They are begging us to rally around Trump and not someone else

[acptulsa]

In principle, you're right. Unfortunately, we are currently...

We always are. Always. That's always the excuse.

That's the black pill. "It's too big an emergency to worry about principle" is always the reason we can't hold Republican politicians' feet to the fire. Always.

Business as usual got us here. It won't get us out of this.

In a hypothetical 2024 Biden-v-Trump showdown, you're voting for Biden?

That old leftover again? Who's acting like a bot?

Jesus, give me patience.

I'm registered as a Republican. I can vote in a primary. If I have anything whatsoever to say about it, that miserable "any way you look at it you lose" Hobson's Choice won't be facing us in 2024.

Do you prefer Herod or Judas? Choose! Now! Work to nominate Judas Iscariot all you want. Why you seem to be expecting my help to do it is beyond me. I know he's not the only disciple who can beat Herod. I know this. He would have the toughest time doing it of the lot.

You can label it "Trumpcine" but you know damn well that Trump's hands were tied in respect to the doomsday virus...

No, I don't. I know Trump was sold to me as an anti-Establishment swamp-draining fearless Alpha with cojones too big to allow his hands to be tied. And I know Rand Paul has those very cojones, not Trump. That's what I know.

Trump Trump Trump's

Trump Trump

Disclaimer (same as always): I AM NOT A TRUMPER

Try a bigger font, see if that works.

[showpan]

One could make that argument, but then one would have to overcome the Electoral Count Act:





Unofficial is the key word. In Arizona, for example, only 8 Senators (out of 30) and 20 Representatives (out of 60) signed their silly letter claiming to contest the outcome. This wasn't even a majority of either chamber and had as much legal effect as a bunch of drunks in a bar claiming to be electors.

Again, you have absolutely no clue how the constitutions works.....where are you from....Canada maybe?
U.S. Constitution Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors by casting their ballots.

Under federal law an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during the Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

In January 2005, Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes were challenged. After debate, the Senate and the House failed to agree to reject the votes. Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes for President Bush and Vice President Cheney were counted.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents your State from using something other than your State’s popular vote results to appoint electors.

Each State legislature determines how the electors are allocated to candidates. As of the last election, the District of Columbia and 48 States had a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate received a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), took all of the State’s electoral votes. Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, did not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could have been a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes (and, in fact, there was a split in Maine's allocation of votes in 2016 and Nebraska’s in 2008).

[showpan]

The constitution.
And if it's as open and shut case as you have said, then the legislatures would have not needed any investigations, and the slates would have been confirmed in a day or two, so what's the harm?

The harm would have been that Biden would not have won. The 8 states that actually changed their own election laws without any legislative process or approval just prior to the presidential election, acted illegally and most of those fraudulent mail in ballots would have had to be erased. If after reviewing those facts alone on the legality of those electors and congress and senate still certified them, it could have then been challenged by SCOTUS who would have certainly called the states foul!!! Pence had the power to stop the steal and didn't. He is a traitor to this country because of that.....but then so are most of our politicians

[ClaytonB]

We always are. Always. That's always the excuse.

I am familiar with that political ploy. There is the standard political ploy (business-as-usual wag-the-dog), and then there's what is happening right now. I'm not talking about headlines. I'm not talking about DC, except indirectly.

That's the black pill. "It's always too big an emergency to worry about principle" is always the reason we can't hold Republican politicians' feet to the fire. Always.

I said nothing about not worrying about principle. The question is which "principle"?

And no, you better damn well believe that the GOP will never get any kind of pass from me. I was raised GOP. You can personally thank GWB for the fact that I am not a Republican and will likely never again be one. He and his neocon buddies ripped the scales from my eyes, and now I see.

I'm registered as a Republican. I can vote in a primary. If I have anything whatsoever to say about it, that miserable "any way you look at it you lose" Hobson's Choice won't be facing us in 2024.

Fair enough. See RED BOLD TEXT above... I am not a Trumper.

No, I don't. I know Trump was sold to me as an anti-Establishment swamp-draining fearless Alpha with cojones too big to allow his hands to be tied. And I know Rand Paul has those very cojones, not Trump. That's what I know.

Well what you're saying here is precisely why I am not a Trumper. If Trump were not only driving the Deep State up the wall, but actually following through in pulverizing their asses to smithereens... I'd be inclined towards the Trumper direction. As I see it, supporting Trump (or not) is not really a principles/issues question because, on that analysis alone, he definitely fails (he may be a good businessman, but his economics are an absolute disaster). But I will provisionally support anybody who can and will bring enough raw force to bear to stop the Deep State. Trump was sold to us as that. Then he got overpowered by the Deep State in 2020 with the election-heist. He looks to be on the way out. Perhaps he turns it all around and pulls an All-American Comeback Kid. It's possible. But unlikely. If he can build the momentum, and if he really is a good guy (jury's still out on that, for me), then he could shephered a MAGA-centric, broad grassroots uprising to throw off the shackles of the Deep State. Assuming that's really what he wants to do. You are certain it's not. I am not certain about that. So I continue to hold it in the realm of possibility and keep an eye on how things turn out.

[ClaytonB]

Try a bigger font, see if that works.

Yeah, it's crazy how I am talking about Trump in a thread about Trump...

[TheTexan]

The harm would have been that Biden would not have won. The 8 states that actually changed their own election laws without any legislative process or approval just prior to the presidential election, acted illegally and most of those fraudulent mail in ballots would have had to be erased. If after reviewing those facts alone on the legality of those electors and congress and senate still certified them, it could have then been challenged by SCOTUS who would have certainly called the states foul!!! Pence had the power to stop the steal and didn't. He is a traitor to this country because of that.....but then so are most of our politicians

Reported for Russian disinformation

[Sonny Tufts]

If he's not sure it's certified in a manner set forth by the state legislature... the only thing he can do at that point is to confirm with the legislature.

But the Constitution doesn't give him this discretion regarding whether the certification was proper. It says the votes shall be counted, nothing more.

Where in the constitution does it give the state judiciary the authority over the state legislature for federal elections, pray tell?

A state's own constitution limits the power of its legislature because the legislature is created by the state constitution in the first place. The federal constitution didn't create state legislatures; it just took them as it found them.

If a state legislature really is all-powerful when it comes to presidential elections, consider this scenario: a state law provides that presidential electors shall be chosen by popular vote. After a presidential election the state legislature passes a law stating that the electors who came in second in the vote will be the state's official electors and will be certified to the Archives by the Speaker of the House and President of the state Senate. No allegations of fraud, just pure politics. The law isn't presented to the Governor for his signature because there's no need to. Nor is there a problem with the federal Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws, because that applies only to criminal laws, not election laws. The legislature can change the rules after the fact because the federal Constitution says the legislature is supreme when it comes to choosing presidential electors.

See anything wrong with this picture?

And if it's as open and shut case as you have said, then the legislatures would have not needed any investigations, and the slates would have been confirmed in a day or two, so what's the harm?

Because some people (e.g., Trumpers who believe in the stolen election myth) would never accept an open and shut case if it were staring them in the face. They would demand audit after audit and investigation after investigation. That's why the Electoral Count Act has a safe harbor provision.

[Sonny Tufts]

Again, you have absolutely no clue how the constitutions works.....where are you from....Canada maybe?
U.S. Constitution Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

So what? The people I referred to were state legislators, not persons holding federal office. Are you dyslexic? Moreover, I didn't say they were trying to appoint themselves as electors; they were trying to decertify the result.

[TheTexan]

But the Constitution doesn't give him this discretion regarding whether the certification was proper. It says the votes shall be counted, nothing more.

It says the Certified votes shall by counted.

Given the extent to which the state officials disregarded the laws prescribed by the state legislature, the "Certification" that was on the electoral slate had about the same amount of legitimacy as if a bunch of drunks in a bar wrote "Certified" on a paper napkin.

Who decides if something is "Certified"? The constitution only provides 1 recourse - the legislature.

A state's own constitution limits the power of its legislature because the legislature is created by the state constitution in the first place. The federal constitution didn't create state legislatures; it just took them as it found them.

Hey, I didn't write the constitution, if you don't like it you can change it.

If a state legislature really is all-powerful when it comes to presidential elections, consider this scenario: a state law provides that presidential electors shall be chosen by popular vote. After a presidential election the state legislature passes a law stating that the electors who came in second in the vote will be the state's official electors and will be certified to the Archives by the Speaker of the House and President of the state Senate. No allegations of fraud, just pure politics. The law isn't presented to the Governor for his signature because there's no need to. Nor is there a problem with the federal Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws, because that applies only to criminal laws, not election laws. The legislature can change the rules after the fact because the federal Constitution says the legislature is supreme when it comes to choosing presidential electors.

See anything wrong with this picture?

I'm willing to admit that what you're describing is a perfectly valid scenario under the Constitution (again, if you dont like it, you can change it).

But it's also a gross misrepresentation of the scenario that actually occurred.

What actually occurred is that the state legislature has delegated its constitutional authority of choosing electors, to the people, and has provided a framework of laws to support that delegation. These laws are created with the express purpose of upholding and securing the people's right to choose. Thus, it stands to reason, that when those laws are grossly violated, the outcome of the election can no longer be safely said to be the "voice of the people".

This is where you and your people have it backwards. Noone was trying to "overturn" the voice of the people, as that had already happened when the election laws were so grossly violated.

Because some people (e.g., Trumpers who believe in the stolen election myth) would never accept an open and shut case if it were staring them in the face. They would demand audit after audit and investigation after investigation. That's why the Electoral Count Act has a safe harbor provision.

Even if it was "all a myth" even the most cynical of people on the left will still admit that that fraud did occur, just "not enough". And when there are instances of fraud, should these not be investigated, however minor? Even if it's known for a fact that these will not change the election, should these not be investigated, and corrected? Any reasonable person should say absolutely.

Instead, any and every attempt to make any kind of investigation, inquiry, subpoena, or audit, was vehemently and aggressively blocked at every single turn in the name of "protecting democracy" and not "overturning the election".

Despite what you may say or think, election fraud was never given a fair hearing. And that, of course, was wholly intentional.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

In reference to the cross, a number of voters who have supported of him said “he was sent by God”.

Perhaps this is more accurate:

It still isn't a quote by Sinclair, and the most similar quote he said was about being against enslavement to capitalism. So using a quote with a fake attribution which - possibly - the one its based on is anti-capitalist, is pretty poor. You can make up quotes all day, but most fascists in recent history have been atheists. (who do carry their "burdens" they complain about).

[PAF]

It still isn't a quote by Sinclair, and the most similar quote he said was about being against enslavement to capitalism. So using a quote with a fake attribution which - possibly - the one its based on is anti-capitalist, is pretty poor. You can make up quotes all day, but most fascists in recent history have been atheists. (who do carry their "burdens" they complain about).

For the sake of getting the point across, let’s just say that I wrote that.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The constitution. It says he should only read certified slates, and the responsibility for certification lies with the state legislature. If he's not sure it's certified in a manner set forth by the state legislature... the only thing he can do at that point is to confirm with the legislature.

But none of the state legislatures certified it - in fact the stories at the time said just the state ag needed to certify it. And some of those legislatures were out of session, and were intentionally kept out of session when they wanted to address the issue which was uniquely their own under the constitution.

The fact is, we haven't been choosing presidents the way the constitution has it or as it was intended for a long time, but modified it subtly outside the constitutional process or by amendment.

No one in establishment politics wants it to be looked at.
Then an issue comes along where the "look alike" process is clearly outside the bounds of the constitution - the election laws passed by the legislatures and the constitutions of the states are ignored with no pretense of following them - and suddenly it's "the states choose" instead of the legislatures choose.

It's a continued illegal changing of the constitution, going forward to it's logical conclusion. 'the last remnants of the republic have been swept away'.

Nope, Pence didn't do his duty, he ran from it. Instead of leading, he relied on people's ignorance and choose the deception side.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

For the sake of getting the point across, let’s just say that I wrote that.

Instead of relying on fact checking sites, I just looked at a copy of Sinclair's book the original picture cited as a source - "it can't happen here".

A search of the book on cross and fascism shows no quote remotely similar to the one usually quoted.

The closest I found was this:

But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact
that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word "Fascism"
and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional
and Traditional Native American Liberty. For they were thieves not only of wages
but of honor. To their purpose they could quote not only Scripture but Jefferson

This isn't so much an anti-Christian quote as an anti-capitalist quote, and seems more like the
way the far left uses fascism so freely against liberty minded people - if you are a capitalist, you're a fascist.

[showpan]

Reported for Russian disinformation

haha...thanks....lol

[showpan]

So what? The people I referred to were state legislators, not persons holding federal office. Are you dyslexic? Moreover, I didn't say they were trying to appoint themselves as electors; they were trying to decertify the result.

NO...you specifically stated: Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
"only 8 Senators (out of 30) and 20 Representatives (out of 60) signed their silly letter claiming to contest the outcome."

The states that sent in the second envelope where from electors that were appointed by the GOP. They responded that way because STATE LAWS had been broken by the Democrats and blatant violations of federal election laws were NOT being followed. They sent in the 2nd envelope not to "decertify" Biden....lol...they sent them in to Certify Trump and they had every legal right to do so given the illegal certification by the democrat electors who broke their own laws. YOU CANNOT CHANGE STATE ELECTION LAWS JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIURE!!.... How many time does this need to be said before you understand that concept?

[Sonny Tufts]

Who decides if something is "Certified"? The constitution only provides 1 recourse - the legislature.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say that. It says the electors shall certify the votes for each candidate but it doesn't address how a dispute over who the legal electors are is to be resolved.

I'm willing to admit that what you're describing is a perfectly valid scenario under the Constitution (again, if you dont like it, you can change it).

But it's also a gross misrepresentation of the scenario that actually occurred.

I never said it was. The hypothetical simply follows from your reading of the Constitution.

What actually occurred is that the state legislature has delegated its constitutional authority of choosing electors, to the people, and has provided a framework of laws to support that delegation. These laws are created with the express purpose of upholding and securing the people's right to choose. Thus, it stands to reason, that when those laws are grossly violated, the outcome of the election can no longer be safely said to be the "voice of the people".

How odd you should say that. In my hypothetical the legislature grossly violated the people's right to choose by changing the election rules after the fact and ignoring the voice of the people, yet you say that's permitted.

[Sonny Tufts]

NO...you specifically stated: Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
"only 8 Senators (out of 30) and 20 Representatives (out of 60) signed their silly letter claiming to contest the outcome."

The states that sent in the second envelope where from electors that were appointed by the GOP... They responded that way because STATE LAWS had been broken by the Democrats and blatant violations of federal election laws were NOT being followed. They sent in the 2nd envelope not to "decertify" Biden....lol...they sent them in to Certify Trump and they had every legal right to do so given the illegal certification by the democrat electors who broke their own laws. YOU CANNOT CHANGE STATE ELECTION LAWS JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIURE!!.... How many time does this need to be said before you understand that concept?

My God, you're pathetic. Were the GOP-appointed "electors" appointed in accordance with state election laws? Of course not, yet you claim the GOP had every legal right to "certify" a bunch of impostors. It seems you want to ignore state election laws when it suits your purpose.

[TheTexan]

The 12th Amendment doesn't say that. It says the electors shall certify the votes for each candidate but it doesn't address how a dispute over who the legal electors are is to be resolved.

By your own reasoning, both slates of electors should have been read. If you answer, "but only the Certified one" should be read, you land right back to where we started.

How odd you should say that. In my hypothetical the legislature grossly violated the people's right to choose by changing the election rules after the fact and ignoring the voice of the people, yet you say that's permitted.

We've already established that we live in 2 different universes. You live in a universe where the election was fair, and I live in a universe where significant cheating occurred. This difference between universes will never be resolved, so if any meaningful conversation is to occur we have to respect each other's (obviously wrong) viewpoints, or simply not have any conversation at all.

[Sonny Tufts]

We've already established that we live in 2 different universes. You live in a universe where the election was fair, and I live in a universe where significant cheating occurred. This difference between universes will never be resolved, so if any meaningful conversation is to occur we have to respect each other's (obviously wrong) viewpoints, or simply not have any conversation at all.

The issue in my hypothetical had nothing to do with an election's fairness. It had everything to do with what the independent state legislature doctrine entails.

The last time SCOTUS addressed ISL was in a 5-4 decision in 2015. You might find it interesting. The last paragraph of Scalia's dissent is classic Nino. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-1314

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

NO...you specifically stated: Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
"only 8 Senators (out of 30) and 20 Representatives (out of 60) signed their silly letter claiming to contest the outcome."

The states that sent in the second envelope where from electors that were appointed by the GOP. They responded that way because STATE LAWS had been broken by the Democrats and blatant violations of federal election laws were NOT being followed. They sent in the 2nd envelope not to "decertify" Biden....lol...they sent them in to Certify Trump and they had every legal right to do so given the illegal certification by the democrat electors who broke their own laws. YOU CANNOT CHANGE STATE ELECTION LAWS JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIURE!!.... How many time does this need to be said before you understand that concept?

Sonny Tufts is a lawyer and prog who is paid to post here. Maybe you already knew it or don't care, but I'm not wasting my time with his fake "debate."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It still isn't a quote by Sinclair, and the most similar quote he said was about being against enslavement to capitalism. So using a quote with a fake attribution which - possibly - the one its based on is anti-capitalist, is pretty poor. You can make up quotes all day, but most fascists in recent history have been atheists. (who do carry their "burdens" they complain about).

I'm usually suspicious of graphics quotes any more. I never pass them on until I really check them.

[showpan]

My God, you're pathetic. Were the GOP-appointed "electors" appointed in accordance with state election laws? Of course not, yet you claim the GOP had every legal right to "certify" a bunch of impostors. It seems you want to ignore state election laws when it suits your purpose.

If anything here is pathetic, it's your interpretation of the constitution and legislative law that you just make up as you go along.....lmfao...please go back to DU and leave common sense alone, it's not your thing.

[showpan]

Sonny Tufts is a lawyer and prog who is paid to post here. Maybe you already knew it or don't care, but I'm not wasting my time with his fake "debate."

Yeah, I know I just need to ignore him but I hate when people lie and try to rewrite history.