Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

[JessFR]

It troubles me more and more that the more sensible trump supports here can't see what's happening.

Trump doesn't care who won, he just wants to stay president. So he is doing absolutely everything he can to remain president.

It's not about fraud, it's not even not about fraud, it's about winning.

That's why, like the dictator he sees himself as, he is trying to force Republicans to bow to his wishes and appoint their own slate of electors.

That's the goal, stir up as much confusion and division that states are willing to just ignore the majority of their voters and directly appoint trump.

Trump's approach isn't what you do if you are actually worried about fraud, it's what you do when you're a narcissist and care only about winning, no matter what the truth or the law says.

With trump I expect that, with his obsessed cult like fanatic supporters I expect that.

But there's actually some reasonable people whom I otherwise respect who don't seem to see it. And that particularly concerns me.

Fortunately America's democratic systems are actually pretty damn robust and it's quite unlikely that even a renegade president will be able to overcome them.

And when he's out of office, it will be a great day for American democracy.

I want whoever won to win. My preference is less important than the truth.

That would be Biden.

 

[cduggles]

Wayne County is where Detroit is located.
It always votes democrat, even when Michigan goes republican.

Clinton won Wayne County by 288,934 votes
Biden won Wayne County by 332,617

Again, the numbers are consistent.

...

Wayne County (2016)​

D H. Clinton	66.8%	517,842
R D. Trump	29.5%	228,908

Wayne County (2020)

597,170

68.5%

264,553

30.3%

Here’s a tweet with a link to a blog that provides an explanation for the over 300%. (It’s a pro-Trump blog.)
Basically they mixed up the state data.

 

[JessFR]

I honestly think Trump could come out on TV and openly admit he just wants to win and doesn't give a shit who voted for what and what the law says.

Then the next day say he never said that, and his supporters would believe it

 

[Xorkoth]

Here’s a tweet with a link to a blog that provides an explanation for the over 300%. (It’s a pro-Trump blog.)
Basically they mixed up the state data.

Confusing "MI" to mean Minnesota rather than Michigan. He only hires the best, you know.

 

[dalpat077]

It troubles me more and more that the more sensible trump supports here can't see what's happening.

Trump doesn't care who won, he just wants to stay president. So he is doing absolutely everything he can to remain president.

It's not about fraud, it's not even not about fraud, it's about winning.

That's why, like the dictator he sees himself as, he is trying to force Republicans to bow to his wishes and appoint their own slate of electors.

That's the goal, stir up as much confusion and division that states are willing to just ignore the majority of their voters and directly appoint trump.

Trump's approach isn't what you do if you are actually worried about fraud, it's what you do when you're a narcissist and care only about winning, no matter what the truth or the law says.

With trump I expect that, with his obsessed cult like fanatic supporters I expect that.

But there's actually some reasonable people whom I otherwise respect who don't seem to see it. And that particularly concerns me.

Fortunately America's democratic systems are actually pretty damn robust and it's quite unlikely that even a renegade president will be able to overcome them.

And when he's out of office, it will be a great day for American democracy.



That would be Biden.

Trump is not a stupid man. And to put all of this down to narcissism is a stretch. So maybe there's something else at play?

If there's any experts here on the Constitution (and it's gazillion amendments):

What, if any, provisions are made should something unfortunate happen to a President (Elect?) and a Vice President (Elect?) under this particular set of circumstances i.e. given that it's a change in Political Party to boot?

 

[JessFR]

Trump is not a stupid man. And to put all of this down to narcissism is a stretch. So maybe there's something else at play?

If there's any experts here on the Constitution (and it's gazillion amendments):

What, if any, provisions are made should something unfortunate happen to a President (Elect?) and a Vice President (Elect?) under this particular set of circumstances i.e. given that it's a change in Political Party to boot?

Killing Biden wouldn't solve trumps problems.

He didn't win. And in America you can't really win by default so to speak.

At noon on January 20 his term expires. If he hasn't been reelected by the electoral college by then, and there's nobody else to take over, the succession act and constitution would take effect instead.

Which means president Nanci Pelosi.

Trump knows he needs the electoral college to vote for him to stay in office. So he's trying his best to disrupt the process in the most vulnerable states in the hopes when the EC votes in mid December, the swing states that went against him aren't able to vote for Biden. Either cause they couldn't certify their results or because he's convinced their legislatures to send republican electors in disregard of the actual result.

It's a disgusting, un-American, borderline treasonous act that would damage faith in the democratic system for decades to come and severely hurt the country. But it would mean trump gets 4 more years and that's all he cares about.

Also the very fact he's gone to these lengths should show everyone with a brain that he's NOT joking about a third term. If he can find any way to do it, ANY way lawful or not. He will.

Which is why he has to be thrown out as soon as possible. The longer he's in the more power he gains and the greater the threat to the countries future.

Thank christ he lost. Most likely these desperate attempts to throw out the legitimate result of the election will fail miserably as they have so far. But that we are even discussing such brazen attempts to subvert the will of the majority of the country as well as the entire process going back hundreds of years shows the danger he poses.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

It troubles me more and more that the more sensible trump supports here can't see what's happening.

Who are you talking about here?

birdup.snaildown said:
I want whoever won to win.

That would be Biden.

I KNOW. I have never said otherwise.

 

[dalpat077]

Killing Biden wouldn't solve trumps problems.

He didn't win. And in America you can't really win by default so to speak.

At noon on January 20 his term expires. If he hasn't been reelected by the electoral college by then, and there's nobody else to take over, the succession act and constitution would take effect instead.

Which means president Nanci Pelosi.

Trump knows he needs the electoral college to vote for him to stay in office. So he's trying his best to disrupt the process in the most vulnerable states in the hopes when the EC votes in mid December, the swing states that went against him aren't able to vote for Biden. Either cause they couldn't certify their results or because he's convinced their legislatures to send republican electors in disregard of the actual result.

It's a disgusting, un-American, borderline treasonous act that would damage faith in the democratic system for decades to come and severely hurt the country. But it would mean trump gets 4 more years and that's all he cares about.

Also the very fact he's gone to these lengths should show everyone with a brain that he's NOT joking about a third term. If he can find any way to do it, ANY way lawful or not. He will.

Which is why he has to be thrown out as soon as possible. The longer he's in the more power he gains and the greater the threat to the countries future.

Thank christ he lost. Most likely these desperate attempts to throw out the legitimate result of the election will fail miserably as they have so far. But that we are even discussing such brazen attempts to subvert the will of the majority of the country as well as the entire process going back hundreds of years shows the danger he poses.

The Succession Act. Thank you. Got some reading to do.

 

[alasdairm]

^ there are 27 amendments to the u.s. constitution (i.e. a few less than a gazillion )

Here’s a tweet with a link to a blog that provides an explanation for the over 300%. (It’s a pro-Trump blog.)
Basically they mixed up the state data.

indeed. only the best people.

so this appears to be yet another case of slinging accusations with no evidence.

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

For the record (just so I don't get called out again and be accused on not knowing what I'm talking about):

I know the procedure under normal circumstances. But looking for the particular premise that I've put forward wasn't on my radar at the time. And I'm wondering if it was something that the Founding Fathers could have even dreamed of or foreseen as being a remote possible set of circumstances.

Whatever the case and before I've found and read the relevant:

It's not that far fetched of a premise.

May be worth looking at under what circumstances a POTUS has the authority to declare Martial Law and what effect that would have on an election (and particularly an election that is technically or legally or constitutionally still in limbo) (which it is no matter what anybody wishes to believe).

 

[birdup.snaildown]

If a president somehow managed to force an election in his favour, the American people wouldn't take it.

There would be a war.
The US is not Russia.

 

[alasdairm]

Speaking of media and their bullshit though I was horrified when I saw the below last night. More so because this was PBS! I had respect for them. But since when do they post opinions and factually incorrect information in the form of banners or graphics during a press conference

there are a number of banners in that clip. which specific statements do you feel are inaccurate?

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

there are a number of banners in that clip. which specific statements do you feel are inaccurate?

alasdair

I'll go through it and list them (one or two technically incorrect and some opinion or speculation based).

Will do it tomorrow though. Sorry. Already gotten into shit now for spending too much time here. Pisses me off. Sorry.

 

[dalpat077]

If a president somehow managed to force an election in his favour, the American people wouldn't take it.

There would be a war.
The US is not Russia.

Just quick note:

Not saying Trump would orchestrate anything or force the election once he has exhausted every possible legal avenue or tried to exploit any constitutional loopholes (assuming there are any at all).

 

[JessFR]

For the record (just so I don't get called out again and be accused on not knowing what I'm talking about):

I know the procedure under normal circumstances. But looking for the particular premise that I've put forward wasn't on my radar at the time. And I'm wondering if it was something that the Founding Fathers could have even dreamed of or foreseen as being a remote possible set of circumstances.

Whatever the case and before I've found and read the relevant:

It's not that far fetched of a premise.

May be worth looking at under what circumstances a POTUS has the authority to declare Martial Law and what effect that would have on an election (and particularly an election that is technically or legally or constitutionally still in limbo) (which it is no matter what anybody wishes to believe).

It wouldn't have any effect on the election.

The presidents term lasts 4 years. At which point he has to be reelected by the electoral college to continue.

There's no way around it without a constitutional amendment.

Martial law won't change it.

 

[JessFR]

If a president somehow managed to force an election in his favour, the American people wouldn't take it.

There would be a war.
The US is not Russia.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that anymore.

There's only 2 possibilities here. One is that trump just refuses to leave, in which case he will simply be removed by force, no problem.

But if by some miracle he actually did convince multiple states to ignore the will of the people and directly appoint electors for their states, sure there would be riots. But in the end he would be victorious.

And the reason he would be able to pull it off if he manages to subvert the system like this (and it's super unlikely) is because so much of the country doesn't actually care.

There are a lot of Americans. Not most, but a disturbingly large number that honestly wouldn't care if trump became president for life. They wouldn't care how he did it. And they would call themselves patriots in the process.

It's shocking how many "patriots" would celebrate the destruction of the systems that have defined America for hundreds of years.

 

[cduggles]

What, if any, provisions are made should something unfortunate happen to a President (Elect?) and a Vice President (Elect?) under this particular set of circumstances i.e. given that it's a change in Political Party to boot?

Side note: The Vice President doesn’t necessarily become president if the president-elect dies until Congress declares the winner of the vote by the electoral college.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE WINNING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIES AFTER THE ELECTION?

The 20th Amendment says the term of the current president and vice president ends at noon on Jan. 20. There is no provision to extend it. The amendment also says if the president-elect dies, the vice president-elect shall be sworn in as president at the start of the new term.

However, the winning candidate doesn’t become president-elect until a joint session of Congress counts the votes from the Electoral College and declares a winner, Pildes said.

By law, Congress is scheduled to formally receive the votes from the Electoral College on Jan. 6. The new Congress, which will be elected in November and sworn into office on Jan. 3, will preside.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE WINNING CANDIDATE DIES BEFORE CONGRESS DECLARES A WINNER?

“That’s the worst, most confusing time,” said John Fortier, director of governmental studies at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “They are going to have to figure out what to do with (Electoral College) votes cast for a candidate who has died.”

If the winning candidate dies before the Electoral College meets, the electors could coalesce around a replacement candidate recommended by the party, perhaps the vice presidential candidate.

“For the most part, these people are picked because they are loyal party people,” Fortier said. “You could have a few stray here or there, but they are not rebels.”

A party’s electors would have an incentive to coalesce around one candidate, he said, because they wouldn’t want to risk throwing the election to the other party. But there is no guarantee they would all agree on a replacement candidate.

Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won the statewide vote; other states could quickly pass laws governing the electors in the event that a candidate dies.

“The party can say what the party wants, but the states would decide what to do with those electors,” Hasen said.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in July that states may require electors to support the candidate picked by voters in the election. However, the court left open what would happen if the candidate dies.

“Nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the states to bind electors to a deceased candidate,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a footnote to her majority opinion.

If this happens, expect litigation.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF CONGRESS?

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution gives Congress the final say on who is elected president and vice president. Congress decides whether to accept or reject slates of electors from the Electoral College and to determine whether a candidate has won the required 270 electoral votes to become president.

As a check on this power, both the House and Senate must agree to reject a slate of electors. If the two chambers don’t agree, the electors get counted under federal law, said Michael Morley, an assistant law professor at Florida State University.

If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the House chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president, in a process spelled out in the Constitution.

In the House, each state delegation gets one vote for president, and they must choose among the three candidates who received the most votes in the Electoral College. Currently, Republicans have a majority in 26 state delegations, but the numbers could change after the November elections and a new Congress takes office.

The Senate would choose the vice president by a simple majority vote.

Election experts said they wouldn’t expect the courts to play a role at this point because the Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to resolve a disputed election for president.

The Supreme Court did effectively decide the 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush by ending the recount in Florida. But the court’s ruling came before the Electoral College votes were presented to Congress.

“It is really in Congress’ hands after the electors have voted,” Fortier said.

AP EXPLAINS: What happens if a candidate for president dies?

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a month before Election Day and President Donald Trump is in the hospital, infected with a virus that has killed more than 209,000 Americans...

apnews.com

 

[alasdairm]

It's shocking how many "patriots" would celebrate the destruction of the systems that have defined America for hundreds of years.

not only that, but systems of which they have trumpeted the importance loudly and frequently.

they're all about law and order and the importance of the constitution right up until they're not...

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

Just being doing some little bit of reading. It doesn’t seem as clear cut to me.

Alright here’s the scenario (and this merely for the sake of debate and enlightenment).

Trump carries on the way he is currently. Not all states have certified their votes yet. Trump, like it or not, is currently the POTUS. And I would argue that as things stand right now: Biden and Harris are technically still not President Elect or Vice President Elect.

Somebody takes it upon themselves to eliminate Biden and Harris (not an outsider or another country i.e. just one or two fanatical Trump supporters that are the butt of some comments here and may not be stable but may be well trained in the necessary).

President Trump immediately declares a national emergency. The declaration of a national emergency gives the President an extraordinary amount of powers and some of which, I’m guessing, could be used, at very least, to delay all matters while an investigation was being initiated.

Unlikely. Yes. Impossible. No. Relatively simple. Yes. Trump responsible or directly connected. No.

From the little bit that I have read thus far: this particular scenario does not seem to have been planned for and would cause a fair amount of uncertainty as to where to from there as there is no precedent.

 

[JessFR]

Just being doing some little bit of reading. It doesn’t seem as clear cut to me.

Alright here’s the scenario (and this merely for the sake of debate and enlightenment).

Trump carries on the way he is currently. Not all states have certified their votes yet. Trump, like it or not, is currently the POTUS. And I would argue that as things stand right now: Biden and Harris are technically still not President Elect or Vice President Elect.

Somebody takes it upon themselves to eliminate Biden and Harris (not an outsider or another country i.e. just one or two fanatical Trump supporters that are the butt of some comments here and may not be stable but may be well trained in the necessary).

President Trump immediately declares a national emergency. The declaration of a national emergency gives the President an extraordinary amount of powers and some of which, I’m guessing, could be used, at very least, to delay all matters while an investigation was being initiated.

Unlikely. Yes. Impossible. No. Relatively simple. Yes. Trump responsible or directly connected. No.

From the little bit that I have read thus far: this particular scenario does not seem to have been planned for and would cause a fair amount of uncertainty as to where to from there as there is no precedent.

Even taking all of that at face value. It doesn't fix the big problem.

Putting aside that Biden and Harris have secret service protection, so this isnt what I'd call simple.

The big problem is trump hasn't actually been reelected. Unless you can somehow also fix it so trump wins the electoral college, none of it will matter, his term will still expire and continuity of government procedures take over. The new leader will then direct the executive law enforcement agencies to arrest trump for creating an insurrection.

Trump can't continue withing winning the electoral college in December. No matter what else happens.