• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
318
The worst possible scenario is Biden dying before Congress accepts the votes of the electors.
Well at least you’re partly understanding what I’m getting at.

I am talking about before even the Electoral College has voted.

Not sure if either of these sources are credible (they used to be anyway). But read the two in relation to eachother and you will all see what I was getting at for the most part. The situation as it stands EXACTLY today is not covered. And even if it was: have a good read of POTUS emergency powers

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

https://www.vox.com/21502447/trump-biden-death-what-happens

Not conspiring here. This all in reference to my comments re: an earlier response to one of @JessFR’s posts on Trump’s behavior and his most ardent supporters or fanatics. From what I gather it would not take much to trigger such series of events. Likely. No. Possible. Yes.

Key would be the national emergency declaration. Trigger event would be a Biden/Harris mishap of sorts. Job done seems to me. Could even result in a whole new election with a few tweaks here and there.

Come to think of it: an unfortunate Biden/Harris event may not even be necessary. A constitutional crisis could maybe be a reason for a POTUS to declare a national emergency thus invoking such executive powers.

And if ‘lil ‘ol me just came up with this: well I’d find it a stretch to believe that if any of this is valid that some fancy legal team has not thought out of the box. Or maybe they have. Which is really my point. Trump is not stupid. And given the amount of cases being thrown out of court: who knows. It would surprise me if there were no plan Z.
 
Last edited:

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
13,915
Location
A chromatically corrected world
I read the articles. I still stand by my opinion.
The 20th Amendment clearly calls for the president-elect, whoever that might be, to take office on January 20th. No matter what emergency powers are invoked, which requires the approval of Congress, and they aren’t voting for anything like that to happen.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
318
I read the articles. I still stand by my opinion.
The 20th Amendment clearly calls for the president-elect, whoever that might be, to take office on January 20th. No matter what emergency powers are invoked, which requires the approval of Congress, and they aren’t voting for anything like that to happen.
You got a sixth sense? I assume you’re not referring to the two articles I just posted? I only just posted them.
 

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
13,915
Location
A chromatically corrected world
There won’t be another election.
There might be confusion if Biden died, but it’s highly unlikely Trump would prevail.
When push comes to shove (see Georgia and Michigan results), the Republicans in Congress and at the state level are going to make the right decisions, which is that Biden won, because everything they allow can come back to haunt them.
I worry more about Trump starting a conflict in Iran or stepping down our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq too quickly than I do about what the courts are going to do.

Trump is not stupid.
The only lawyers who are willing to go the distance on these lawsuits about the election are, which speaks volumes.
 

JessFR

Sr. Moderator: AADD, H&R, TDS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
10,310
There won’t be another election.
There might be confusion if Biden died, but it’s highly unlikely Trump would prevail.
When push comes to shove (see Georgia and Michigan results), the Republicans in Congress and at the state level are going to make the right decisions, which is that Biden won, because everything they allow can come back to haunt them.
I worry more about Trump starting a conflict in Iran or stepping down our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq too quickly than I do about what the courts are going to do.


The only lawyers who are willing to go the distance on these lawsuits about the election are, which speaks volumes.

I'm not afraid of the courts.

People seem to think I'm crazy for thinking this but I actually have more faith in the judicial system than either other branch of government.

So I'm not worried about that, I expected them to laugh these cases out of court and they have.

My only concern is the thought of trump using his terrifying amassed control of the republican party to try and influence state governments to bypass the vote.

It's very unlikely, but it's the one way I could imaging him somehow prevailing. And with consequences that high, even very low risks can be troubling.
 

Deru

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
2,325
I'm not afraid of the courts.

I was more worried Trump would be able to find more solid evidence, and what that would have looked like had it made it to the courts. That’s why I can’t even imagine Trump believes he has any chance, at this point, to succeed in his attempts.
 

JessFR

Sr. Moderator: AADD, H&R, TDS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
10,310
I was more worried Trump would be able to find more solid evidence, and what that would have looked like had it made it to the courts. That’s why I can’t even imagine Trump believes he has any chance, at this point, to succeed in his attempts.

I was never concerned about him having solid evidence because.. I honestly don't believe there was any fraud.

It's very unlikely trump could succeed but he may feel, possibly correctly, that he doesn't have much to lose by trying.
 

alasdairm

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
62,358
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

"A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

The case was always a long shot to stop President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, but it was President Donald Trump’s best hope to affect the election results through the courts, mostly because of the number of electoral votes, 20, at stake in Pennsylvania. His personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, stepped into a courtroom for the first time in decades to argue the case this past week.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”
" (my emphasis)

alasdair
 

JGrimez

Temporary Ban
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
4,087
The worst possible scenario is Biden dying before Congress accepts the votes of the electors.
If Kamala Harris becomes president then I win $4,000 so that wouldn't be the worse option for me personally.


‘There Was in Fact Fraud That Took Place:’ FEC Chairman Trey Trainor

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Trey Trainor said that affidavits from the Trump campaign show that fraud has occurred during the November general election.

“The massive amounts of affidavits that we see in these cases show that there was in fact fraud that took place,” he said during an interview with “Just the News AM” on Friday.

He said it’s important to have transparency surrounding the election process and that answering questions raised by the Trump campaign over election integrity is “very important for the legitimacy of the presidency.”

In response to a question from reporter Carrie Sheffield, Trainor specifically mentioned a sworn affidavit by Steven Miller, a professor of mathematics at Williams College.

Miller—who specializes in analytic number theory and sabermetrics—flagged nearly 100,000 ballots in Pennsylvania for potential voter fraud after analyzing election data and phone interviews.

Between 89,397 to 98,801 ballots were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican, or requested and returned but not counted, he said.

Trainor said that Miller is clearly qualified as an expert witness in almost any court in the United States and that the court would have to look at the information he has provided.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden didn’t respond immediately to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
318
there are a number of banners in that clip. which specific statements do you feel are inaccurate?

alasdair
Apologies for my belated response (personal issues). I post this as I undertook to do so (not the type to take commitments and not honor them).
  1. "Officials have found no evidence of significant voter fraud or irregularities" - there is evidence of voter fraud and irregularities (be they significant or no there has been been irregularities and who are they to apparently be stating as fact especially during a White House Press Conference).
  2. "Most people may not have access to CODID-19 vaccines until late Spring 2021" - and they're sure about this. Seems like conjecture and mere opinion but of course the inclusion of he word "may" covers their arse.
  3. "Joe Biden was declared winner of the Presidential Race on November 7" - factually incorrect. Not worthy of any additional comment.
  4. "At least 250 000 Americans have died from COVID-19 this year" - possibly information being presented but for sure in order order to undermine here comments.
  5. "Coronavirus infections in the U.S. are increasing at an accelerating rate" - effort to undermine what she is saying and which they cannot possibly know the effects or outcome will be of what she is presenting. It is a fact, however, based on the statistics.
  6. "Officials have found no evidence of significant voter fraud or irregularities"- repeat of above.
It may be that I'm nitpicking. I just believe it to have been inappropriate.

And of course there is a very recent press conference given by Trump re: the new drug pricing and laws and which I watched but for some reason I cannot find right now tonight. Nobody making a big deal of those accomplishments. Will try to find tomorrow (for what it's worth).

Found it. Worth reading the YouTube comments.

 
Last edited:

alasdairm

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
62,358
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
thanks @dalpat077

1. if the claim was "officials have found no evidence of voter fraud or irregularities" i would agree that the claim is incorrect. but it wasn't so it's not. they clearly said "no evidence of significant voter fraud" and that's a pretty accurate statement. words have meaning.

2. i agree that is speculation.

3. well, he has been declared the winner. whether he remains the winner after all the states certify and the various lawsuits have run their course remains to be seen.

4. possibly information being presented? no. that is a simple matter of fact. and if it undermines her comments, that says a lot more about the administrations bungled handling of the crisis than it does about npr's reporting. perhaps they should have said "250 000 Americans may have died" to, you know, cover their arse? make your mind up.

5. "It is a fact, however, based on the statistics." indeed. your complaint was "opinions and factually incorrect information". this claim is neither so, by your own yardstick, you're wrong.

6. yep! wrong again :)

alasdair
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
318
thanks @dalpat077

1. if the claim was "officials have found no evidence of voter fraud or irregularities" i would agree that the claim is incorrect. but it wasn't so it's not. they clearly said "no evidence of significant voter fraud" and that's a pretty accurate statement. words have meaning.

2. i agree that is speculation.

3. well, he has been declared the winner. whether he remains the winner after all the states certify and the various lawsuits have run their course remains to be seen.

4. possibly information being presented? no. that is a simple matter of fact. and if it undermines her comments, that says a lot more about the administrations bungled handling of the crisis than it does about npr's reporting. perhaps they should have said "250 000 Americans may have died" to, you know, cover their arse? make your mind up.

5. "It is a fact, however, based on the statistics." indeed. your complaint was "opinions and factually incorrect information". this claim is neither so, by your own yardstick, you're wrong.

6. yep! wrong again :)

alasdair
No worries. Input appreciated.

To be clear: 6 a repeat of 1 (that was my being accurate in my wording I’m afraid) (evidently we all make mistakes).
No huge deal. Just ticked me off. Never seen it happen like that. Even the usual suspects just let her have her say usually.
 
Top