Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
I predict the Senate will vote to approve. Every Democrat will approve. At least a few Republicans will approve.

It's a shame that anyone will not approve, and it is a true shame on the Republican Party that we have to wonder if a lot of them will disapprove, but I predict that neither house will vote to not accept the votes.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. Now, if I could just turn off everything and come back to this in early January.

It's not good. Trump taking over the news feed for weeks at a time. Not good for Trumpsters, not good for us.
 
pgwenthold said:
Actually, Eastman did not "author" the support document. It was ghostwritten by one of the Texas lawyers and Eastman put his name on it.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that along with the nut jobs that put their names on these petition there are hundreds more behind them.

Looks like running for governor requires a certain amount of Trump worship.
 
Tero said:
Sounds reasonable. Now, if I could just turn off everything and come back to this in early January.

It's not good. Trump taking over the news feed for weeks at a time. Not good for Trumpsters, not good for us.
Click to expand...
That never-ending item is always on Trump's goals list.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
PBS: Texas-led election lawsuit becomes conservative litmus test
Click to expand...

I'd like to nominate Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota AG, for self-serving hypocrite of the day, for saying he doesn't allege voter fraud, “But it’s worth it for the Supreme Court to weigh in and settle it once and for all.” The lawsuit has already been brought before the SCOTUS by Texas; the only difference that could possibly be made by more states piling on is to increase the pressure on them to rule against democracy. Yet this POS is trying to present his craven submission to Trump's followers as a wise precautionary step. Disgusting.

Dave
 
the GOP is scared to the bone that in the next four years they might have to do their part to get legislation passed.
De-Legitimizing Biden's victory gives them a lame excuse to continue making sure that nothing can get done.

And Trump is just doing what he was planning to do four years ago: become famous and rich as the Candidate who got cheated out of the Presidency.
Too bad he ****** up the plan last time by winning.
This time, everything worked out.
 
acbytesla said:
Time and time again, I find myself to be a defender of process. Even processes that I despise. There are hypocrits and cherry pickers on the right and the left. It always amazes me that people for the right reasons want to do the wrong things.

I absolutely hated "democracy" when it made Nixon President. I also subsequently felt that way when Reagan, the Bush's and especially when Trump was sorta kind of democratically elected. I mean sometimes it absolutely sucks. What is it that Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"?

The bad thing about democracy is sometimes the other guy wins. But it ceases to be one when you are willing, even eager to replace the electorate's will with your own.
Click to expand...
We live in Constitutional Federal Republic NOT a Democracy. The difference between the two are enormous.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'd like to nominate Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota AG, for self-serving hypocrite of the day, for saying he doesn't allege voter fraud, “But it’s worth it for the Supreme Court to weigh in and settle it once and for all.” The lawsuit has already been brought before the SCOTUS by Texas; the only difference that could possibly be made by more states piling on is to increase the pressure on them to rule against democracy. Yet this POS is trying to present his craven submission to Trump's followers as a wise precautionary step. Disgusting.

Dave
Click to expand...
Pretty much covering bases there. Criticize this, I really meant that. :rolleyes:
 
acbytesla said:
Even if they could throw out the votes from those 4 States, Biden still wins 254 to 232.
Click to expand...
IIUC they only want to throw out the mail-in ballots, which would lead to a different result.

ETA: I really can't see the court doing this, as in state after state, judges have already ruled (at least implicitly) that there was nothing illegal about expanding absentee voting due to the pandemic.
 
Last edited:
No Other said:
We live in Constitutional Federal Republic NOT a Democracy. The difference between the two are enormous.
Click to expand...

Yes. In a Democracy the... *shudder* brown people would be able to vote. Can't have that.

And I second Darat's "Yawn." The Right needs a new routine when their guy gets outvoted by over 7 million votes and still can't stand to be thought of as a loser.
 
Athyrio said:
If Texas is offended, they can always secede.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...floats-referendum-for-state-to-secede-from-us
Click to expand...

That's funny, I actually have met Kyle Biedermann and regularly shop at his store. He owns the Ace True Value near my in-laws. Kyle, and most of the people in his district, have become wealthy due to people poring into the area from California and larger cities in Texas. Give it a few more years and the area will be voting more like Austin.

Kyle doesn't want to secede, Kyle wants to make the news. Good job, Kyle!
 
No Other said:
We live in Constitutional Federal Republic NOT a Democracy. The difference between the two are enormous.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
Yawn.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
Yes. In a Democracy the... *shudder* brown people would be able to vote. Can't have that.

And I second Darat's "Yawn." The Right needs a new routine when their guy gets outvoted by over 7 million votes and still can't stand to be thought of as a loser.
Click to expand...
Every ******* time someone mentions "democracy" in a thread about the results of a vote in one, some pretentious deep-thinker has just got to come along and pontificate about how "we're not a democracy!" As if there's something about being a federal republic that absolutely excludes democracy in it. This ain't rocket surgery- a republic is the overall structure of the political entity, a democracy is how that structure is staffed and kept standing.
 
Meadmaker said:
It doesn't "go to the four states".
Click to expand...
What the **** was Raskin thinking?! He should have this down, certainly far better than any of us.
Meadmaker said:
If the electoral votes are not accepted, and, after the counting is complete, neither candidate has a majority of the remaining votes, then the House of Representatives would pick.

The clause in the Constitution about state legislatures picking the way electors are selected is exactly that. The legislature dictates how delegates are selected, and all 50 states do that via elections. If the electors are rejected by Congress, the states don't get to try some other method. Their votes just don't get counted.
Click to expand...
Yes. From Article II:
and if no Person have a Majority [of Electors], then from the five highest on the List [of candidates voted for] the said House shall in like Manner cause the President [each state delegation in the House gets one vote].
Click to expand...



Meadmaker said:
And....that's assuming the Supreme Court allows the objection. Congressmen cannot, by law, just decide they don't like the voters' choices. They can only vote to reject states' electors for specific reasons. If the SC says those reasons didn't exist, then they would rule that the vote to reject the electors was invalid.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of these specific reasons. Where are they listed?
 
acbytesla said:
That's it.

And to cover your previous post, the only time it goes to the House to decide where each and every state delegation has a single vote is when there is a tie.

Even if they could throw out the votes from those 4 States, Biden still wins 254 to 232.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. From Article II:
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of electors appointed.
Click to expand...
Are Electors challenged and rejected by the Congress still appointed? Aren't they appointed by the states, prior to challenge and rejection by Congress?

ETA: Ninja'ed.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
What the **** was Raskin thinking?! He should have this down, certainly far better than any of us.
Yes. From Article II:



I'm not aware of these specific reasons. Where are they listed?
Click to expand...

In the statute that defines the process. 3 usc 15 or whatever it was. The one from the 1880s.
 
The Don said:
Yes, but because he didn't get 270 EC votes then the decision goes back to the house on a one-vote-per-state basis and President Trump is re-elected.
Click to expand...

No. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say 270 votes. Biden needs a majority of votes cast not a majority of votes not cast.
 
Meadmaker said:
In the statute that defines the process. 3 usc 15 or whatever it was. The one from the 1880s.
Click to expand...

3 USC 15 only says (on this issue):
Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
Click to expand...

What is a good or acceptable reason or not is not specified. Which means any cockamamie reason is fine. Just make sure your grammar is good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom