you're going to cry
Trump's lawyers haven't alleged any specific act of fraud in court filings in any state, for good reason: they didn't have a lick of corroborating evidence.
Sorry you're going through this. It's not a sign of weakness to ask for help.
you're going to cry
Mental health issues like derp’s are serious indeed.
He should seek professional help and show his posts to a professional.
Like KW, derp has issues that will not resolve themselves and will lead to bad outcomes.
You're so proud of your illegitimate votes.
You're coping pretty hard right now.
Zero courts have agreed with you so far.
1-39
Tick tock
Damn, even in Idaho.
What's your narrative going to be should the 270 or more electors go to Trump?
With ZERO evidence.
9-11 man going for a bigger fantasy.
Making history everyday; he is half man, half amazing
He is, derptacular!
It's not going to happen. The swing states have already empanelled electors and certified vote totals.
There's no drama left but the piteous wailing of sore losers.
Have you read the work of Judy Wood Ph.D.?
Or are you just a hack scientist?
We'll put a pin in that for now.
What'll be your narrative should the 270 or more electors go Trump?
Will you be accepting the loss? Or you going to cry about it?
This is what they call muddling the waters even in states Trump won handily.
Still ducking my question you pussy.
Nobody ducks you, lightweight.
If you are so sure, why not bet on it or are you scared?
Not worth my time to consider, tbh. A rogue slate of electors deciding the election can't legally happen. Federal law controls the timing of appointing them, and that time has already passed.
It would be uncons uonal for other reasons, but I doubt you really care.
You're asking for hypotheticals now, derp?
You know it. I told you he was extremely unpopular. I also told you he was unlikely to win after people got to know him after 4 years.
It happens, it's not the end of the world, tbh
What would make it rogue? The Cons ution allows the state legislatures to choose the electors.
His terrible work with the pandemic sealed the deal, tbh.... you knew that too. I know you're still in denial, maybe it's better that way, tbh...
Plus State legislatures enacted the State electoral laws, which would need to be changed. It's bad timing too, most of these legislatures are wrapping up for the year, not to mention being political suicide.
Sorry, no sane politician or lawyer is putting their career at risk for a loser.
ElSuperRacist trying to validate lies. Par.
what's racist and what's a lie, do tell?
Here's why, barring only the most extreme judicial ery, rogue electors won't determine the winner:
States have the power to change the manner of appointing electors, but Congress controls the timing.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons ution/articleiiOriginally Posted by Article II, Section 1 of the US Cons ution
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
https://www.justsecurity.org/73274/n...-popular-vote/But Congress’s enactment of a uniform national Election Day under its own cons utional authority — which supersedes any contrary state actions — prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day.
In other words, under the cons utional timing provision as implemented by federal law, the absolute last day a state legislature could have decided to appoint the state’s presidential electors for this election was November 3, 2020. Once that date passed, the determinative popular votes had all been cast, and therefore the legislature’s authority to change the state’s manner of appointing electors in 2020 passed as well.
Here's the federal law that gives effect to the timing clause:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/1The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
States debasing or diluting votes is uncons utional:
There is a second, independent reason state legislatures cannot cancel the popular vote results after Election Day: to do so would violate the Cons utional rights of the voters. Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Cons ution prohibits states from taking away their citizens’ rights without due process of law. One such right, of course, is the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has made clear many times, in more than a hundred years’ worth of precedents, that the cons utional right to vote does not just mean the right to put a ballot in a box, but also the right to have that ballot counted toward determining the election’s results. For a state legislature to invalidate a popular election would be equivalent to simply refusing to count the citizens’ votes. The Cons ution unambiguously prohibits disenfranchising any eligible voters, much less an entire state’s worth.
https://www.justsecurity.org/73274/n...-popular-vote/
The above quoted finds support in a Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. Sims:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-29-2020 at 01:05 AM.
^^^
A cluster of . Someone's coping.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)