***Official*** SCOTUS count down thread on Trump's ballot ruling, due 1000 Mon 4 Mar

[familydog]

Article IV section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

The question is:

Is it a republican form of government if a county stuffs ballot boxes and flips an election in the dead of night, thus altering the outcome of an election race for the rest of the nation? What if next time, they stuff a few hundred thousand into the ballot boxes? "Oh well", I guess? (the fact that they must obviously think they can't cheat that much is probably why they were trying to remove Trump from the ballot)

"We must abandon the federal republic in order to save the federal republic"

So, since States cannot be trusted to control their own elections, what else can't the States be trusted with?

Maybe we could come up with some sort of 3/5 rule like they had for the counting of slaves, only instead of using it for the census, we could use it to have weighted-votes. If you vote for anyone other than a democrat, your vote counts as 3/5ths of a vote. That way, no one has to cheat. It'll just be codified into law that some people's votes are worth less than others, in this "republic."

Why would they institute that when those States already vote Democrat?

Is it to be decided by a handful of corrupt urban areas? That doesn't sound very republican. Sounds more like a kleptocracy than a republic. (even that's not the right word for it)

We do have the electoral college that is suppose to take care of this. That is, unless you are speaking of intrastate elections.

I know, 'the states should handle it themselves.'

Oookay, but what if they don't? What if they endorse, or even passively bless, the outcome, even though it's fraudulent? ['Nothing to see here.']

The irony is that these federal elections you are so worried about would be almost meaningless to your life if we actually did live in a federal republic. Washington DC would have very, VERY little power.

[Swordsmyth]

"We must abandon the federal republic in order to save the federal republic"

That's actually your position.

So, since States cannot be trusted to control their own elections, what else can't the States be trusted with?

No government can be trusted with anything, they all need to be kept in check from every angle possible.

We do have the electoral college that is suppose to take care of this. That is, unless you are speaking of intrastate elections.

NEWS FLASH: It doesn't and never could.
The Electors are chosen in elections stolen by a handful of corrupt urban areas.

The irony is that these federal elections you are so worried about would be almost meaningless to your life if we actually did live in a federal republic. Washington DC would have very, VERY little power.

The irony is that if states are allowed to cheat in elections the cheaters will institute a large and powerful government at every level.

[familydog]

That's actually your position.

Ah, yes. A federal takeover of State elections is the real federal republic. Just as war is peace and ignorance is strength.

No government can be trusted with anything, they all need to be kept in check from every angle possible.

Right. Which is why I want my corruption close to home. I don't want it in Washington DC.

NEWS FLASH: It doesn't and never could.
The Electors are chosen in elections stolen by a handful of corrupt urban areas.

Perhaps you are not being clear, but if a handful of corrupt cities chose the president, then Trump would have never been elected in the first place. And furthermore, trusting John Roberts, ACB and Brett Kavanaugh to stand up to the corrupt cities and defend flyover country is um...certainly a take.

The irony is that if states are allowed to cheat in elections the cheaters will institute a large and powerful government at every level.

The actual irony is thinking that dealing with corruption in Washington DC is easier than dealing with corruption in your state or municipality.

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, yes. A federal takeover of State elections is the real federal republic. Just as war is peace and ignorance is strength.

It's not about a takeover, just enforcement of the law against cheaters.
Your position is that the states must be allowed to destroy the federal republic and turn it into a feudal empire in order to "save the federal republic".

Right. Which is why I want my corruption close to home. I don't want it in Washington DC.

You will always have both.
The only way to reduce it is to set both against eachother, like state nullification of federal unconstitutional laws and federal intervention against election theft.

Perhaps you are not being clear, but if a handful of corrupt cities chose the president, then Trump would have never been elected in the first place. And furthermore, trusting John Roberts, ACB and Brett Kavanaugh to stand up to the corrupt cities and defend flyover country is um...certainly a take.

They didn't cheat hard enough the first time, that's the reason Trump won the first time.


A relative handful of urban areas stole the election in 2020.
And the Electoral College would not correct the issue in any case, the Electors given a majority through fraud are always going to support their candidate and refuse to correct any fraud, they are chosen to run as Electors for their loyalty to their party.

The actual irony is thinking that dealing with corruption in Washington DC is easier than dealing with corruption in your state or municipality.

The actual irony is thinking that dealing with corruption anywhere is easier if you reduce the number of tools you can try to use to deal with it.

A4S4 exist for a reason, the Founders knew someone might try to establish a dictatorship in one or more states and they empowered the other states through the Federal government to deal with it.
The cheating states are surreptitious dictatorships and cannot be reformed from inside.
How are you going to fix the problem? vote out the election thieves?

[TheCount]

I hope those reasons are the optimistic Q/MAGA narrative, you know, the stuff that TheCount is always laughing at. That's what I hope.

Optimistic? A military takeover of the government facilitated by extrajudicial detention, torture, and execution of American citizens is optimistic?

[ClaytonB]

Optimistic? A military takeover of the government facilitated by extrajudicial detention, torture, and execution of American citizens is optimistic?

What military takeover?

And in the case of fifth-column infiltrators within the US government apparatus who have hijacked the mechanisms of military power up to, and including, the nuclear codes, they are not protected by the Constitution except to hang at the end of a rope once caught in their treachery. It is true that courts martial don't have the same standards of evidence as civilian courts. But it's also true that when you play 007, you're putting your chips "All In", come what may. So, the infiltrators can squeal as much as they like as they are dragged to the gallows but they're still going to hang. Getting too clever for your own good, and gaming the mechanism of justice itself, doesn't mean that all of society must then heel to tyranny because the Constitution got "hacked". It just means that you will be judged by a higher authority than you knew existed...

[dannno]

Perhaps you are not being clear, but if a handful of corrupt cities chose the president, then Trump would have never been elected in the first place. And furthermore, trusting John Roberts, ACB and Brett Kavanaugh to stand up to the corrupt cities and defend flyover country is um...certainly a take.

Keep in mind that the left actually thought Trump as the Republican candidate would secure their victory, and they propped him up during the primary. They didn't count on droves of Republicans coming out to vote for him in the general.

[acptulsa]

Keep in mind that the left actually thought Trump as the Republican candidate would secure their victory, and they propped him up during the primary.

So you admit that the incessant "attacks" on him during 2015-2016 were in fact the MSM promoting him?

Well, now.

[dannno]

So you admit that the incessant "attacks" on him during 2015-2016 were in fact the MSM promoting him?

Well, now.

During the primary, yes. After that, their brains were broken and it became a mental condition.

[Occam's Banana]

In an actual federal republic, it won't matter that much who the president is, because States hold most of the power.

I agree. The head of state of a federated republic should be little more than an administrative bureaucrat.

But size matters.

There is a point (geographically and demographically) beyond which republicanism is no longer really possible, except as a deceitful illusion. I submit that the United States of America is well past that point, and has been for some time now. (We are not presently witnessing the death of the American republic. That has already happened. What we are seeing now is the increasing exposure of the illusion.)

Ancient Rome is the textbook example of what happens when a republic becomes too geographically large (and thus, too demographically heterogeneous [1]). Such republics - if they are not themselves conquered - invariably become empires. And there's no going back - eggs can't be unscrambled, and empires don't revert to being republics again ... (and empires need emperors ...)

Contrast Rome - or the U.S. - with the comparatively much more successful Swiss republic. Switzerland is neither expansive nor expansionist, and its population is relatively small and homogeneous. That is the only way republicanism can endure and remain feasible.



[1] Though there are also other ways than territorial expansion that can suffice to create significant demographic heterogeneity.

[...]

I know, 'the states should handle it themselves.'

Oookay, but what if they don't? What if they endorse, or even passively bless, the outcome, even though it's fraudulent? ['Nothing to see here.']

The states should indeed handle it themselves.

And if some other states are dissatisfied with or disaffected by how it is (or is not) handled, then those states are going to have to decide what (if anything) to do about it. They are going to have to decide whether it is worth putting up with what they (correctly or incorrectly) perceive to be the monkey-shines of 8-ounce gorillas in other states, just in order to remain in political union with those other states (and thus, subject to the consequences of the monkey-shines of the 8-ounce gorillas in those other states - such as having to acquiesce to a president an 800-pound gorilla they don't regard as "legitimate" for whatever reasons [2]).

IOW: If you are asking "how can we (1) maintain our 'republic' [3] by remaining in political union with monkey-shiners while (2) not having to put up with the consequences of their monkey-shines?" [2], then the answer is: "you can't - and you're just gonna have to pick one". So the only open question here is: "which one is worth more to you?"



[2] And this applies as much to those who regard Trump (and his monkey-shiners) as being fraudulent or otherwise not "legitimate" as it does to those who regard Biden (and his monkey-shiners) as being fraudulent or otherwise not "legitimate".

[3] Which is geographically and demographically infeasible in any case (see my reply to familydog earlier in this post). In fact, this whole matter of having to put up with the monkey-shines of 8-ounce gorillas in other states is a symptom of that infeasibility.

[Anti Globalist]

Keep in mind that the left actually thought Trump as the Republican candidate would secure their victory, and they propped him up during the primary. They didn't count on droves of Republicans coming out to vote for him in the general.

More like they propped him up because the Deep State actually wanted him to be president the whole time so that COVID lockdowns and OWS would happen under him instead of Hillary.

[TheCount]

What military takeover?

And in the case of fifth-column infiltrators within the US government apparatus who have hijacked the mechanisms of military power up to, and including, the nuclear codes, they are not protected by the Constitution except to hang at the end of a rope once caught in their treachery. It is true that courts martial don't have the same standards of evidence as civilian courts. But it's also true that when you play 007, you're putting your chips "All In", come what may. So, the infiltrators can squeal as much as they like as they are dragged to the gallows but they're still going to hang. Getting too clever for your own good, and gaming the mechanism of justice itself, doesn't mean that all of society must then heel to tyranny because the Constitution got "hacked". It just means that you will be judged by a higher authority than you knew existed...

If you want to feign ignorance of "what military takeover" you probably shouldn't write a massive paragraph supporting that same military takeover in the same post.

[ClaytonB]

If you want to feign ignorance of "what military takeover" you probably shouldn't write a massive paragraph supporting that same military takeover in the same post.

What military takeover are you talking about?! Where is this mythical military takeover?

The paragraph is an explanation that there are circumstances in which a military repulsion of rogue elements who have seized control of the civil government is suitable. We're not even supposed to have a standing army in peacetime. But since we have one anyway, let them obey the Constitution. And if the military is faithful to the Constitution when the civil government is hijacked by an alien power that is hostile to the Constitution and the basic rights of all Americans, then it will drive out those rogue elements and faithfully defend the Constitution until such time as We The People restore our Republic on its original foundation.

Just checked out my window, still don't see any tanks rolling down Main Street...

[TheCount]

What military takeover are you talking about?! Where is this mythical military takeover?

The paragraph is an explanation that there are circumstances in which a military repulsion of rogue elements who have seized control of the civil government is suitable. We're not even supposed to have a standing army in peacetime. But since we have one anyway, let them obey the Constitution. And if the military is faithful to the Constitution when the civil government is hijacked by an alien power that is hostile to the Constitution and the basic rights of all Americans, then it will drive out those rogue elements and faithfully defend the Constitution until such time as We The People restore our Republic on its original foundation.

Yeah, it's that one.

[familydog]

It's not about a takeover, just enforcement of the law against cheaters.
Your position is that the states must be allowed to destroy the federal republic and turn it into a feudal empire in order to "save the federal republic".

The States are the federal republic. You are inverting the definition of the federal republic. It was created by the States. It is a bottom-up creation. It is not the creation's responsibility to save its creators.

You will always have both.
The only way to reduce it is to set both against eachother, like state nullification of federal unconstitutional laws and federal intervention against election theft.

So, what happens when the feds do the stealing?

They didn't cheat hard enough the first time, that's the reason Trump won the first time.

States weren't the primary cheaters in 2020.

The actual irony is thinking that dealing with corruption anywhere is easier if you reduce the number of tools you can try to use to deal with it.

Asking Washington DC to fix corruption is the opposite of a tool.

A4S4 exist for a reason, the Founders knew someone might try to establish a dictatorship in one or more states and they empowered the other states through the Federal government to deal with it.

I mean, sure, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson wanted an infinitely powerful federal government. I'm not sure too many others would agree with you here.

The cheating states are surreptitious dictatorships and cannot be reformed from inside.
How are you going to fix the problem? vote out the election thieves?

Pennsylvania allows for impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Pennsylvania allows for amending the state Constitution. In fact, practically every ballot measure to amend the state constitution has succeeded for almost half a century. And Republicans hold the key to getting a ballot measure through and there is nothing Philly or Pittsburgh can do about it.

[familydog]

Keep in mind that the left actually thought Trump as the Republican candidate would secure their victory, and they propped him up during the primary. They didn't count on droves of Republicans coming out to vote for him in the general.

Ok, so the left was so incompetent that they helped Trump get elected, but they are now so competent that they know how to cheat to keep him out of office.

So what we need is to count on a leftist/RINO Congress, a leftist bureaucratic super state, and hope that a couple wishy washy Trump-appointed judges vote our way in order to fix the issue.

[familydog]

I agree. The head of state of a federated republic should be little more than an administrative bureaucrat.

But size matters.

Agreed on all points.

[Swordsmyth]

The States are the federal republic. You are inverting the definition of the federal republic. It was created by the States. It is a bottom-up creation. It is not the creation's responsibility to save its creators.

Yes, and the other states in the federation have a right to prevent the cheating states from stealing elections and establishing a dictatorship.
It is the responsibility of all members of the compact to enforce its rules.

So, what happens when the feds do the stealing?

Then the states either fix the problem or leave the union.
But elections are not run by the feds, they are run by the states, so it is not as likely or as easy for the feds to do the stealing.

States weren't the primary cheaters in 2020.

Bunk, they did all the heavy lifting.

Asking Washington DC to fix corruption is the opposite of a tool.

Bunk.
All levels of government exist as tools to enforce the rules.
They may not always do their job, but they exist for that job.

I mean, sure, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson wanted an infinitely powerful federal government. I'm not sure too many others would agree with you here.

Sure, the others voted to include "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" in the Constitution as some kind of joke, right?
It's in there precisely to give the feds the power and the duty to stop tyranny in the states.

Pennsylvania allows for impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Pennsylvania allows for amending the state Constitution. In fact, practically every ballot measure to amend the state constitution has succeeded for almost half a century. And Republicans hold the key to getting a ballot measure through and there is nothing Philly or Pittsburgh can do about it.

If one of those amendments threatened to put an end to the cheating they would pull out all the stops to cheat and prevent it from passing.
They would do what they did to Trump in 2020 or worse.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, so the left was so incompetent that they helped Trump get elected, but they are now so competent that they know how to cheat to keep him out of office.

So what we need is to count on a leftist/RINO Congress, a leftist bureaucratic super state, and hope that a couple wishy washy Trump-appointed judges vote our way in order to fix the issue.

We need to attack the problem from ALL angles.

[familydog]

Yes, and the other states in the federation have a right to prevent the cheating states from stealing elections and establishing a dictatorship.
It is the responsibility of all members of the compact to enforce its rules.

The compact is between the States. The compact is not between the States and the feds, since the States created the feds.

Then the states either fix the problem or leave the union.
But elections are not run by the feds, they are run by the states, so it is not as likely or as easy for the feds to do the stealing.

'

What if half the country disagrees with you and they feel YOU should leave the union? In any case, you want to give the feds more power over elections, so it would easily become more likely they will cheat.

Bunk, they did all the heavy lifting.

The only State who did the heavy lifting was Pennsylvania. Hence, the case Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Bunk.
All levels of government exist as tools to enforce the rules.
They may not always do their job, but they exist for that job.

Your revisionist history take on the Framers is certainly interesting. I'll give you that.

Sure, the others voted to include "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" in the Constitution as some kind of joke, right?
It's in there precisely to give the feds the power and the duty to stop tyranny in the states.

Oh, come on. That died in 1865 and your just now worried about it because Trump got screwed?

If one of those amendments threatened to put an end to the cheating they would pull out all the stops to cheat and prevent it from passing.
They would do what they did to Trump in 2020 or worse.

Oh, right. Just like they did in 2021 when Pennsylvanians stripped arguably the most leftist governor in the country of covid tyranny.

[familydog]

We need to attack the problem from ALL angles.

You might as well punch the wind and tell it to stop blowing if you're fighting corruption in DC.

[Swordsmyth]

The compact is between the States. The compact is not between the States and the feds, since the States created the feds.

Right, the states as a group are the compact, and they have a right to use the feds to enforce it.
Enforcing the compact is one of the few proper powers of the feds.

What if half the country disagrees with you and they feel YOU should leave the union? In any case, you want to give the feds more power over elections, so it would easily become more likely they will cheat.

Leaving the union is an option for if cheating by the other states or the feds can't be fixed.
And it's not about giving the feds any more power, it's about enforcing the rules, which they already have the power to do, that being one of the reasons they were created.

The only State who did the heavy lifting was Pennsylvania. Hence, the case Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Bunk.
Almost every swing state cheated, certainly every one Biden "won".
Pennsylvania was targeted because at the time it was one of the easiest to prove and it had enough EC votes to reverse the outcome all by itself.

Your revisionist history take on the Framers is certainly interesting. I'll give you that.

That would be you.

Oh, come on. That died in 1865 and your just now worried about it because Trump got screwed?

There is no relationship between 1865 and ensuring every state a republican form of government.
You can argue that the feds should have less power like antebellum times (but they would still have enough to enforce A4S4) but since 1865 their power has only grown.
So if you want to talk about the state of things postbellum the feds absolutely have the power to correct cheating in the states, more so than before.

Oh, right. Just like they did in 2021 when Pennsylvanians stripped arguably the most leftist governor in the country of covid tyranny.

Right, that didn't do anything to stop their control of counting the votes.
They don't want to go full naked dictatorship just yet, so on a few issues here or there they will give us a win, but if you try to put an end to the cheating they will max out their bag of tricks.
The only way to overcome it from the bottom up is to so totally overwhelm them that their tools fail them, which is almost impossible as the successful cheat against Trump in 2020 proves.
But the covid vote in 2021 may have been even more overwhelming than the Trump vote in 2020, they may have turned up the cheating and failed.

[Swordsmyth]

You might as well punch the wind and tell it to stop blowing if you're fighting corruption in DC.

And you might as well surrender the whole war if you surrender one of the fronts.

[acptulsa]

And you might as well surrender the whole war if you surrender one of the fronts.

That philosophy would have lost us two world wars.

If Britain hadn't surrendered the Dardanelles, all the signs in London would be in German.

[Swordsmyth]

That philosophy would have lost us two world wars.

If Britain hadn't surrendered the Dardanelles, all the signs in London would be in German.

LOL

Lost in translation.
The metaphor is inapt.
There is no correlation.
Giving up on the fed front is like giving up on the western front in WWI or if the USSR gave up in WWII.

[acptulsa]

The metaphor is inapt.

When are you going to learn to admit when you're wrong? You made a blanket statement which is demonstrably idiotic. No metaphors were involved in disproving it.

About the time you learn to speak English?

[dannno]

Ok, so the left was so incompetent that they helped Trump get elected, but they are now so competent that they know how to cheat to keep him out of office.

They had four years to prepare... that isn't competency, that's just time to prepare.

[Swordsmyth]

When are you going to learn to admit when you're wrong? You made a blanket statement which is demonstrably idiotic. No metaphors were involved in disproving it.

About the time you learn to speak English?

Maybe you should learn to read.
My statement wasn't general, it was specific to the political war that was being discussed, not any and all wars ever fought.

[acptulsa]

Maybe you should learn to read.
My statement wasn't general, it was specific to the political war that was being discussed, not any and all wars ever fought.

I see. The very, very specific metaphor, responded to with a literal statement, which you not only called a metaphor, but pronounced "inapt".

Why don't you learn to read first?

[TheCount]

They had four years to prepare... that isn't competency, that's just time to prepare.

They've had four more years to prepare.

What does that mean if Trump wins this year? Does it invalidate your theory?