• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump fans direct chant "lock him up!" chants at Joe Biden. They've now chanted for both Joe and Hunter to be imprisoned.

As Trump whines about "what China has done to his country," his fans break into a "make them pay!" chant

Someone sprays water into the air, Trump says, "are they friend or foe? let's find out if they're friend or foe, and if they're foe, let's take care of those son of a bitches."
 
"I said to my incredible Secret Service people (indicates a man nearby) there's one of them, Bobby. I know I'm not supposed to say his name, Bobby!"
 
Jenna Ellis (Senior Legal Adviser @TeamTrump and Counsel to @realDonaldTrump) tweeted

.@JennaEllisEsq
Biden starts his rally with thanking “everyone” for wearing masks and social distancing.
So starting with an appeal to fear.
Great message, Joe.
 
Bob001 said:
Hadn't read this before, but in a lengthy article last year about Rupert Murdoch, the NYT said that Murdoch almost endorsed Hillary Clinton, but she wouldn't meet with him.


If anybody still doubts her basic competence as a politician, this sounds like the smoking gun.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Get over it!
 
Meadmaker said:
Let's hope we don't find out what happens if they aren't done.


The closest we have come so far was Florida in 2000, but things were slightly different. There, Florida certified the results for Bush, but then lawsuits and recounts were continued. In the landmark case Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that the December 8 count stands, and the certified set of electors was indeed the certified set of electors.

And that case was a "landmark" in a couple of way, but not good.
Click to expand...

All this is a bit difficult to understand for a citizen of a technologically advanced country, where the ballots for half a dozen parties are normally counted before midnight on election day. The detail counting, where personal votes and such are counted and little details are settled will be in during the following day.

But of course, in a country where things have to be done by stagecoach and such, it must take a bit longer. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
Bob001 said:
Believe me, I'd love to, but it won't make Trump go away.
Click to expand...

Your posting ignorant criticisms of Clinton are not helping anything in this thread. That stuff has been hashed and rehashed. Go find an old thread if you have a need to bitch about Clinton.
 
MRC_Hans said:
All this is a bit difficult to understand for a citizen of a technologically advanced country, where the ballots for half a dozen parties are normally counted before midnight on election day. The detail counting, where personal votes and such are counted and little details are settled will be in during the following day.

But of course, in a country where things have to be done by stagecoach and such, it must take a bit longer. :rolleyes:

Hans
Click to expand...

Where are you? The U.S. is a nation of 325 million people in 50 states, and elections are conducted at the city, county and state levels according to their own standards. There is no national election authority.
 
Bob001 said:
Where are you? The U.S. is a nation of 325 million people in 50 states, and elections are conducted at the city, county and state levels according to their own standards. There is no national election authority.
Click to expand...

Really? Not even for electing a president? Why not?

Hans
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Your posting ignorant criticisms of Clinton are not helping anything in this thread. That stuff has been hashed and rehashed. Go find an old thread if you have a need to bitch about Clinton.
Click to expand...


That was a fairly recent article that I hadn't seen. And if anybody is ignorant, it's somebody who blindly blames where we are today on everybody except Clinton. It will take generations to recover from Trump. It didn't have to be this way.
 
"There should be major criminal liability for some scum like this. He should be prosecuted. Are you listening to me back in Washington? He should be prosecuted. Along with the New York Times"

"Bad things are gonna happen to him" . . .

"are they friend or foe? let's find out if they're friend or foe, and if they're foe, let's take care of those son of a bitches."
Click to expand...

Nah, he doesn't encourage violence . . . he's not a fascist . . . he's not nuts.
 
angrysoba said:
Jesus! I hope the UN or Transparency International are sending people to check that the elections are being run properly.

LOL! Of course they are not, and of course they are not.

Seriously, if these kinds of elections were being run in some country having its first democratic election after throwing off a dictator, people would be looking at this and saying, "Oh, these people don't really understand how it is supposed to work!"
Click to expand...

If these elections were held in any country not called the United States of America, the US government would denounce them as undemocratic and illegitimate.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Really? Not even for electing a president? Why not?

Hans
Click to expand...

Because the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, and it's not easy to change. It made sense at the time.

But it's true, elections are conducted entirely by states, and administered by cities/local authorities.

And as Bob noted, technically, you don't even elect a President with your vote. You elect a slate of electors, who almost always vote for the candidate they are pledged to, but in some states they are not required to do so, and in most elections there always seem to be one or two electoral votes that go to someone other than the pledged candidates. In 2016, there were seven electoral votes that went to someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. No President has ever been selected as a result of such "faithless electors", but it could happen.
 
Meadmaker said:
Because the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, and it's not easy to change. It made sense at the time.

But it's true, elections are conducted entirely by states, and administered by cities/local authorities.

And as Bob noted, technically, you don't even elect a President with your vote. You elect a slate of electors, who almost always vote for the candidate they are pledged to, but in some states they are not required to do so, and in most elections there always seem to be one or two electoral votes that go to someone other than the pledged candidates. In 2016, there were seven electoral votes that went to someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. No President has ever been selected as a result of such "faithless electors", but it could happen.
Click to expand...

Well, of course I know all that. But ... why is it STILL so?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, of course I know all that. But ... why is it STILL so?

Hans
Click to expand...

It's because of the "It isn't easy to change" portion.

Electoral reform is very difficult because the people who won the last election using the previous rules would have to decide to do it differently next time. The current system is obviously working for the people who won the last election. Why would they want to change it?

In the case of the electoral college, it splits up power in different ways. In order to get rid of it, people would have to support giving up a share of their power.

As far as how that affects the actual administration of the votes, anything that allows the federal government to get involved in how states conduct elections would threaten the idea on which the electoral college is based. Basically, it might undermine the idea that these are state elections.

ETA: In fact, the specific portion of the constitution that prevents the federal government from getting involved in running local elections just came up in a Supreme Court last week. The Constitution says that the legislature of each state decides how they will select electors. If the federal government were to impose a uniform means of voting, that would run afoul of that clause of the constitution. It came up last week when there was a dispute about whether a state legislature had signed off on the way mail in ballots could be counted, or whether it was imposed by a judge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom