Congress still has to certify the Election Results and declare Biden winner. Will Republicans actually do it come January?
- Thread starter ElprofesorJuan
- Start date
Those were all because no one reached the electoral vote threshold, completely different than what is going on now.
Last edited:
Or we can just treat it like every other election we have had and let the winner be president, you know, like a normal functioning Democracy/Republic.
If Trump is declared the winner (which he wont be), then the entire foundation of this country is essentially over because elections no longer matter. He might as well be a king at that point. It isn't going to happen, but the concerning part, is how so many people want it to happen. So who knows where this leads to in the future.
I'm good with that as long as there is some kind of clarification on how things should be done moving forward. Scotus needs to clarify a few things.
Clarifications for what? If this were any other president besides Trump there would be absolutely zero controversy about this election. This entire thing is based off one guy not being able to accept he lost, nothing more.
A ruling that Trump won the popular vote, got over 100 million votes, is universally loved, never lies, and has the best tan and hair.
Clarifications that states have to follow their own constitutions and the US constitution when changing voting laws. That shouldn't be controversial at all.
Elector votes can be challenged in writing by one member of the House and one member of the Senate. Then, the objection can be debated by both chambers for up to two hours. In order to toss the state's electoral votes BOTH chambers need to agree. With Dem leadership in the House, nothing will happen. The Elector votes will be counted and Biden will be officially elected President.
So, GOP will have to keep coping and crying for the next 4 years. Very strong Biden Derangement Syndrome.
OH YEAH, BABY!!! You Trumpsters are sure showing the rest of us what REAL NONSENSE IS ALL ABOUT now, huh?
Is it still considered #winning?
Considering that a large number of Democrats spent 4 years railing about how Trump was Hitler and the end of America and then about how this was the most important election of all time, it’s almost comical to think that some of them didn’t take it into their own hands to ensure that Hitler didn’t come to power.
I get that you like Trump, but I pegged you as being above all of this legal theater going on to spare him his ego.
I think that I like being contrarian to the people that invented things and intentionally misconstrued things to use against him when there was enough real to use. The hyperbolic Trump is Hitler and the end of freedom and all we love and then we’re perfectly fine rioting in the streets told me all I needed to know. With the obvious security holes in the process, it’s inconceivable that people didn’t exploit them.
I don’t know to what level and I don’t really have the energy to argue about it. Biden will be sworn in and we’ll have to see what that means for us. Hopefully not a return to ME military entanglements, foreign oil dependence, hyper-regulation, foreign appeasement, and globalist policies.
12 of the last 20 years we've seen the left crying about the results of the election lmao
try again, pedo
At this point, if you're truly being rational and non-partisan, I think it should be easy to admit that the reasonable concerns about Trump are being proven true.
The rational concerns are that he's a wannabe authoritarian that has no fundamental respect for the constitution or rule of law. That he will always place his personal (ego-driven) interests above all else - party or country. That he would happily burn the constitution if benefitted him personally. He's the antithesis of the Founding Fathers. He's precisely the type of leader they feared.
A very important thing to keep in mind - the modern autocrats like Putin, Orban, and Erdogan haven't taken power through force. They've done it in technically legal ways. What Trump is trying - but failing at - is this precise type of power grab. What's far more concerning than Trump trying it, is the willingness of other Republicans to go along with it.
Are we really living at a point where someone can lose the electoral vote 306-232, lose the popular vote by 4.5%, and be a 5-4 SCOTUS decision away being POTUS anyway? That outcome would be FAR worse than a presidential election that was actually stolen. Why? Because that's the path of the modern autocrat. Bend the system to create legitimacy. The fact Trump is even willing to try this should confirm to you all of the rational concerns about him.
I think you like to cherry pick shit to inflame you and you conveniently ignore the rest when it comes to Donald. That's just my personal observation. You're farrrrrrrrrrrr more objective when it comes to other matters. That orange man just rubs you the right way, I guess.
THIS ^^^^^^^^^
Growing up, I never could understand how Germans could allow the atrocities that were committed under Hitler's regime.
But then, I could have never imagined that Americans would actually endorse trashing our very democracy because 'the other guy won.'
I understand how you might think that but I’m really not a Trump supporter. We just went through four years of media and people on this board cherry picking from Trump’s speeches and misrepresenting him to create a symbolic focus for all that they see as wrong in the world, and then using that focus to stir unrest and public chaos, I started presenting the rest of the story. So it made me look like an avid supporter because the crap was never ending. They absolutely ignored anything the Administration did that was positive and of value, sometimes great value, because of their need to fuel the symbol of their hate. So, yeah, when I’m about the only one that didn’t absolutely give up on trying to present another side of it, I can see how you would have the opinion that you have.
Im sure you think that I’m just a delusional Trump supporter but that’s just not my position at all. And we can agree to disagree about it.
And I guess this would be an example (to me) of where I think you do this. Do people cherry pick Trump? Abso-freaking-lutely. Does Trump offer up a shit ton of crap to cherry pick and parse? Abso-freaking-lutely. This can't be "aw, poor Donald" when he did his fair share to open his mouth and insert foot. Now, we can agree on the reaction that people had, certainly.
And I have said before that history will be kinder to Trump than the present. While he won't ever score highly on unifying the country, his policies will have effects decades into the future--and many for the good.
I don't think you're delusional to the extent of Dr. Knighttime or glaciers...
It's controversial because the arguments are recursive and require you to take both sides and throw consistency out the window.
The argument requires you to grant State Legislatures unchecked authority over choosing electors in some cases, while arguing that state law / state constitution trumps that authority in other cases. It's not a consistent argument from the pro-Trump side here.
For example - on one hand the argument is made that the PA legislature passed an unconstitutional law providing for mass mail in voting (per state constitution). Thus implying that the PA legislatures authority for making rules regarding the selection of electors is constrained by the state constitution. Yet the proposed remedy for this, is to believe that the PA legislature is not constrained by the laws in place on election day, and can at any time simply choose other electors.
I think that you largely stay out of the substance and rather poke fun at those of us that seem to enjoy tilting at windmills.
And, I think we’re pretty much in the same place. I think Trump is a jackass and wish he wasn’t the seemingly only one on the right that will use the time-honored Democrat tactics against them. None of the rest of the Republicans have a spine and the libertarians that I would rather vote for can’t seem to find a way to join the party. Unfortunately, Trump was the one to go against the status quo and so there you have it. Hopefully this new diverse group of people that the Trump wave brought to the party will fight the right fight.
If its in their constitution, they have to abide by it or change the constitution. I'm not sure what the issue is here.
100%. I know I am not going to change anyone’s mind on a message board. Were we chatting over beers and hanging out, it would be far different.
The issue is that their state constitution cannot over-ride the federal constitution - correct?
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.
So question - does the legislatures Article II authority allow it to violate the state constitution when it comes to selecting electors, because those restrictions are fundamentally incompatible with federally granted authority?
The Trump argument requires you to accept two positions on this issue.
1) In the case of the PA legislature passing a law allowing vote-by-mail - the state constitution trumps their authority to make this change to how electors are chosen.
2) To remedy this gross constitutional violation, The PA legislature can choose electors however it wants.
If their state constitution allows for the legislature to appoint electors, then its not unconstitutional to do so.
Logic: State Constitution expressly forbids boxing matches as a method of determining elections. Legislature codifies Kickboxing match as method of determining electors.
If their guys wins then everything is fine because boxing and kickboxing are not the same thing. Plus, even if they were the same thing, the original restriction on boxing was invalid because it restricted their Article II power to determine how electors are selected.
If their guy loses, they will argue that kickboxing=boxing, and the law they passed was unconstitutional. Because the process for determining electors was unconstitutional, we need to move to the back up plan, where we have the authority to choose.
Bad analogy. Does the Pennsylvania constitution grant authority to the judicial or executive branch to change election laws? If not, then the state has broken the rules and their constitution provides a remedy. This really isn't that complicated.
In a state that had issued a state of emergency, the government can make decisions in that framework that protect the rights of it's citizens. Since the changes didn't infringe on voting rights but rather expanded access in an attempt to keep a population safer in a pandemic, you're going to find that this is all going to be legal.
Oh. Well thats kind of a state issue isn't it. Don't states have the autonomy to run elections however they choose.
And didn't the state supreme court in PA reject that case because it happened after votes were already cast?
So you want the US supreme court to override the state supreme court regarding the state constitution and the state election and to do so not to protect the rights of US citizens but rather to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters? That's not going to happen. The SCOTUS only overrules state supreme courts when states are interfering with the rights of people. This is the opposite. The SCOTUS would be the one taking away people's votes.
I have heard a dumb argument about PA, now why is TX against MI GA and WI?
Yes and sort of yes. The original issue was that the PA legislature changed voting laws in a way that was inconsistent with their state constitution. Later, the governor wanted to change that law to expand it even further. The governor and congress went to court over it and the judge expanded it even further.
I agree with the judge that said that they brought the lawsuit too late, so come back later when it won't affect this election. That makes sense.
They are saying those states violated the 14th amendment.
Just those specific swing states? How convenient.
No. Because then it's a poison pill. The legislature can selectively make this claim when then they don't like the results, and ignore these kinds of issues when they do. I'd imagine that in every single county in every single state you could get lawyers to argue how process B doesn't comply with section XX on technicalities.
The PA legislature enabled wide-spread mail in voting in 2019. If that was against the PA constitution, then someone should have litigated that PRIOR to voting.
Gov Abbot in Texas unilaterally extended mail in voting by a week without the legislatures approval. Does that invalidate Texas EC votes?
This whole thing is nonsensical anyway. Legislatures are not in charge of executing the law, the administrative branch is. There's ALWAYS conflicts over time and that's part of the checks and balances. You can litigate these disagreements without trying to overturn elections.
By the PA legislature. Not by judges. Not by the Governor or SoS.
