Trump Quotes the US Constitution

[Grizzly Adams]

More playing dumb, now with a hint a faux outrage
You said:

Which by implication suggests you think that my posts DID somehow suggest there was some connection between a humble police traffic stop and treason. Confoimed by what you said in post #171 :

At best you contradict yourself, at worst, you've been caught in a blatant lie.

I notice you left out (intentionally) the question mark at the end of that sentence.

Why what ?

Why does the fact that an actual or implied threat of a use of force is commonplace when encountering law enforcement mean it cannot be a prerequisite to an act qualifying as treason?

Are you denying that even a commonplace, mundane police traffic stop is not accompanied with a threat of force ?

No, in fact I have explicitly stated the opposite:

the police are implicitly threatening the use of force in any non-consensual encounter they have.

What I'm denying is your claim that this fact somehow eliminates use of force as a prerequisite for an act to be considered treasonous.

So is a group from within the military, staging a bloodless coup (where no-one is hurt), to depose a legitimately elected US government, and impose a military dictatorship, an act of "levying war" and thus an act of treason in your mind ?

It depends on the situation.

 

[Rich2018]

I notice you left out (intentionally) the question mark at the end of that sentence.

OK, keep digging your hole

You said:

I just ****ing said no one suggested a traffic stop was treasonous..."

And:

I am unaware of anyone who has ever suggested a traffic stop is a treasonous act

Whilst forgetting you had previously said in post #171:

Which then suggests that getting pulled over for speeding is treason?

There, your grammatical mark is restored and it doesn't change your lie at all (whether you meant it at a statement or rhetorical question is irrelevant)
Please explain how your post did NOT make the suggestion that I had said, a traffic stop is treason or a treasonous act
Liars need good memories, and yours doesn't extend to more than a few posts

...what I'm denying is your claim that this fact somehow eliminates use of force as a prerequisite for an act to be considered treasonous.

Of course not, stealing secrets for a foreign country implies no threat of force
But please explain how deposing a legitimate regime, via a coup, excludes a threat of force

It depends on the situation.

By all means give examples of how such a military coup, to depose a legitimately elected government, that are:

a. A treasonous act
b. A non-treasonous act.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

So if Alabama decides to allow slavery then does that [a]ffect any other states?

Nope. Slavery is a federal violation. No state would have standing to challenge another state's decision to allow slavery. However, the U.S. government would have not only standing, but also an obligation to enforce the Constitution against Alabama.

Texas had no standing because the elections in other states had no effect on Texas elections. If SCOTUS had ruled that Texas did have standing, it would mean that every future election anywhere in the country could be challenged by any state at any time.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope. Slavery is a federal violation. No state would have standing to challenge another state's decision to allow slavery. However, the U.S. government would have not only standing, but also an obligation to enforce the Constitution against Alabama.

Texas had no standing because the elections in other states had no effect on Texas elections. If SCOTUS had ruled that Texas did have standing, it would mean that every future election anywhere in the country could be challenged by any state at any time.

Indeed, even if the election was fraudulent in some states, Texas has no standing to challenge the result.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If Iowa has a voting system where voters need to request a ballot and present verifiable ID before that ballot is counted and Illinois allows anyone that requests a ballot to cast their vote without being identified then the two states aren't playing by anything close to the same rules. Allowing such discrepancies could easily lead to a coalition of states effectively nullifying the protections of proportional representation. That effects all the states and, at a minimum, should be given hearing. If that kind of dispute ISN'T given a hearing then the only real recourse the states and people who feel they they are being disenfranchised have is separation from the union that no longer represents them. We tried that once before and it was a rather messy affair.

In the past four years we entertained a sustained political coup against the president. The investigations into Trump were based on hearsay and exculpatory evidence was ignored. We endured that because doing so allowed the concerns of the left to be investigated and assuaged. The left NEVER accepted the results of those investigations and now seeks to deny the right even a modicum of comparable good will. If that's where we're going to be as a nation then it's time to cut bait and move on to fresh waters.

That is nonsense. Every state is allocated EC votes based on the previous census. No amount of "scheming" between states changes that. You cannot even hypothetically present a scenario where states can improperly increase their EC input or reduce another state's EC input. It is based on the census, not how many people are allowed to vote in a state.

 

[Rich2018]

Lets face it, the way we run national elections is a joke no matter which side of the aisle you are on. This time the GOP lost, in 2000, we lost. It is absurd to have 50 different standards for voting and qualifying eligible voters. I believe that a reasonable person would argue that one single standard for national elections would be a very wise thing to pursue. The constitution though prohibits it so states large and small need to come together and agree to amend it to make this process more efficient, secure and accurate. The first thing I would suggest is to create a national ID out of the SS number database. Make this system totally secure, accurate and tamper proof. If we can all get credit cards online in a secure fashion, I know we can fix the SS database to eliminate old numbers, fake ones, duplicates, etc. Start with that and then use that ID to vote.

Why do you need ID to vote ?

If a man walks into a voting station on election day and advises the clerk he is citizen X and votes, that name is stuck off the voters list as having voted
If then a second man walks in a claims to be citizen X, the potential voting fraud is exposed, and the fraudulent voter arrested and sentenced.

Furthermore you then erase the fraudulent vote.

 

[Lutherf]

That is nonsense. Every state is allocated EC votes based on the previous census. No amount of "scheming" between states changes that. You cannot even hypothetically present a scenario where states can improperly increase their EC input or reduce another state's EC input. It is based on the census, not how many people are allowed to vote in a state.

A candidate needs 270 to win. If a coalition of states agree to send mail in ballots to all residents and decide not to verify signatures, eligibility or even if they person casting the ballot is alive then it would be EASY to win every election. A combination of WA, OR, CA, HI, ME, NH, VT, CT, RI, MA, DE, NY, NJ, CO, GA, MI, IL, OH AND PA would do the trick andd there would neever be a Republican in the White House again. They'd also have the House wrapped up permanently and all they'd need would be a few states, such ass AZ, NM and WI to throw Senators their way and the Democrats could have America by the balls forever.

 

[Vadinho]

Why do you need ID to vote ?

If a man walks into a voting station on election day and advises the clerk he is citizen X and votes, that name is stuck off the voters list as having voted
If then a second man walks in a claims to be citizen X, the potential voting fraud is exposed, and the fraudulent voter arrested and sentenced.

Furthermore you then erase the fraudulent vote.

I am thinking about using a smart card to vote, no need to go to any polls, no ballots, nothing. You do it all online if you want. The argument about IDs is not going to go away, I agree with you but the problem for many persists, this simple remedy fixes more then just voting. It fixes the illegal SS card issue. It establishes a valid address, it could be issued at birth and all death certificates would have to include an update to this database. it would also allow all of us to carry an ID that both establishes citizenship but also legal residency. As for voting, scan your card into a reader, vote and you are done.

 

[Rich2018]

I am thinking about using a smart card to vote, no need to go to any polls, no ballots, nothing. You do it all online if you want. The argument about IDs is not going to go away, I agree with you but the problem for many persists, this simple remedy fixes more then just voting. It fixes the illegal SS card issue. It establishes a valid address, it could be issued at birth and all death certificates would have to include an update to this database. it would also allow all of us to carry an ID that both establishes citizenship but also legal residency. As for voting, scan your card into a reader, vote and you are done.

The problem you run into is electronic recording

Officials will be able to see who voted and for which candidate

What about a secret ballot ?

No, voting needs to be anonymous.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

A candidate needs 270 to win. If a coalition of states agree to send mail in ballots to all residents and decide not to verify signatures, eligibility or even if they person casting the ballot is alive then it would be EASY to win every election. A combination of WA, OR, CA, HI, ME, NH, VT, CT, RI, MA, DE, NY, NJ, CO, GA, MI, IL, OH AND PA would do the trick andd there would neever be a Republican in the White House again. They'd also have the House wrapped up permanently and all they'd need would be a few states, such ass AZ, NM and WI to throw Senators their way and the Democrats could have America by the balls forever.

Now you're suggesting that a massive multi-state conspiracy is a way to steal elections. As if that somehow will increase the collective EC vote count.

The Constitution says each state legislature gets to decide how their presidential electors are chosen. They are not even obligated to put the presidential candidates on a ballot for a popular election if they choose not to. If one state doesn't like the way another state chooses their electors that's just too ****ing bad. Take it up with the Constitution.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The problem you run into is electronic recording

Officials will be able to see who voted and for which candidate

What about a secret ballot ?

No, voting needs to be anonymous.

In my state I can go onto the Secretary of State's website and inquire regarding the current status of my ballot but not who I voted for. My ballot is either sent, received, or counted. It tells me how I voted (by mail-in ballot, early in-person, or in-person on election day) I can check my voting history going back 16 years.

I can tell you this: Officials don't get to rummage through the voting records to find out whom I voted for without good cause. A good cause would be something like I dispute the SoS info on me or someone could demonstrate I was dead prior to my ballot being cast.

 

[Rich2018]

In my state I can go onto the Secretary of State's website and inquire regarding the current status of my ballot but not who I voted for. My ballot is either sent, received, or counted. It tells me how I voted (by mail-in ballot, early in-person, or in-person on election day) I can check my voting history going back 16 years.

I can tell you this: Officials don't get to rummage through the voting records to find out whom I voted for without good cause. A good cause would be something like I dispute the SoS info on me or someone could demonstrate I was dead prior to my ballot being cast.

You don't understand. Official may be prevented by law from rummaging through records but the fact is that an electronic voting system means that they can.
ie: it's possible for them to

So if we really did get a Tyrant, he could find out who his supports really are and who they aren't

Sorry, I could never agree to any voting system that kept the voter anonymous
ie: a secret ballot

Voting in ALL democracies should be secret.

 

[Rich2018]

A candidate needs 270 to win. If a coalition of states agree to send mail in ballots to all residents and decide not to verify signatures, eligibility or even if they person casting the ballot is alive then it would be EASY to win every election..

No it wouldn't

The UK manages it with no problems

Dead people are removed from the Voters' Roll by cross referencing with databases of Death Certificates. So unless you're keeping the corpse of uncle Fester in your attic, you can't impersonate him because he's registered as DEAD.

If two or more people claim to be citizen X, a red flag is waved and arrests are made. Consequently instances of people impersonating others to vote are very rare in the UK.

When I last voted in the UK, I merely gave my name and address and was given a ballot paper. No ID was necessary.
Yet oddly, defeated British politicians never (AFAIK) cry election fraud

American politicians didn't either, until Diaper Don came to town.

 

[Lutherf]

No it wouldn't

The UK manages it with no problems

Dead people are removed from the Voters' Roll by cross referencing with databases of Death Certificates. So unless you're keeping the corpse of uncle Fester in your attic, you can't impersonate him because he's registered as DEAD.

If two or more people claim to be citizen X, a red flag is waved and arrests are made. Consequently instances of people impersonating others to vote are very rare in the UK.

When I last voted in the UK, I merely gave my name and address and was given a ballot paper. No ID was necessary.
Yet oddly, defeated British politicians never (AFAIK) cry election fraud

American politicians didn't either, until Diaper Don came to town.

So US elections are fine because UK elections are fine...got it.

Dead people are not automatically removed from voter rolls. At least not in all states. If you have an address and a driver's license on file then you just might get a ballot if they decided to send one to everybody. If you register an insane homeless person and have their ballot sent to your address then you can cast that ballot. That works especially well if nobody is verifying signatures. If you go to vote and someone has already cast a ballot in your name then you usually get a provisional ballot Somebody MIGHT notice the duplication but,m then again, they may just assign that vote to someone that didn't return a ballot and let it stand anyway...if you voted Democrat. If nobody bothers to check signatures on ballots and everyone is mailed a ballot then you can just go collect ballots from everyone in your apartment complex that really didn't plan to vote and cast their ballot for them. Heck, you can pay people for their ballot even if they did plan f-to vote. Even better, you can collect all the ballots from all the people that buy crack from you after you threaten to beat them to a pulp if they don't hand it over. If you're really creative then you can also get the ballots for their family if you don't mid a little coercion.

There are LOTS of ways you can collect LOTS of ballots and cast them and have them counted as long as nobody really cares about election security.

 

[Rich2018]

So US elections are fine because UK elections are fine...got it.

Sort of, because UK elections are fraud free, the USA using similar rules would be fraud free too

Dead people are not automatically removed from voter rolls.

Well there you go, an example of the USA needing to follow Britain's lead and remove the deceased from voter's rolls. It's not rocket science is it ?

... If you have an address and a driver's license on file then you just might get a ballot if they decided to send one to everybody.

No problem there, though I think postal voting forms should be ordered by the voter

If you register an insane homeless person and have their ballot sent to your address then you can cast that ballot. That works especially well if nobody is verifying signatures....

Jesus how many such fraudulent votes do you think exist....how many people have an insane lodger locked away in the basement ?

If you go to vote and someone has already cast a ballot in your name then you usually get a provisional ballot Somebody MIGHT notice the duplication but then again, they may just assign that vote to someone that didn't return a ballot and let it stand anyway...

If two or more people turn up to vote in the name of one registered voter that is an immediate red flag as is investigated with invariably somebody going to jail
Consequently hardly anybody does it

If nobody bothers to check signatures on ballots and everyone is mailed a ballot then you can just go collect ballots from everyone in your apartment complex that really didn't plan to vote and cast their ballot for them....

The requests for replacement ballots would signal this potential fraud and if two or more ballots for one registered voter are received...it's a red flag and somebody's going to jail
It's not rocket science to check of those who have voted and see who has voted more than once. A basic database would highlight them

Heck, you can pay people for their ballot even if they did plan f-to vote. Even better, you can collect all the ballots from all the people that buy crack from you after you threaten to beat them to a pulp if they don't hand it over. If you're really creative then you can also get the ballots for their family if you don't mid a little coercion....

All of which gets you in jail

You're talking about a handful of votes at most, not the tens of thousands required to swing an election in just ONE state

The number of people involved would have to be monumental and number in the tens of millions across multiple electoral districts in multiple states
Next to that, faking the moon landings would be child's play with a small group of people

And you seriously think that kind of operation can be mounted, and even if it could, so many millions of people would keep quiet ?

If so, you are a stranger to reality
Reflect that in not one of the 58? court cases brought by Trump and his followers, not one piece of evidence has ever been presented to a court. Because lying on Fox News is one thing, lying under oath gets you in jail

There are LOTS of ways you can collect LOTS of ballots and cast them and have them counted as long as nobody really cares about election security.

No, no there aren't.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

There, your grammatical mark is restored and it doesn't change your lie at all (whether you meant it at a statement or rhetorical question is irrelevant)
Please explain how your post did NOT make the suggestion that I had said, a traffic stop is treason or a treasonous act

It's quite simple. That question mark indicated the sentence was a query to you. I can explain how interrogatories work, if you'd like.

Liars need good memories, and yours doesn't extend to more than a few posts

Listen, guy. I argue a lot with people. I do it in good faith. If you don't, that's on you. But don't go accusing me of garbage like this.

Of course not, stealing secrets for a foreign country implies no threat of force

No, as that falls under the "aid and comfort" section. But stealing secrets isn't a coup.

But please explain how deposing a legitimate regime, via a coup, excludes a threat of force

I don't think I ever said it did.

By all means give examples of how such a military coup, to depose a legitimately elected government, that are:

a. A treasonous act
b. A non-treasonous act.

No thanks.

 

[Vadinho]

The problem you run into is electronic recording

Officials will be able to see who voted and for which candidate

What about a secret ballot ?

No, voting needs to be anonymous.

You have a point, that would have to be looked into so the vote is secret. I forgot to mention another benefit, lifetime registration. No need to register at all, you are automatically registered upon turning 18. An amendment defining your right to vote in federal elections would also help clear this up. Every citizen has the right to vote anywhere in the world.

 

[Rich2018]

I's quite simple. That question mark indicated the sentence was a query to you.

It is quite simple. By asking such a question, you were suggesting that was the case

You were caught out in a lie

Own it

Listen, guy. I argue a lot with people. I do it in good faith. If you don't, that's on you. But don't go accusing me of garbage like this.

You were the one to start using expletives

But stealing secrets isn't a coup.

I didn't say it was - and there you go again suggesting I had said that

I said stealing secrets was treason (tough not necessarily accompanied with a threat of force)

I don't think I ever said it did.

You said a coup is only treason if it includes a threat of force
I maintain that any coup implies a threat of the use of force

So clearly you believe a coup can exclude such a threat. If this is what you do indeed believe; I repeat my question: please explain how deposing a legitimate regime, via a coup, excludes a threat of force

No thanks.

Because, categorically, you cannot.

 

[Rich2018]

You have a point, that would have to be looked into so the vote is secret. I forgot to mention another benefit, lifetime registration. No need to register at all, you are automatically registered upon turning 18. An amendment defining your right to vote in federal elections would also help clear this up. Every citizen has the right to vote anywhere in the world.

I think the law should mandate all states to maintain a valid voters roll. This can also be used to send out jury duty summons

No eligible citizen should ever be denied a vote because the system did not have them registered, and yes maintaining such a system would incur an ongoing cost.

You can never eliminate the potential for fraud in any voting system, the best you can do is systematically audit the process and hope to discourage fraud by imposing stiff penalties on anyone committing election fraud.

 

[Vadinho]

I think the law should mandate all states to maintain a valid voters roll. This can also be used to send out jury duty summons

No eligible citizen should ever be denied a vote because the system did not have them registered, and yes maintaining such a system would incur an ongoing cost.

You can never eliminate the potential for fraud in any voting system, the best you can do is systematically audit the process and hope to discourage fraud by imposing stiff penalties on anyone committing election fraud.

I am not worried about fraud by voters exercising their right to vote. I am more worried about officials finding ways to keep citizens from voting and helping to make non-voters so cynical that they never vote at all.

 

[Rich2018]

I am not worried about fraud by voters exercising their right to vote. I am more worried about officials finding ways to keep citizens from voting and helping to make non-voters so cynical that they never vote at all.

I think this is overcome by mandating all states to maintain a current voters roll.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The funniest thing is there is no way he wrote that tweet. He doesn’t understand what standing is at all, or any of the legal events that have culminated in his team being 1-59 in challenges.

Actually, I believe that he wrote the tweets as it's just word salad.
Supreme Court does NOT have original jurisdiction in the sense that he says. When you have two or contradicting opinions in different states, you have what's called appellate jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction is usually just for matters of diplomacy, treat conflicts, and state vs. state disputes.
Which goes back to the original theory that he heard these terms somewhere and put them together to make an inaccurate sentence

 

[vesper]

So US elections are fine because UK elections are fine...got it.

Dead people are not automatically removed from voter rolls. At least not in all states. If you have an address and a driver's license on file then you just might get a ballot if they decided to send one to everybody. If you register an insane homeless person and have their ballot sent to your address then you can cast that ballot. That works especially well if nobody is verifying signatures. If you go to vote and someone has already cast a ballot in your name then you usually get a provisional ballot Somebody MIGHT notice the duplication but,m then again, they may just assign that vote to someone that didn't return a ballot and let it stand anyway...if you voted Democrat. If nobody bothers to check signatures on ballots and everyone is mailed a ballot then you can just go collect ballots from everyone in your apartment complex that really didn't plan to vote and cast their ballot for them. Heck, you can pay people for their ballot even if they did plan f-to vote. Even better, you can collect all the ballots from all the people that buy crack from you after you threaten to beat them to a pulp if they don't hand it over. If you're really creative then you can also get the ballots for their family if you don't mid a little coercion.

There are LOTS of ways you can collect LOTS of ballots and cast them and have them counted as long as nobody really cares about election security.

Amen. And if you live in a district say Detroit, Philly, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Clark County NV who are notorious for voter fraud know all the tricks and they are all hoping no one cares about voter security. But this time we learned that when you have 4-5 big cities where major voting fraud occurred it can change the results of a national election.
When you win a record low 17% of counties, lose Black & Hispanic support, lose 18/19 Bellwether Counties, lose Ohio, Florida, & Iowa — and lose 27/27 House "Toss-Ups" — but you shatter the popular vote record what is wrong with this picture?

 

[HangLow]

So US elections are fine because UK elections are fine...got it.

Dead people are not automatically removed from voter rolls. At least not in all states. If you have an address and a driver's license on file then you just might get a ballot if they decided to send one to everybody. If you register an insane homeless person and have their ballot sent to your address then you can cast that ballot. That works especially well if nobody is verifying signatures. If you go to vote and someone has already cast a ballot in your name then you usually get a provisional ballot Somebody MIGHT notice the duplication but,m then again, they may just assign that vote to someone that didn't return a ballot and let it stand anyway...if you voted Democrat. If nobody bothers to check signatures on ballots and everyone is mailed a ballot then you can just go collect ballots from everyone in your apartment complex that really didn't plan to vote and cast their ballot for them. Heck, you can pay people for their ballot even if they did plan f-to vote. Even better, you can collect all the ballots from all the people that buy crack from you after you threaten to beat them to a pulp if they don't hand it over. If you're really creative then you can also get the ballots for their family if you don't mid a little coercion.

There are LOTS of ways you can collect LOTS of ballots and cast them and have them counted as long as nobody really cares about election security.

​

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is quite simple. By asking such a question, you were suggesting that was the case

No, I was asking if that was the case.

You were the one to start using expletives

****ing expletives aren't ****ing lies, kid.

I didn't say it was - and there you go again suggesting I had said that

I said stealing secrets was treason (tough not necessarily accompanied with a threat of force)

But not the type we've been talking about. Straight ****ing line. Walk it.

You said a coup is only treason if it includes a threat of force

When did I say this? This whole "conversation" I've insisted on one thing: treason consists only of levying war against the United States or aiding her enemies in their ability to do the same.

Because, categorically, you cannot.

If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that.

Whatever the case, Donald Trump has not committed treason, which was the point of all this, a long time ago: