Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Lou

    2735

  • UndertheHalo

    2531

  • Blarg

    2258

  • Jason

    2089

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure a 79 through 83 year old POTUS would need a lot of those, too.

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, Tank said:

it doesn't matter who is announced as the winner - this election is headed to court and I doubt it'll be settled before the inauguration. I expect there will be several appeals and half the country won't accept the results.

lf no winner declared by Jan 20, 2021, Speaker of the House will be the president until a winner  has been decided.

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

President Nancy.

God help us.

Unlikely to happen, but yeah if a winner is not confirmed by 1-20-21, she (or new speaker of the house) would be sworn as president until there is a confirmed winner. This has really been a great year and it's about ready to spill over into 2021...

Edited by Ace-Of-Diamonds
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

The idea of any President doing this scares the crap out of me.

 

The scary part of this is that it is possible due to the tremendous power that states have to run their own elections, so you could conceivably see a State that has a GOP run legislative body vote to send their own electors bypassing the state vote. Now there are states that have laws on the books that the electors have to be chosen based on the popular vote, and the Supreme Court did rule against "unfaithful electors" in a decision earlier this year. You also have the possibility of a Governor signing off on one set of electors, while the legislature of the state signing off on another set of electors, at which point the Congress that is sworn in on Jan 6th will chose which set to accept, but the very concept of a Presidential campaign actively working with a state to bypass votes is a scary concept.

 

Only in the event of actual/proven voter fraud should this idea ever be approached, and even then you should have a consensus from both parties and various intelligence agencies that the voter fraud happened. Donald Trump is not, and should not be the sole authority on whether or not voter fraud actually took place. 

 

If you are a Donald Trump supporter that supports this approach to bypass votes without actual proven voter fraud then you should be ashamed of yourself, because clearly you just want your guy to win at any cost. I would like to hope that either this report is inaccurate, or this would only be invoked in the actual event of proven verified voter fraud and not just the word of one of the candidates in the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jason said:

No but they’ll accuse Trump of doing something. 

Probably because he did. Asking Republican Governors to appoint electorates that will vote for him no matter the popular vote in their state.

If that happens it will be time to abolish the electoral college it's time has past anyway. 1 person 1 vote. Make the president the president of all the states and not just the ones that voted for him. We've seen what he has done to Puerto Rico, they can't vote for him so I'll them a roll of paper towels and say good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John Taylor said:

The idea of any President doing this scares the crap out of me.

 

The scary part of this is that it is possible due to the tremendous power that states have to run their own elections, so you could conceivably see a State that has a GOP run legislative body vote to send their own electors bypassing the state vote. Now there are states that have laws on the books that the electors have to be chosen based on the popular vote, and the Supreme Court did rule against "unfaithful electors" in a decision earlier this year. You also have the possibility of a Governor signing off on one set of electors, while the legislature of the state signing off on another set of electors, at which point the Congress that is sworn in on Jan 6th will chose which set to accept, but the very concept of a Presidential campaign actively working with a state to bypass votes is a scary concept.

 

Only in the event of actual/proven voter fraud should this idea ever be approached, and even then you should have a consensus from both parties and various intelligence agencies that the voter fraud happened. Donald Trump is not, and should not be the sole authority on whether or not voter fraud actually took place. 

 

If you are a Donald Trump supporter that supports this approach to bypass votes without actual proven voter fraud then you should be ashamed of yourself, because clearly you just want your guy to win at any cost. I would like to hope that either this report is inaccurate, or this would only be invoked in the actual event of proven verified voter fraud and not just the word of one of the candidates in the election.

The Viagra poppers here have no shame. More Trump means more guns and less dead babies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Probably because he did. Asking Republican Governors to appoint electorates that will vote for him no matter the popular vote in their state.

If that happens it will be time to abolish the electoral college it's time has past anyway. 1 person 1 vote. Make the president the president of all the states and not just the ones that voted for him. We've seen what he has done to Puerto Rico, they can't vote for him so I'll them a roll of paper towels and say good luck.

Mob rule for everyone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Probably because he did. Asking Republican Governors to appoint electorates that will vote for him no matter the popular vote in their state.

If that happens it will be time to abolish the electoral college it's time has past anyway. 1 person 1 vote. Make the president the president of all the states and not just the ones that voted for him. We've seen what he has done to Puerto Rico, they can't vote for him so I'll them a roll of paper towels and say good luck.

Actually you can't do that.  Supreme Court already ruled about faithless electors.

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

Actually you can't do that.  Supreme Court already ruled about faithless electors.

This is true, but not every state has a law requiring the electors of that state to be directly tied to the popular vote in that state. A faithless elector can not go against what the state law requires, but if the legislator of the state appoints their own electors (in accordance with whatever the specific state allows) it is not considered a faithless elector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Actually you can't do that.  Supreme Court already ruled about faithless electors.

Maybe time recheck that. It happened in 2016 at least once.

July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

*******************

It's up to the states, so GOP controlled states don't have to require they be faithful. That's what Trump is hoping happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, John Taylor said:

This is true, but not every state has a law requiring the electors of that state to be directly tied to the popular vote in that state. A faithless elector can not go against what the state law requires, but if the legislator of the state appoints their own electors (in accordance with whatever the specific state allows) it is not considered a faithless elector.

I believe it's Nebraska and Maine that actually splits their electoral votes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jason said:

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/24/trump-america-first-health-care-plan-force-insurers-cover-pre-existing-conditions/
 Not sure how that will work if they don’t get a favorable SCOTUS ruling. Obviously specific details will need to be released as this seems like campaign pandering 

 

tenor-1.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 8:41 PM, Tank said:

it doesn't matter who is announced as the winner - this election is headed to court and I doubt it'll be settled before the inauguration. I expect there will be several appeals and half the country won't accept the results.

lf not settled by Jan. 20,2021, The speaker of the house will be sworn in as president until a winner is confirmed. Trump is making a mockery of the constitution...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...