Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beelzebuddy said:
Sure, sure. But here's the thing I've never understood about his kind of folk: he uses his wealth and entitlement to play golf in Florida. And yeah do a ton of drugs and leer at underage girls in his pageant and visit Epstein's rape island, but still. Golf. Florida.
Click to expand...
It's where his personal bankers, Vladimir and Illyich Ripitoffsky, run their business.
 
Some GOP idiot from the Wisconsin electors was on Ari Melber today. Melber wanted to talk about the finality of the EC today and the guy started into his talking points that the election was stolen: some number of anonymous ballots were sent out, rules weren't followed... whatever.

Melber tried several times to get the guy to speak on the topic and he kept repeating his talking points. Finally Melber asked, "do you believe Biden is the President-elect or not? The guy said, 'not'.

It's over: Watch MAGA elector confronted by certified vote on live TV
With the Electoral College officially certifying Joe Biden’s win of the election, MSNBC’s Ari Melber is joined by Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta and Wisconsin Republican official Bill Feehan, who are respectively a Biden and a Trump elector, to debate the vote. The duo ultimately clashed over the vote, and Feehan still refuses to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect even after the Electoral College voted.
Click to expand...
 
The new theme of the MAGA movement should be "They Are Coming To Take Me Away" by Napoleon the 14th.
 
I think Stephan Miller "ALternate Electors" will provide much amusement in the next couple of weeks.
 
dudalb said:
I think Stephan Miller "ALternate Electors" will provide much amusement in the next couple of weeks.
Click to expand...


Someone needs to tell him than any Electors need to be approved by the Secretary of State, for each state. Otherwise they is trash.


:P
 
Hercules56 said:
Someone needs to tell him than any Electors need to be approved by the Secretary of State, for each state. Otherwise they is trash.


:P
Click to expand...

Then one of them just declares himself to be the Citizen's Secretary of State. Because the word "citizen" is magic to them, it makes anything legal.

Robber: "Hands in the air! This is a citizen's mugging"
Victim: "Oh. I guess that means its legal:("
 
The problem with all this talk about sending multiple slates of electoral votes and challenging vote in Congress is that it is a complete misinterpretation of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. (This unfortunately is fairly easy because the law is poorly written with a bunch of confusing run-on sentences and vague terms.)

The Act does not grant Congress the authority to reject or choose which electoral votes to count. Quite the opposite. The Constitution says Congress counts the votes, which means Congress can count the votes however it wants. Theoretically, it has always had the power to choose which votes to count.

The Act does not grant some authority to Congress, but rather limits Congress to not reject votes if certain conditions have been met.

At the time, States generally had laws on how controversies for state-wide elections would be resolved and how the results were determined, but most States did not have such laws for a Presidential election. This resulted in convoluted and often ineffective means of resolving controversies or dealing with fraudulent elections. It also often resulted in multiple state officials appointing different electors who then sent their votes to Congress.

This left Congress the task of sorting out what votes the states actually cast. It was becoming a serious problem. Congress was sick of it. They wanted the States to get their stuff together and resolve all of these issues with their own legislation and judiciary before sending in the votes so that Congress and the Federal government didn’t have to deal with these messes.

Because the U.S. Constitution grants plenary authority to the States to choose their own electors, Congress could not pass laws dictating how States did things. Instead, they passed the Electoral Count Act to put pressure on the States to sort out their elections.

The Act is basically a threat that because Congress controls the counting of votes, it could choose which, if any, of the State’s votes to count. The Act is a promise to not reject votes if certain requirements are met.

Those requirements (in brief) are that the State must have a law dictating who has the authority to appoint electors. The State must have the votes certified by the Governor and submitted in a certain fashion. If the State does that, the votes submitted in that manner are safe. If not, Congress will decide whether or not to reject the votes.

If Congress somehow still gets multiple slates of electors for a State, a State can make their actual votes safe by establishing laws for resolving election controversy and resolving any controversy in accordance with those laws within 6 days of the meeting of the electors (the “safe harbor” date). In that case, only the electoral votes determined in accordance with the State’s laws will be counted.

If a State does not have or follow such laws to resolve controversy, Congress will try to determine who in the State has the authority to appoint electors…but Congress at that point has the option to just choose which electoral votes, if any, to count.

Note that there is nothing within the Act that actually talks about how a State administered an election; only whether they followed State laws to resolve controversy and determine who appoints electors, and followed the laws set by the Act to submit the results.

Trump supporters are acting like the Electoral Count Act gives Congress the power to decide willy-nilly which votes to count, when the opposite is true. The Act guarantees States that their votes will be counted as long as they met certain requirements. All States have met those requirements.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I think Stephan Miller "ALternate Electors" will provide much amusement in the next couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I read this and thought... please tell me this is a joke. Your joke, maybe, and if so please don't do this....

But no...

Miller indicated that Trump supporters will act as "alternates" in a handful of contested states, including Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, to submit their own, unofficial results. Should the Trump campaign succeed in overturning the outcome in any of those states, Miller said, the alternate electors could then be recognized by Congress.

Nothing in the Constitution or state electoral processes allows for such an "alternate" slate of electors.

Miller also raised the idea of state legislatures stepping in to overturn the results or of Congress interceding.
Click to expand...

Link

This is seriously unfunny.
 
angrysoba said:
I read this and thought... please tell me this is a joke. Your joke, maybe, and if so please don't do this....

But no...



Link

This is seriously unfunny.
Click to expand...
As long as the rubes are sending them money to fight the good fight, they will say whatever it takes to stay where the rubes can hear them.
 
angrysoba said:
I read this and thought... please tell me this is a joke. Your joke, maybe, and if so please don't do this....

But no...



Link

This is seriously unfunny.
Click to expand...

Trump is trying to trigger a "Mandela Effect" by creating an alternate slate of electors etc. in the hope that he can jump into the reality where he didn't lose.
 
We vote by absentee ballot. I had to agree to cancel my first absentee ballot and recast it because of a discrepancy in my signature. My name's fairly common, and so when I registered to vote, the registrar recommended that I use first name, middle initial, last name.

My error? I had signed my ballot oath Cromwell W. Blatherskite (not really my name, but I kind of wish it were now) while my PRINTED name on the address label was Cromwell W Blatherskite. Spot the difference? On my replacement ballot, I had to sign exactly as my name was printed, to the last jot and tittle.
 
Spektator said:
We vote by absentee ballot. I had to agree to cancel my first absentee ballot and recast it because of a discrepancy in my signature. My name's fairly common, and so when I registered to vote, the registrar recommended that I use first name, middle initial, last name.

My error? I had signed my ballot oath Cromwell W. Blatherskite (not really my name, but I kind of wish it were now) while my PRINTED name on the address label was Cromwell W Blatherskite. Spot the difference? On my replacement ballot, I had to sign exactly as my name was printed, to the last jot and tittle.
Click to expand...

Seriously? They rejected the ballot over a period?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Sure, sure. But here's the thing I've never understood about his kind of folk: he uses his wealth and entitlement to play golf in Florida. And yeah do a ton of drugs and leer at underage girls in his pageant and visit Epstein's rape island, but still. Golf. Florida.
Click to expand...

This has always been the problem with the hyper-rich. They are just so... boring.

One of my favorite comedy bits of all time is from Lewis Black, talking about some of the people brought down in the financial scandals of the early 2000s (Enron, Madoff, etc) and how they wasted their money in such... uncreative and boring ways.

"They just bought things. Things they didn't even want or use. They just acquired. They bought dozens of cars they never drove. They bought works of art they put into warehouses and never displayed or even looked at. One guy brought a 30,000 dollar umbrella stand. Think about that. Because a lot of us have an umbrella stand and we call it bathtub. My parents just bought a 30,000 dollar used car. You could sure store a lot of umbrellas in there. Or you could just drive to where it wasn't raining.

One of them had a luxury watch collection worth several million dollars, with individual watches worth tens of thousands. That's insane. If I had that much money to spend on a watch... I wouldn't. I would hire someone to follow me around and tell me what time it is. At least that would be creative."

I follow a Youtuber that reviews cars. About a year or two back he finally purchased his dream car, a 2005 Ford GT Supercar. He shared a video the day he got it and his happiness was absolutely palatable. He broke down why he decided to get it, how he budgeted for it, how he accounted for maintenance and fuel costs, why he got this particular car, fully admitted it was the largest purchase he had ever made, etc. He both loved the car and took the purchase seriously.

Compare that to some Saudi Oil Baron or Beverly Hills Trust Fund Baby with a garage full of Ferraris and Porsches that they bought on whims but never drive and that they don't even enjoy on any real human level.

Even if you think spending a huge amount on a car is a stupid purchase I figure most people can at least respect the difference between those two versions of "Bought an expensive car."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom