Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 153
  1. #76
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    can someone fill me in as to why Osterholm is being lol'd at?

  2. #77
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Post Count
    1,676
    “Arguing with idiots said Mr. Twain” - I am only reporting what is in news...I am not a person who had aligned with anyone nor will I.

    Of course you dodge.

    do you think there is voting fraud in this election?

  3. #78
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    Donald Trump's Stealthy Road to Victory

    As the counting of votes in Arizona, Georgia, and especially Pennsylvania continues, most of the press and punditry have concluded that Vice President Biden has won the 2020 election. Certainly, a substantial majority of the rest of us are suffering from “election fatigue” and eager for this drama to be over. Without disagreeing with the conventional wisdom about the final tally when all the legal votes are counted, I believe the current consensus is missing the fact that Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory. I’m reluctantly betting that the debate about who won will continue until at least January 6 when slates of electoral college members are opened in Washington, and most likely beyond that as whatever is decided then is appealed by the loser to the Supreme Court. My conclusion reflects the analysis of my colleague in the Applied History Network at the Belfer Center which is below.

    As he notes, this stealthy road follows in the footsteps of a number of previous contested American elections, especially the 1876 election that pitted Tilden v. Hayes. Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the cons utional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state. The 12th Amendment to the Cons ution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.

    As the analysis below notes, these issues are even more complex. But to repeat the bottom line: both the words of the 12th Amendment, and historical precedent offer a credible, stealthy, winding road that could lead to Trump’s victory and a second term. Or as the saying goes: the opera ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

    ***

    A Contested Election Structurally Favors Republicans in 2020.

    I project a 20% chance of a contested election outcome leading to a victory for President Trump.

    Whereas consensus sees contestation via Cons utional means as a far, remote possibility, a scenario invoking the 12th amendment is an easier path for Republicans to pursue than currently recognized.

    Trump has consistently during his reelection campaign questioned the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, claiming the election will be “rigged” and “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” This is most likely part of a strategy to set the stage for a contested outcome.

    - On Nov. 1 in North Carolina, President Trump decried recent Supreme Court rulings allowing states such as Pennsylvania to continue counting ballots after election day, stating, “We’re going to go in the night of, as soon as that election’s over, we’re going in with our lawyers.”

    Most significant, President Trump has clearly discussed and been briefed on a strategy to contest the election via Cons utional means, saying at a Sept. 26 rally in—where else—Pennsylvania: “And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that? I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that.”

    Politico reports, “In private, Trump has discussed the possibility of the presidential race being thrown into the House as well, raising the issue with GOP lawmakers, according to Republican sources.”

    Trump is correct: Republicans currently have 26-state delegation majority to Democrats’ 22 state delegations in a scenario in which the election is decided by a House of Representatives vote on the presidency according to state delegations.

    Contested outcome scenario built upon a dispute Pennsylvania result.

    A conceivable contested election could involve multiple states’ electoral votes, but Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes would almost certainly figure into such a scenario.

    1876 precedent: Coincidentally, in the contested election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes —the best precedent available for a possible contested 2020 election (not the 2000 election)—20 electoral votes were under dispute, albeit from four different states: all electors from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one elector from Oregon.

    House of Representatives Office of the Historian: “Both Tilden and Hayes electors submitted votes from these three states, each claiming victory in violent and confused elections. The Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-dominated Senate came to a compromise on how to resolve the problem by creating an Electoral Commission: a bipartisan committee of House Members, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices who would determine the final disposition of the yet-unassigned electoral votes…[Beginning on Feb. 1, 1877], Congress met in a Joint Session 15 times in the next month, until—acting on the decision of the commission—it awarded the disputed vote to Hayes, granting him the victory by one vote.”

    The resolution was decided via a backroom deal in which the Republicans agreed with Democrats to end Reconstruction in return for winning the presidency.

    In a contested 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor and Republican state legislature could send competing electors to be counted at the Jan. 6, 2021 joint session of Congress.

    Similar to 1876, the Republican Senate and Democratic House would disagree on which electors to accept. However, in the media environment of 2020, it would be virtually impossible for the two houses of Congress to reach a backroom deal to resolve their dispute as happened in 1876.

