ADVERTISEMENT

Put America First, Trump!

DaShuckster

DaShuckster

Diamond Knight
Nov 30, 2003
13,756
5,800
113
You would think that like all the Democrats and Republicans who have lost before him, Donald Trump would put America first and offer a gracious concession speech and help Biden in healing the wounds of the election and begin the process of moving our country forward.

I particularly remember the class that John McCain showed in his concession speech. Even Hillary Clinton sucked up her vitriol and wished Donald Trump well.

Everyone knows the election is over at this point. But Trump is continuing to throw gasoline on the fire. Why? How is this kind of behavior helping our country?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReturnOf and Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
You know you've jumped the shark when you are extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton.
 
fried-chicken said:
Hahaha
Click to expand...
Tell me, why if the law says you can't receive any votes after a certain date and time would you continue accepting votes after that date and time? I'm not suggesting that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things, I just wonder if there is a legitimate reason to break the law.
 
Crazyhole said:
He hasn't lost yet.
Click to expand...
He hasn't? One might be guilty of assuming your intent with this post.

Throughout our country's history, the Presidential winner has been announced prior to the official certification. That fact doesn't change the outcome. Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, was declared the winner over the weekend with over 300 electoral votes (not to mention a 4 million vote lead in the popular vote.) He and Veep-Elect Harris addressed the nation Saturday night to talk about our country's future under their administration.

That pretty much means Trump lost, Crazy.
 
DaShuckster said:
He hasn't? One might be guilty of assuming your intent with this post.

Throughout our country's history, the Presidential winner has been announced prior to the official certification. That fact doesn't change the outcome. Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, was declared the winner over the weekend with over 300 electoral votes (not to mention a 4 million vote lead in the popular vote.) He and Veep-Elect Harris addressed the nation Saturday night to talk to the nation about our country's future under their administration.

That pretty much means Trump lost, Crazy.
Click to expand...

Most likely, but we thought the same thing in 2000.
 
DaShuckster said:
LMAO. Comparing a small Bush lead in Florida's final vote tally to Biden winning the electoral college going away is one hell of a leap of faith for even the most MAGA-hatted of the faithful, Crazy.
Click to expand...


These people are brainwashed cult members at this point.

You can't reason with retards.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: ReturnOf and Ucfmikes
DaShuckster said:
LMAO. Comparing a small Bush lead in Florida's final vote tally to Biden winning the electoral college going away is one hell of a leap of faith for even the most MAGA-hatted of the faithful, Crazy.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact that the media doesn't declare a winner.
 
Crazyhole said:
Tell me, why if the law says you can't receive any votes after a certain date and time would you continue accepting votes after that date and time? I'm not suggesting that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things, I just wonder if there is a legitimate reason to break the law.
Click to expand...

Explain how complying with a state legislature or state court ruling is breaking the law.

One thing this election has proven - we could really use some uniform, national standards. Everybody in every state should have the same basic rules, and those should be developed by a non-partisan federal commission. Other countries do this.
 
Boosted87 said:
Explain how complying with a state legislature or state court ruling is breaking the law.

One thing this election has proven - we could really use some uniform, national standards. Everybody in every state should have the same basic rules, and those should be developed by a non-partisan federal commission. Other countries do this.
Click to expand...
Thats my point. As the constitution is written and was strengthened in 2000, state legislatures are the body that has 100% control over how elections are conducted and state courts have no authority to change those rules. Thats why I keep saying that Pennsylvania is absolutely not decided as much as some want to believe it is.
 
Crazyhole said:
Tell me, why if the law says you can't receive any votes after a certain date and time would you continue accepting votes after that date and time? I'm not suggesting that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things, I just wonder if there is a legitimate reason to break the law.
Click to expand...
It's interpretation of the definition. Courts rule all the time on what laws mean. The court ruled that if it's been postmarked it's been received. You may not like that ruling, but at the time of voting that was the courts interpretation.

Also, it doesn't matter because in PA, none of those sequestered votes have been counted yet. If you throw them out Biden still wins, if you count them, his lead likely increases.
 
The margin of victory in PA as it is reported now does not include any of the ballots that arrived after election day.

So please @Crazyhole share your next theory on how Trump hasn't yet lost.
 
fried-chicken said:
It's interpretation of the definition. Courts rule all the time on what laws mean. The court ruled that if it's been postmarked it's been received. You may not like that ruling, but at the time of voting that was the courts interpretation.

Also, it doesn't matter because in PA, none of those sequestered votes have been counted yet. If you throw them out Biden still wins, if you count them, his lead likely increases.
Click to expand...
Trump and his people knew all along how Pennsylvania would play out. THAT'S why Trump has talked for weeks about 'illegal' mail-in ballots. It's also why Trump came out and claimed victory at 2 AM on Wednesday morning.

The problem is that the Trump campaign didn't anticipate losing Arizona and Georgia. If Pennsylvania had been the one and only obstacle in Trump's way to a second term, the plan was to declare victory before the massive mail-in votes were all counted and then pray his SCOTUS would somehow end the counting in the same way the SCOTUS ended the recount in 2000.

Trouble with that scenario is that there's a huge difference between prematurely ending the state's initial count versus ending a recount that had started.
 
fried-chicken said:
The margin of victory in PA as it is reported now does not include any of the ballots that arrived after election day.

So please @Crazyhole share your next theory on how Trump hasn't yet lost.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, it just depends on how SCOTUS remediates it. Again, Trump is very very very likely to lose but at this point anything is possible. If there is any evidence that votes received after the time and date have been counted and not segregated, it could come down to the entire vote being invalidated and kicked up to the state legislature to appoint electors. Thats the hail Mary that the Trump campaign is angling for.
 
DaShuckster said:
Trump and his people knew all along how Pennsylvania would play out. THAT'S why Trump has talked for weeks about 'illegal' mail-in ballots. It's also why Trump came out and claimed victory at 2 AM on Wednesday morning.

The problem is that the Trump campaign didn't anticipate losing Arizona and Georgia. If Pennsylvania had been the one and only obstacle in Trump's way to a second term, the plan was to declare victory before the massive mail-in votes were all counted and then pray his SCOTUS would somehow end the counting in the same way the SCOTUS ended the recount in 2000.

Trouble with that scenario is that there's a huge difference between prematurely ending the state's initial count versus ending a recount that had started.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with any of that other than the last statement. Gore V Bush essentially took the state courts out of the equation, rightfully so. Whether its in a recount or setting election laws, the same standard applies and that's why there have been challenges to their acts for a couple of months.
 
At what point do
Crazyhole said:
As I said earlier, it just depends on how SCOTUS remediates it. Again, Trump is very very very likely to lose but at this point anything is possible. If there is any evidence that votes received after the time and date have been counted and not segregated, it could come down to the entire vote being invalidated and kicked up to the state legislature to appoint electors. Thats the hail Mary that the Trump campaign is angling for.
Click to expand...
So Trump's path to 270 is what exactly?

Invalidate votes in PA
Win a recount in WI
What's the plan for GA, AZ, NV, MI?
 
Crazyhole said:
Thats my point. As the constitution is written and was strengthened in 2000, state legislatures are the body that has 100% control over how elections are conducted and state courts have no authority to change those rules. Thats why I keep saying that Pennsylvania is absolutely not decided as much as some want to believe it is.
Click to expand...

I think you're discounting the deference that would be given to voters who relied on those state court rulings. Even if SCOTUS ultimately decided that the state court was wrong, it doesn't guarantee they'd toss those votes.

While the legislature gets to make the rules, the state courts still get to interpret them, and the rights of a citizen to cast a vote carries substantial weight as well. There will be a strong tendency to enforce whatever rules governed at the time of the election. I could see that going either way, and the court may be least inclined to make a decision which could change a result.

Regardless, the Secretary of State has said there doesn't appear to be enough of those ballots to impact the election either way.
 
fried-chicken said:
At what point do

So Trump's path to 270 is what exactly?

Invalidate votes in PA
Win a recount in WI
What's the plan for GA, AZ, NV, MI?
Click to expand...
Get the court to flip PA, hope that the remaining votes in Arizona come through for a 1000-3000 vote win, hold North Carolina, and throw up a hail mary in Georgia or Wisconsin.
 
Crazyhole said:
Gore V Bush essentially took the state courts out of the equation, rightfully so. Whether its in a recount or setting election laws, the same standard applies and that's why there have been challenges to their acts for a couple of months.
Click to expand...
I realize Pennsylvania has a Republican-controlled legislature but how could they have justified stopping the counting of all the legal mail-in votes? I realize that was the plan but I fail to see: 1) how in the world the state legislature could have issued such a decree; and 2) how in the world the SCOTUS could have stepped in and certified such an action?

The whole thing would have smelled to high heavens as a crass partisan attempt to thwart the will of the voters.
 
Boosted87 said:
I think you're discounting the deference that would be given to voters who relied on those state court rulings. Even if SCOTUS ultimately decided that the state court was wrong, it doesn't guarantee they'd toss those votes.

While the legislature gets to make the rules, the state courts still get to interpret them, and the rights of a citizen to cast a vote carries substantial weight as well. There will be a strong tendency to enforce whatever rules governed at the time of the election. I could see that going either way, and the court may be least inclined to make a decision which could change a result.

Regardless, the Secretary of State has said there doesn't appear to be enough of those ballots to impact the election either way.
Click to expand...
I'm not discounting it. Thats why I say it just depends on how SCOTUS would remediate it. A majority opinion that comes from Thomas would be way different than one from Roberts or Kavanaugh. To that end, Roberts has a huge amount of authority in how this goes down.
 
DaShuckster said:
I realize Pennsylvania has a Republican-controlled legislature but how could they have justified stopping the counting of all the legal mail-in votes? I realize that was the plan but I fail to see: 1) how in the world the state legislature could have issued such a decree; and 2) how in the world the SCOTUS could have stepped in and certified such an action?

The whole thing would have smelled to high heavens as a crass partisan attempt to thwart the will of the voters.
Click to expand...
It was existing law that wasn't changed. The courts in PA changed the rules. Same thing happened in Michigan.
 
fried-chicken said:
So when Arizona is locked in for Biden is it over then?
Click to expand...
100% yes. If its extremely close, which it will be, there will be a recount but there is no court challenge to be had there. Probably some hand recounts in some areas but likely nothing that will change the outcome.
 
Crazyhole said:
100% yes. If its extremely close, which it will be, there will be a recount but there is no court challenge to be had there. Probably some hand recounts in some areas but likely nothing that will change the outcome.
Click to expand...
Well Trump just filed suit about sharpies which has been debunked. It's clear to everyone involved he's flailing around looking for anything to stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
fried-chicken said:
Well Trump just filed suit about sharpies which has been debunked. It's clear to everyone involved he's flailing around looking for anything to stick.
Click to expand...
Probably, yeah. I think they jumped the gun on that one unless they think there actually is evidence of it being an issue. Politically it would have been better to wait and see what the final vote looks like. Sharpiegate won't be a winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaShuckster

State of the Union Address

Replies
67
Views
594
The Water Cooler
DaShuckster
DaShuckster
DaShuckster

Bipartisan Border Security Bill being Sabotaged

Replies
82
Views
948
The Water Cooler
DaShuckster
DaShuckster
KnighttimeJoe

Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe

Replies
7
Views
194
The Water Cooler
Poolside Knight
Poolside Knight
Brandon

***Gus Malzahn Press Conference - Texas Tech Week ⚔️🏈

Replies
24
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
kawninzx6
kawninzx6
Brandon

***Gus Malzahn talks first scrimmage ⚔️🏈

Replies
38
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
JohnnyUCF03
JohnnyUCF03
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back