2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig4 said:
To reject a state's vote requires a majority in both houses. If the House votes to reject the objection and the Senate votes in favor, the objection fails. It's telling that no senators signed onto the House Republicans' amicus brief in the Texas case and politico is reporting that the Republican leadership is quietly telling members to not support challenges in the Senate. At least most Republican senators appreciate the fact that there's no advantage in losing more than once on the 6th of January. Drawing out objections to each swing state, or each state the went for Biden would just be a day long spectacle of defeat after defeat for Republicans.
Click to expand...

Are there any delaying games possible here? Can Mitch say, schedule the votes so far apart that the objections cannot all be resolved before time runs out? I've asked a similar question before in whether Pence/Mitch can refuse to take up the counting entirely, and that seems doubtful. But what about other procedural games like that?
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Like with the Texas lawsuit?
Click to expand...

And Sydney Powell.

Remember how she was a member of the Elite Strike Force, and a well-respected lawyer and all that jazz? And then got kicked off Trump's legal team because she was too coocoo for CocoaPuffs?

The legal genius who tried to submit an anonymous "expert witness," (Spider or Spyder, depending on the lawsuit) but failed because they were too incompetent to properly redact the person's name? The expert witness who claimed to have experience in military intelligence but it turns out their position in the military was in vehicle maintenance because they kept failing out of intelligence classes?

As Bubba told us about her, we will wait and see. And we waited and we saw. She's about as much of a loon as their is.
 
gnome said:
Are there any delaying games possible here? Can Mitch say, schedule the votes so far apart that the objections cannot all be resolved before time runs out? I've asked a similar question before in whether Pence/Mitch can refuse to take up the counting entirely, and that seems doubtful. But what about other procedural games like that?
Click to expand...

Then, on Jan 20, when Trump's term comes to an end and there is no new President or Vice-President elected, Nancy Pelosi becomes President. Great strategy!

According to the Constitution, the Trump/Pence presidency ends on Jan 20. He has a term of 4 years, no more. It doesn't matter how long he holds his breath.
 
pgwenthold said:
And Sydney Powell.

Remember how she was a member of the Elite Strike Force, and a well-respected lawyer and all that jazz? And then got kicked off Trump's legal team because she was too coocoo for CocoaPuffs?
Click to expand...

Well, and also, presumably, because as a member of the Elite Strike Force, that makes her one of the dreaded Elite, and we can't be doing with that sort of person.

Dave
 
gnome said:
Are there any delaying games possible here? Can Mitch say, schedule the votes so far apart that the objections cannot all be resolved before time runs out? I've asked a similar question before in whether Pence/Mitch can refuse to take up the counting entirely, and that seems doubtful. But what about other procedural games like that?
Click to expand...

No.

For one thing, the statute actually limits the amount of time for objections, (Or maybe it's the Senate rules related to the statute. One way or another, there's a finite time.)

More importantly, there is a lot of space wasted on the internet describing scenarios where the electoral votes are not counted due to Senate shenanigans, and so the House of Representatives gets to vote, using the one vote per state procedure. That's false. The Constitution is vague on a lot of things, but crystal clear on that one. After the electoral votes are counted, if no one has a majority, the House of Representatives votes. Note that it is after the electoral votes are counted. It isn't "if the votes" aren't counted". It isn't "If the winner can't be resolved." It isn't even, "If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes." The act of counting the votes is a specific part of the process. The House of Representatives can only act after the votes are counted, and no candidate has a majority. You can't skip the vote counting.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Are there any delaying games possible here? Can Mitch say, schedule the votes so far apart that the objections cannot all be resolved before time runs out? I've asked a similar question before in whether Pence/Mitch can refuse to take up the counting entirely, and that seems doubtful. But what about other procedural games like that?
Click to expand...

The scheduling of the vote isn't optional as it's in law. I'm sure there are some obscure parliamentary tricks out there but I doubt they would work with he current Senate.

What concerns me is if Republicans go down the path of challenging electors, what would happen if they had control of both houses. I'm trying to think of this attempt to steal the election as a dry run for the next time when after have identified all the key points they need to control. The system worked this time but it worked because honorable people respected the rule of law. The last four years have taught us how precarious systems or norms are when they rely on honorable people.
 
Craig4 said:
The scheduling of the vote isn't optional as it's in law. I'm sure there are some obscure parliamentary tricks out there but I doubt they would work with he current Senate.

What concerns me is if Republicans go down the path of challenging electors, what would happen if they had control of both houses. I'm trying to think of this attempt to steal the election as a dry run for the next time when after have identified all the key points they need to control. The system worked this time but it worked because honorable people respected the rule of law. The last four years have taught us how precarious systems or norms are when they rely on honorable people.
Click to expand...

I think this is a legitimate concern, and it's what has me fairly upset about what is going on.

The Supreme Court still has a place to intervene and tell them they can't do that in the event some future Congress tries, but respecting the Court's decision would likewise require them to respect the rule of law. This year, there are a few people who have pledged that they will not respect it. Will it be worse in future years? I think even giving lip service to the idea that Congress can overturn an election result on flimsy grounds is a step onto a slope that I hope turns out not to be very slippery. I just think it is horrible that we are even at the point where we are today.

Ultimately, the maintenance of democracy demands that everyone involved respect the collective decision of the electorate. Once a sizable group of people are willing to either ignore that decision, or to pretend that it didn't really happen, the future of democratic government is in doubt.

I don't want to be too alarmist about it. It won't be a problem this year and my belief is that the current situation is an anomaly that will vanish with Trump, but I wish it just wasn't even a topic of conversation.
 
Let me the first to post this:

As of 11:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, President Trump has a 56-27 lead in Electoral College votes. It is statistically impossible for Joe Biden to make up that large a deficit!
 
Demonstration: Ad Hominems outweigh facts, part one.

SolarWinds Orion products are currently being exploited by malicious actors, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency (CISA) said. The tactic lets an attacker gain access to network traffic management systems.
Click to expand...


Dominion Voting Systems Uses Firm That Was Hacked


https://www.theepochtimes.com/domin...dium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-14-1



Stand by for part two of Demonstration: Ad Hominems outweigh facts
 

Oh Bubba you imp, what were you told about this discredited source?

Don't you remember?
 
Golly! I feel like someone might have been able to bring that up in a court case, if they were confident enough in its accuracy to bring it in under oath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom