have seen that my post was redundant and I wouldn't have posted it.
Thanks, I added a replacement video but can't edit the OP. It's worth watching, though no one has apparently.
I'm glad to hear they're making a contingency plan. It's good to prepare for all possibilities.A fascist as a fascist does, he can't help his fascist fingers from the fascist cookie jar.
The Trump campaign is reportedly planning a way to bypass the 2020 election results in key swing states
Sources told The Atlantic that the Trump campaign was planning to install loyal electors in swing states with Republican-led legislatures.www.businessinsider.com
The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing electors who would vote for the president in the Electoral College even if he loses, according to a report by The Atlantic.
Election experts have said that moves by state legislatures to appoint their own slate of presidential electors after the fact would violate federal law.
The Trump campaign's plan would focus on swing states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, The Atlantic reported.
The Election That Could Break America
If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?www.theatlantic.com
The Interregnum allots 35 days for the count and its attendant lawsuits to be resolved. On the 36th day, December 8, an important deadline arrives.
At this stage, the actual tabulation of the vote becomes less salient to the outcome. That sounds as though it can’t be right, but it is: The combatants, especially Trump, will now shift their attention to the appointment of presidential electors.
December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.
We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.
Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
I'm glad to hear they're making a contingency plan. It's good to prepare for all possibilities.
How to you replace a video if you are past the edit 20 minute deadline?
More bullshit from The Atlantic?
The "National Popular Vote" wants to end the electoral college and elect our Presidents by popular vote so that everybody's vote counts equally. Unlike today where candidates only go to swing States and voters in Montana get 10 times the representation of those in California.Reminds me of the "National Popular Vote" movements to give electors to people who lose state votes. Neither is a particularly good idea.
And if a presidential candidate can not even get a majority of the votes in the nation; they still deserve to be president even if over 50% of the country voted against them? Sounds awful.The "National Popular Vote" wants to end the electoral college and elect our Presidents by popular vote so that everybody's vote counts equally. Unlike today where candidates only go to swing States and voters in Montana get 10 times the representation of those in California.
That's what we have now with Trump. Trump got 46% of the votes in 2016 and nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary. The winner of the popular vote is the choice of most of the people. It is how every other free Country elects their leaders. A minority President and a minority run Senate is why we are in the mess we are now. Montana should not have the same number of Senators as California either.And if a presidential candidate can not even get a majority of the votes in the nation; they still deserve to be president even if over 50% of the country voted against them? Sounds awful.
Most of the people voted for someone other than Hillary...That's what we have now with Trump. Trump got 46% of the votes in 2016 and nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary. The winner of the popular vote is the choice of most of the people. It is how every other free Country elects their leaders.
Even less people voted for Trump than Hillary and that sounds better to you?Most of the people voted for someone other than Hillary...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?