    Democrats would argue that the Electoral Count Act of 1877—passed in order to avoid a repeat of 1876—favors the electors certified by state governors; in this case, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Biden.

    Republicans, on the other hand, would argue that the Electoral Count Act is uncons utional, as the Cons ution clearly allows state legislatures to certify electors; in this case, the Republican state legislature of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Trump.

    Under the Cons ution, there exists no mechanism to resolve a dispute in which the two houses of Congress cannot agree upon a certified set of electors, and there is no Cons utional role for the courts, including the Supreme Court.

    Republicans, supported by legal and historical precedent, would argue that under the language of the 12th amendment, which reads, “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted,” the President of the Senate—Vice President Mike Pence—has the sole discretion to break a deadlock between the Senate and the House, and to either accept or dismiss disputed electors.

    As Edward B. Foley explains, in such a scenario, “Some Republicans take the especially aggressive position that Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, has the unilateral authority under the Twelfth Amendment to decide which certificate of electoral votes from Pennsylvania is the authoritative one en led to be counted in Congress and that he, accordingly, will count the certificate from the electors appointed by the state legislature because the Cons ution authorizes the state legislature to choose the method of appointing electors. These Republicans point to the historical pedigree of this position, observing that Republicans made the same argument during the disputed election of 1876 and that at least some recent law journal scholarship has supported this position. Unembarrassed by the apparent conflict of interest caused by Mike Pence simultaneously being a candidate for reelection and arbiter of the electoral dispute, these Republicans observe that Thomas Jefferson was in essentially the same position during the disputed election of 1800 and yet the Twelfth Amendment left this provision in place when Congress rewrote the procedures for the Electoral College afterwards. While it is true that an in bent Vice President might have a direct personal stake in the electoral dispute to be resolved, the Republicans argue, at least the glare of the spotlight is focused on whatever the vice president does in this situation, and everyone will be able to judge whether the vice president acted honorably or dishonorably in resolving the dispute.”

    “This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are en led to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate. This role could have been vested in the chief justice of the United States, as is the cons utional authority to preside over the trial of an impeachment of the president. Or disputes of this nature could have been referred directly to the Supreme Court, as a singular corporate body, for definitive resolution there. But the Cons ution does neither; nor does it make any other such provision. Thus, according to this argument, the inevitable implication of the Twelfth Amendment’s text is that it vests this ultimate singular authority, for better or worse, in the President of the Senate. Subject only to the joint observational role of the Senate and House of Representatives, the President of the Senate decides authoritatively what ‘certificates’ from the states to ‘open’ and thus what electoral votes are ‘to be counted.’”

    Vice President Pence would then either accept the electors submitted by the Pennsylvania Republican legislature voting for Trump, or dismiss them as disputed and not have them counted. In this new, reduced total of electors, a remaining majority still delivers Trump a victory.

    If a majority is not reached, then under the 12th amendment, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” If Republicans maintain their current 26-state House majority by state delegation, they are thereby able in this scenario to reelect President Trump for a second term.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could refuse to attend with House Democrats the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, thereby indefinitely delaying the aforementioned process, and—in a different scenario—assume the presidency as Acting President under the 20th amendment and under the succession statute enacted by Congress. This sets up a battle of dueling inaugurations on Jan. 20, 2021.

    For a detailed description of these contested scenarios, see Edward B. Foley, “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management,” 8/31/19, 51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 309 (2019), Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 501.

    For simplified distillations of a contested outcome favoring Trump, see:

    Fareed Zakaria, “Trump could stay in power even if he doesn’t win the election. The Cons ution allows it.,” Washington Post, 9/24/20.

    Graham Allison, “Trump Might Not Want to Relinquish Power,” The Atlantic, 7/12/2020

    Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the former director of Harvard’s Belfer Center and the author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature...victory-172235





  4. #79
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    imagine literally hoping for the end of democracy just to keep dear leader in power

    this is why spurminator's olive branch thread was spot on
    Last edited by spurraider21; 11-10-2020 at 04:03 PM.

  5. #80
    Veteran R. DeMurre's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    3,581
    Apparently Democrats ran a huge conspiracy across multiple states with a bunch of fake ballots that voted for Biden and Republican candidates for Congress. So they were sophisticated and sneaky enough to steal the presidency, but they left the Senate for the Republicans. That's a really dumb conspiracy theory.

  6. #81
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    A recent poll said that 70% of republicans do not trust or believe these election results. Why would that be the case when they didn't dispute Romney or McCain losing? What was different about this election?

    And I don't think he is going to win. If there is widespread fraud it will be impossible to prove unless it was a coordinated effort. All I am saying is, Biden is not the POTUS elect, yet.
    you believe in polls still.

    You dont have to admit he's not the president elect, but he is. Once you cross the 270 threshold, it is over.

  7. #82
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    We discussed faithless electors, but it's not as clear cut as it sounds. Besides the whole ting on the actual voters which is political suicide, States have laws about it.

    What would be hilarious though, is that Trump was angry as when the possibility of faithless electors came up in '16 denying his electoral win.

  8. #83
    Against Home Schooling Ef-man's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    17,535
    Blame trump for 70% of republicans not believing election results.

    He has been saying “believe me,” “fake news,” do not trust press, I will win or election was rigged, democrats are cheating, etc., since he ran in 2016.

    His fans fell in line with what he was saying.

    Republican politicians are afraid of that 70% turning on them and being called rino. Hence, they are also following trump’s lead.


    A recent poll said that 70% of republicans do not trust or believe these election results. Why would that be the case when they didn't dispute Romney or McCain losing? What was different about this election?

    And I don't think he is going to win. If there is widespread fraud it will be impossible to prove unless it was a coordinated effort. All I am saying is, Biden is not the POTUS elect, yet.

  9. #84
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    A recent poll said that 70% of republicans do not trust or believe these election results. Why would that be the case when they didn't dispute Romney or McCain losing? What was different about this election?

    And I don't think he is going to win. If there is widespread fraud it will be impossible to prove unless it was a coordinated effort. All I am saying is, Biden is not the POTUS elect, yet.
    Yes he is. Just because 50 million rubes are in denial, that changes nothing.

  10. #85
    5 Bill_Brasky's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Post Count
    10,931
    Threads like this are why this site is garbage. the site owners for allowing such garbage to ing exist on their servers.

  11. #86
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,310
    those same 50 million people think the world is only 5,000 years old and that there’s an underground cabal of pedophiles Trump is secretly waging war with. Why the does their opinion matter? They’ve demonstrated themselves to be the biggest idiots in the country.

  12. #87
    coffee's for closers FrostKing's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    17,535
    Threads like this are why this site is garbage. the site owners for allowing such garbage to ing exist on their servers.


    Guy wants to censor message boards now. Just put a microphone in people's bedroom and be done with it.

  13. #88
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    22,806
    Not even counting all the court challenges, GA, WI, AZ going to recounts. If and when Trump wins them, he'll be at 269; and he wins the tie breaker. This isn't even taking into account MI, PA, big court wins, Supreme Court, etc. Trump's odds according to lefty Predic went from 10 percent before the election to 17 percent now.
    17% odds?
    I will give you -5000.

    Place your bet at www.FabbsBankAccount.com

  14. #89
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    you believe in polls still.

    You dont have to admit he's not the president elect, but he is. Once you cross the 270 threshold, it is over.
    Dirk is correct, Biden isn’t the President elect yet. Which states have certified to get Biden to 270?

  15. #90
    what uganda do about it? Joseph Kony's Avatar
    My Team
    Seattle Supersonics
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    7,039
    Donald Trump's Stealthy Road to Victory

    As the counting of votes in Arizona, Georgia, and especially Pennsylvania continues, most of the press and punditry have concluded that Vice President Biden has won the 2020 election. Certainly, a substantial majority of the rest of us are suffering from “election fatigue” and eager for this drama to be over. Without disagreeing with the conventional wisdom about the final tally when all the legal votes are counted, I believe the current consensus is missing the fact that Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory. I’m reluctantly betting that the debate about who won will continue until at least January 6 when slates of electoral college members are opened in Washington, and most likely beyond that as whatever is decided then is appealed by the loser to the Supreme Court. My conclusion reflects the analysis of my colleague in the Applied History Network at the Belfer Center which is below.

    As he notes, this stealthy road follows in the footsteps of a number of previous contested American elections, especially the 1876 election that pitted Tilden v. Hayes. Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the cons utional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state. The 12th Amendment to the Cons ution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.

    As the analysis below notes, these issues are even more complex. But to repeat the bottom line: both the words of the 12th Amendment, and historical precedent offer a credible, stealthy, winding road that could lead to Trump’s victory and a second term. Or as the saying goes: the opera ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

    ***

    A Contested Election Structurally Favors Republicans in 2020.

    I project a 20% chance of a contested election outcome leading to a victory for President Trump.

    Whereas consensus sees contestation via Cons utional means as a far, remote possibility, a scenario invoking the 12th amendment is an easier path for Republicans to pursue than currently recognized.

    Trump has consistently during his reelection campaign questioned the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, claiming the election will be “rigged” and “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” This is most likely part of a strategy to set the stage for a contested outcome.

    - On Nov. 1 in North Carolina, President Trump decried recent Supreme Court rulings allowing states such as Pennsylvania to continue counting ballots after election day, stating, “We’re going to go in the night of, as soon as that election’s over, we’re going in with our lawyers.”

    Most significant, President Trump has clearly discussed and been briefed on a strategy to contest the election via Cons utional means, saying at a Sept. 26 rally in—where else—Pennsylvania: “And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that? I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that.”

    Politico reports, “In private, Trump has discussed the possibility of the presidential race being thrown into the House as well, raising the issue with GOP lawmakers, according to Republican sources.”

    Trump is correct: Republicans currently have 26-state delegation majority to Democrats’ 22 state delegations in a scenario in which the election is decided by a House of Representatives vote on the presidency according to state delegations.

    Contested outcome scenario built upon a dispute Pennsylvania result.

    A conceivable contested election could involve multiple states’ electoral votes, but Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes would almost certainly figure into such a scenario.

    1876 precedent: Coincidentally, in the contested election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes —the best precedent available for a possible contested 2020 election (not the 2000 election)—20 electoral votes were under dispute, albeit from four different states: all electors from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one elector from Oregon.

    House of Representatives Office of the Historian: “Both Tilden and Hayes electors submitted votes from these three states, each claiming victory in violent and confused elections. The Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-dominated Senate came to a compromise on how to resolve the problem by creating an Electoral Commission: a bipartisan committee of House Members, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices who would determine the final disposition of the yet-unassigned electoral votes…[Beginning on Feb. 1, 1877], Congress met in a Joint Session 15 times in the next month, until—acting on the decision of the commission—it awarded the disputed vote to Hayes, granting him the victory by one vote.”

    The resolution was decided via a backroom deal in which the Republicans agreed with Democrats to end Reconstruction in return for winning the presidency.

    In a contested 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor and Republican state legislature could send competing electors to be counted at the Jan. 6, 2021 joint session of Congress.

    Similar to 1876, the Republican Senate and Democratic House would disagree on which electors to accept. However, in the media environment of 2020, it would be virtually impossible for the two houses of Congress to reach a backroom deal to resolve their dispute as happened in 1876.

    Democrats would argue that the Electoral Count Act of 1877—passed in order to avoid a repeat of 1876—favors the electors certified by state governors; in this case, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Biden.

    Republicans, on the other hand, would argue that the Electoral Count Act is uncons utional, as the Cons ution clearly allows state legislatures to certify electors; in this case, the Republican state legislature of Pennsylvania certifying electors voting for Trump.

    Under the Cons ution, there exists no mechanism to resolve a dispute in which the two houses of Congress cannot agree upon a certified set of electors, and there is no Cons utional role for the courts, including the Supreme Court.

    Republicans, supported by legal and historical precedent, would argue that under the language of the 12th amendment, which reads, “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted,” the President of the Senate—Vice President Mike Pence—has the sole discretion to break a deadlock between the Senate and the House, and to either accept or dismiss disputed electors.

    As Edward B. Foley explains, in such a scenario, “Some Republicans take the especially aggressive position that Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, has the unilateral authority under the Twelfth Amendment to decide which certificate of electoral votes from Pennsylvania is the authoritative one en led to be counted in Congress and that he, accordingly, will count the certificate from the electors appointed by the state legislature because the Cons ution authorizes the state legislature to choose the method of appointing electors. These Republicans point to the historical pedigree of this position, observing that Republicans made the same argument during the disputed election of 1876 and that at least some recent law journal scholarship has supported this position. Unembarrassed by the apparent conflict of interest caused by Mike Pence simultaneously being a candidate for reelection and arbiter of the electoral dispute, these Republicans observe that Thomas Jefferson was in essentially the same position during the disputed election of 1800 and yet the Twelfth Amendment left this provision in place when Congress rewrote the procedures for the Electoral College afterwards. While it is true that an in bent Vice President might have a direct personal stake in the electoral dispute to be resolved, the Republicans argue, at least the glare of the spotlight is focused on whatever the vice president does in this situation, and everyone will be able to judge whether the vice president acted honorably or dishonorably in resolving the dispute.”

    “This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are en led to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate. This role could have been vested in the chief justice of the United States, as is the cons utional authority to preside over the trial of an impeachment of the president. Or disputes of this nature could have been referred directly to the Supreme Court, as a singular corporate body, for definitive resolution there. But the Cons ution does neither; nor does it make any other such provision. Thus, according to this argument, the inevitable implication of the Twelfth Amendment’s text is that it vests this ultimate singular authority, for better or worse, in the President of the Senate. Subject only to the joint observational role of the Senate and House of Representatives, the President of the Senate decides authoritatively what ‘certificates’ from the states to ‘open’ and thus what electoral votes are ‘to be counted.’”

    Vice President Pence would then either accept the electors submitted by the Pennsylvania Republican legislature voting for Trump, or dismiss them as disputed and not have them counted. In this new, reduced total of electors, a remaining majority still delivers Trump a victory.

    If a majority is not reached, then under the 12th amendment, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” If Republicans maintain their current 26-state House majority by state delegation, they are thereby able in this scenario to reelect President Trump for a second term.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could refuse to attend with House Democrats the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, thereby indefinitely delaying the aforementioned process, and—in a different scenario—assume the presidency as Acting President under the 20th amendment and under the succession statute enacted by Congress. This sets up a battle of dueling inaugurations on Jan. 20, 2021.

    For a detailed description of these contested scenarios, see Edward B. Foley, “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management,” 8/31/19, 51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 309 (2019), Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 501.

    For simplified distillations of a contested outcome favoring Trump, see:

    Fareed Zakaria, “Trump could stay in power even if he doesn’t win the election. The Cons ution allows it.,” Washington Post, 9/24/20.

    Graham Allison, “Trump Might Not Want to Relinquish Power,” The Atlantic, 7/12/2020

    Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the former director of Harvard’s Belfer Center and the author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature...victory-172235




    adding the copium meme to your own post. god damn youre an idiot

  16. #91
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    imaging literally hoping for the end of democracy just to keep dear leader in power

    this is why spurminator's olive branch thread was spot on






  17. #92
    what uganda do about it? Joseph Kony's Avatar
    My Team
    Seattle Supersonics
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    7,039
    he did it again. dumbass doesnt realize the context of the meme at all LMAO

  18. #93
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Dirk is correct, Biden isn’t the President elect yet. Which states have certified to get Biden to 270?
    Sure thing, pizza lord. Keep posting copium memes on yourself.

  19. #94
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    he did it again. dumbass doesnt realize the context of the meme at all LMAO

  20. #95
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    he did it again. dumbass doesnt realize the context of the meme at all LMAO
    He's 100% rube now.

  21. #96
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    Sure thing, pizza lord. Keep posting copium memes on yourself.
    Dirk is correct, Biden isn’t the President elect yet. Again, which states have certified to get Biden to 270?

  22. #97
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Dirk is correct, Biden isn’t the President elect yet. Again, which states have certified to get Biden to 270?
    did you have a problem with president elect trump after november 8 2016 or did you wait until enough states certified?

  23. #98
    The Timeless One Leetonidas's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    28,313
    You guys are so dumb. You lost. It doesn't hurt us one bit lol. But keep coping son

  24. #99
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Dirk is correct, Biden isn’t the President elect yet. Again, which states have certified to get Biden to 270?
    He is, you just have to deal with it. Or not.

  25. #100
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429


    Even the rag NY Post abandoning ship.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •