Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Sigh. Go back and see how this tangent started. It is a long way back, with claims of Trump breaching his oath of office. Make your own judgement, I'm running out of ****s

It was never about PA, that was a hypothetical. I didn't even know the particulars of how PA did things until I looked them up as the whole discussion ran off into the weeds

Simple yes or no: Under the right circumstances (and we have enumerated those), would Pence have had the power to reject a slate of electors on 6 Jan 2020

Okay. Gimme a clue. How far back? Got a page number?

 

[KG1]

Okay. Gimme a clue. How far back? Got a page number?

It's somewhere between page 1 and 138.

 

[jamil]

It's somewhere between page 1 and 2,721

Hey. I'm off work for the year. So I still have plenty of time. Ain't got THAT much time.

 

[KG1]

Hey. I'm off work for the year. So I still have plenty of time. Ain't got THAT much time.

Hey I mistakenly said there were 2,721 pages. There's only actually 138. So that's more manageable right?

 

[jamil]

Hey I mistakenly said there were 2,721 pages. There's only actually 138. So that's more manageable right?

The game is reducing the posts I have to actually read. So really we're talking about posts, not pages. 2721 is the number.

If I do a linear search, basically scanning through all the posts manually, that's a time complexity of O(n) which is too slow. Probably not worth doing. Might as well reread the whole thread. A constant time algorithm would be ideal to narrow down the exact post(s) that prove Bug did not move the goalpost. Using the thread search features could effectively do that.

If I narrow the 2721 posts to just Bug's posts where "electors" is present, and maybe PA or Pennsylvania too, it's still probably O(n) time complexity, but only a handfull of threads I have to read. But if I could get it down to a couple, it might as well be O(1).

I mean. I have a few hours before the Michigan/TCU game.

 

[jamil]

While searching for Bug's initial thoughts on the subject of "electors" I've come across several posts I would have commented on but didn't. I have to assume I missed them because I don't remember them. Like this one.

Cue jamil to testify that there is no. such. thing. as a neverTrumper in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

When have I ever done that? I've had to remind you and others the definition, several times. A neverTrumper is not a person who merely is capable of criticizing him. It's a person who would never vote for him, and I'd include in that group, a point after which one has vowed never to vote for him. So in that sense you might include SD4L. I don't think he'd disagree with that even though he's confessed to voting for Trump prior. Obviously all bat **** crazy democrats are neverTrumpers. Many people who might otherwise vote for Republican candidates, but wouldn't vote for Trump are neverTrumpers too.

The side that seems not to apply this term is the side who invented the term. But if you meant it to mean anyone critical of Trump whether they would still actively support him or not, you should have picked a term that means that. Never means never. Never Trump means not ever Trump. It doesn't mean reluctantly Trump. It doesn't mean, well, if I have to I guess I can vote for Trump. It means it ain't gonna happen. Of course there is such a thing as neverTrumper.

 

[jamil]

The subject seems to have been broached when SD4L gave as the primary reason for no longer supporting Trump, what he summarized as Trump stuffing the ballot box. With the whole Pence stunt. This was Bug's reply to that.

I really don't see the attempts to have alternate slates of electors certified as being the problem that you see it as. I see an election that was clearly fraudulent and I see in some cases slates of electors certified by people such as the Secretary of State (PA for example) where the constitution gives that authority exclusively to the legislature. In cases where the legislature was willing to certify an alternate state of electors, I see nothing wrong with trying to have Pence certify one set over the other and send the issue of election irregularities to the courts. Given SCOTUS' behavior in the election issues that were raised, I'm not sure that would have worked out like Trump thought, but I really would have liked to see all the issue hashed out in court, preferably with discovery

I do not fault Trump for not lying down and taking it, that is just who he is. He never failed to obey a court order binding on his behavior, he never tried to use force to install himself as president, he simply tried to ' preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' in the best way he knew how - and I think the behavior of those who placed themselves in power via that fraud shows that his instincts were right

He saw a legal gray area and sought to take advantage of it not to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States but to try to remedy the corrupt alliance of power that had suborned the electoral process

Assuming the most uncharitable motives for Trump's actions, as well as pop psychoanalyzing him or claiming unsupported knowledge of his 'real' reasons for doing things is endemic as well as not persuasive

Bug, this is not what happened! The fact that it did not happen invalidates your whole justification for Trump's actions. I don't really see it as ballot box stuffing like SD4L does. I think Trump was desperate and thought he was cheated, and as is his custom, he does what he wants and lets the courts figure out if he was right. Obviously not ideal. But better an AF supporter who has that deficiency than any bat **** crazy democrat. He could not have gotten away with that. And bat **** crazy democrats get away with pretty much every bat **** crazy idea.

Back to the point, I don't see how this is in any way what you described you goal really was. The hightlighted statement is clearly describing a belief that SoS were certifying elections in some questionable elections and that the constitution didn't give them that authority. And you were wrong about that. The constitution gives that power to the state legislatures, to decide the manner they choose to go about "certifying electors". I'll accept the quoted phrase, because certifying the vote is technically certifying the electors who will cast their votes.

Most states have chosen their state departments to handle it. I've scanned through your posts in this thread using some key words. It's possible it missed a post where you posed the "could have" angle. I'm not seeing it. You'll have to provide it if you insist it's there.

But remember. I've canceled all debt for the year. You don't owe it to me to provide it.

 

[KG1]

Seems to me that the legislatures in question waived their authority by delegating the task of certifying electors to the SoS. Would that not be a 'manner of their choosing"? Not saying I agree with their choosing to do so. Just posing the question.

 

[jamil]

Seems to me that the legislatures in question waived their authority by delegating the task of certifying electors to the SoS. Would that not be a 'manor of their choosing"? Not saying I agree with their choosing to do so. Just posing the question.

The authority is to determine the manner. Putting the responsibility on their state department is one way to do that. It doesn’t look to me like they waved their authority. They fulfilled it. They chose a manner. Can someone list all the state legislatures that certify election results themselves.

 

[KG1]

The authority is to determine the manner. Putting the responsibility on their state department is one way to do that. It doesn’t look to me like they waved their authority. They fulfilled it. They chose a manner. Can someone list all the state legislatures that certify election results themselves.

I believe you are correct. If they chose to do so it is within their constitutional authority to handle it in the "manner of their choosing" so it would not be a matter of waiving their authority. They were exercising it.

 

[Quiet Observer]

"Each State’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House Chamber to conduct the official count of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States".

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress...

www.archives.gov

"Can electoral votes be contested when Congress counts the votes in January?
Under federal law an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during the Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

In January 2005, Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes were challenged. After debate, the Senate and the House failed to agree to reject the votes. Ohio’s 20 Electoral votes for President Bush and Vice President Cheney were counted".

Frequently Asked Questions

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! Click the links below for answers to these frequently asked questions. Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President? What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before...

www.archives.gov

 

[actaeon277]

 

[KG1]

"Donald Trump's IRS" Bull**** Like they would ever give DJT a break. You can damn well believe that if the IRS could've found a way to try and nail him, they would've done so already.

 

[jamil]

I think everyone involved in justifying the release of his tax records have a lot to explain.

 

[actaeon277]

I think everyone involved in justifying the release of his tax records have a lot to explain.

I think now, we should go after tax returns for some of the Dems.
After all, they basically showed that it's 'okay'

 

[foszoe]

I think now, we should go after tax returns for some of the Dems.
After all, they basically showed that it's 'okay'

I would like to see a list of Dems that don't release them

 

[actaeon277]

I would like to see a list of Dems that don't release them

Hasn't the standard been set (by the Dems) that they HAVE TO be released?

 

[jamil]

Why Democrats released Trump’s tax returns

After years of fighting for Donald Trump’s tax returns, Democrats finally got a hold of them and released them to the public through two congressional reports published this week. But Democrats str…

thehill.com

“Trump’s returns likely look similar to those of many other wealthy tax cheats — hundreds of partnership interests, highly-questionable deductions, and debts that can be shifted around to wipe out tax liabilities,” Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement on Wednesday.

"wealthy tax cheats?" Who made the tax laws? I want a fairer tax system too. But I don't think they want the system I propose.

 

[foszoe]

Hasn't the standard been set (by the Dems) that they HAVE TO be released?

I am not really sure. I don't know if its a standard that, because of the investigation, they have the authority to release them ie a congressional committee. When the Rs take over though, they ought to see if say H. Biden gets investigated for financial stuff we should get a chance to see his.

 

[foszoe]

Why Democrats released Trump’s tax returns

After years of fighting for Donald Trump’s tax returns, Democrats finally got a hold of them and released them to the public through two congressional reports published this week. But Democrats str…

thehill.com

"wealthy tax cheats?" Who made the tax laws? I want a fairer tax system too. But I don't think they want the system I propose.

I want a consumption tax, with food exempt, if I am going to be taxed.

I would settle for a flat tax.

There's probably room for a lot of nuance in those two statements, but I am watching football.