ArcticCrusher Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, Steve753 said: No it was not. States have the right to govern themselves. I've already proved you wrong on this before. Bullshit. You proved you are an idiot. Like I said, you would make a good Nazi fascist bootlicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 26 minutes ago, akvanden said: You could partner with them, fight the overlord fascists together. That's part of his plan 3 minutes ago, Steve753 said: No it was not. States have the right to govern themselves. I've already proved you wrong on this before. He is wrong on everything and repeats himself. Most confused sheep ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Steve753 Posted January 10 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 10 6 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Bullshit. You proved you are an idiot. Like I said, you would make a good Nazi fascist bootlicker. State sovereignty retard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, Steve753 said: State sovereignty retard. Gotta love Canadians telling us how things are here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Gotta love the retard circle jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Gotta love the retard circle jerk. Dumbass. One retard doesn't make a circle and you are the only retard replying ATM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, Deephaven said: Dumbass. One retard doesn't make a circle and you are the only retard replying ATM. Stick to your groupthink herd stupidity. No intelligence has ever come out of groupthink. Keep proving that Super Genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 6 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Stick to your groupthink herd stupidity. No intelligence has ever come out of groupthink. Keep proving that Super Genius. Obviously your flock confused you. See the lunatic thread where everything you state is highlighted wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 10 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, akvanden said: Asking Pence to nullify the electoral college vote is the fuckup no one should forgive. Trying to remain in power once voted out in a democracy is the definition of authoritarian. You do know this isn't the first time a politician or citizens have asked electors to nullify an election? Including asking the VP. Should they all have been indicted? https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/celebs-launch-video-to-sway-electoral-college-834890307723 Why is it any more justifiable for a group of celebrities to try and sway an elector? I've said this before.....what happens if there is indisputable provable fraud found in an election? What is the process for the results to be rejected? I know a few of the options and you might not like them. On top of that many legal scholars debate whether the VP's role is more than ceremonial....so much in fact that the dems passed a law after the 2020 election ensuring it was. Edited January 10 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 8 minutes ago, Highmark said: You do know this isn't the first time a politician or citizens have asked electors to nullify an election? Including asking the VP. Should they all have been indicted? https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/celebs-launch-video-to-sway-electoral-college-834890307723 Why is it any more justifiable for a group of celebrities to try and sway an elector? I've said this before.....what happens if there is indisputable provable fraud found in an election? What is the process for the results to be rejected? I know a few of the options and you might not like them. You have to excuse Fagden, he's never stepped or seen outside of The Matrix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, Steve753 said: State sovereignty retard. No dumb fuck , the large employer mandate was administered through OSHA. Can you get any dumber??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 39 minutes ago, Highmark said: You do know this isn't the first time a politician or citizens have asked electors to nullify an election? Including asking the VP. Should they all have been indicted? https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/celebs-launch-video-to-sway-electoral-college-834890307723 Why is it any more justifiable for a group of celebrities to try and sway an elector? I've said this before.....what happens if there is indisputable provable fraud found in an election? What is the process for the results to be rejected? I know a few of the options and you might not like them. On top of that many legal scholars debate whether the VP's role is more than ceremonial....so much in fact that the dems passed a law after the 2020 election ensuring it was. When there is indisputable and provable voter fraud on a scale that would change the results of an election there could be a process to hold another election. So far nothing even close to your scenario has happened. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Highmark said: You do know this isn't the first time a politician or citizens have asked electors to nullify an election? Including asking the VP. Should they all have been indicted? Yes, I'm aware that as part of the electoral vote counting process congressmen are able to make objections. That's not new because it's part of the process. And as part of this process, those same objections could have and were made in 2020. What's NOT part of the process is a president unilaterally tossing out states electoral votes at will. That's the day our democracy ceases to exist and how Trump supports gloss over and attempt to justify this is mind boggling. Screw disagreeing on policies, that is something that everyone should be against. I assume you know celebrities are not elected officials and aren't part of the discussion. They can promote communism, no one cares. 1 hour ago, Highmark said: I've said this before.....what happens if there is indisputable provable fraud found in an election? What is the process for the results to be rejected? I know a few of the options and you might not like them. That's what the courts are for, not for the president to decide based on how he feels. 1 hour ago, Highmark said: On top of that many legal scholars debate whether the VP's role is more than ceremonial....so much in fact that the dems passed a law after the 2020 election ensuring it was. Do you really think the framers of the constitution wanted to give power to the president/VP to throw out the will of the people at their discretion? Would you be ok with Biden and Kamala throwing out a few states if they felt there was fraud and stayed in four more years? And it wasn't just dems, it was cosponsored by republicans and championed by Mitch McConnell. But I'm sure they're not "real" republicans and we can have a giggle about it. Edited January 10 by akvanden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11 18 hours ago, 1jkw said: When there is indisputable and provable voter fraud on a scale that would change the results of an election there could be a process to hold another election. So far nothing even close to your scenario has happened. Not claiming there was but I believe you are wrong about another election happening. Congress decides if the states electors are valid or not. That is what the process is when someone objects and needs a senators signature. Then it goes where each house votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Not claiming there was but I believe you are wrong about another election happening. Congress decides if the states electors are valid or not. That is what the process is when someone objects and needs a senators signature. Then it goes where each house votes. That is why I said could be, Congress would need to decide to place a fraudulent winner or place the real winner in office, I think they would opt to have another election, might be wrong but that's what I think would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, 1jkw said: That is why I said could be, Congress would need to decide to place a fraudulent winner or place the real winner in office, I think they would opt to have another election, might be wrong but that's what I think would happen. It would have to come by legislation with the current POTUS signing or enough votes to beat the veto. Then there would be SC challenges. Holy shit it would be a mess. Honestly I think there was some things done unconstitutionally in states under the guise of covid emergency that the SC should have addressed. As much for making sure govt realizes the constitution is not put on hold even during national emergencies as anything. The mere fact it could have impacted the election should not have been a reason for staying away from it. Section 4 CongressThe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators Edited January 11 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Highmark said: It would have to come by legislation with the current POTUS signing or enough votes to beat the veto. Then there would be SC challenges. Holy shit it would be a mess. Honestly I think there was some things done unconstitutionally in states under the guise of covid emergency that the SC should have addressed. As much for making sure govt realizes the constitution is not put on hold even during national emergencies as anything. The mere fact it could have impacted the election should not have been a reason for staying away from it. Section 4 CongressThe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators It would be an absolute mess. The changes effected both sides equally and really weren't that significant, biggest reason the court chose not to be involved. Edited January 11 by 1jkw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 1jkw said: It would be an absolute mess. The changes effected both sides equally and really weren't that significant, biggest reason the court chose not to be involved. I completely disagree and I'm not sure where you came up with that assessment. In either case results should not change whether or not the court takes the case. If a persons 4th amendment rights were violated it should not matter if they found anything illegal or not. The police can't simply say no harm no foul we never found anything anyway. Like I said this was landmark for future decisions by govt during a pandemic or any national emergency. Edited January 11 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Highmark said: I completely disagree and I'm not sure where you came up with that assessment. In either case results should not change whether or not the court takes the case. If a persons 4th amendment rights were violated it should not matter if they found anything illegal or not. The police can't simply say no harm no foul we never found anything anyway. Like I said this was landmark for future decisions by govt during a pandemic or any national emergency. The changes made were equal for all involved. In Pa. one of the changes was to accept votes that were late due to slow mail delivery, these votes were kept separate and even if not counted were not enough to change the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11 (edited) 11 minutes ago, 1jkw said: The changes made were equal for all involved. In Pa. one of the changes was to accept votes that were late due to slow mail delivery, these votes were kept separate and even if not counted were not enough to change the outcome. Virtually all of the changes were made to mail in ballots which went to Biden 70-30 or even 80-20. There were multiple battleground states that it could have swung the election in. The mere fact that SoS and others made unconstitutional changes to the voting regs should have invalidated those ballots at a minimum. There were other issues like in Wisconsin with drop boxes that their SC already ruled unconstitutional. Zuckerberg putting drop boxes in states absolutely should have went to the SC. Then there were accepted ballots with non-matching signatures. Honestly there is quite an extensive list of things that went on that shouldn't have. As I stated results changing should have ZERO to do with if and why the SC should have taken it up. These cases were as much a govt power issue as anything. The big case started by Texas which a bunch of states joined the SC said the other states didn't have standing in how other states ran their election. That was a cowardly way of getting out of it. Of course other states have standing in a National Election. Edited January 11 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, Highmark said: Virtually all of the changes were made to mail in ballots which went to Biden 70-30 or even 80-20. There were multiple battleground states that it could have swung the election in. The mere fact that SoS and others made unconstitutional changes to the voting regs should have invalidated those ballots at a minimum. There were other issues like in Wisconsin with drop boxes that their SC already ruled unconstitutional. Zuckerberg putting drop boxes in states absolutely should have went to the SC. Then there were accepted ballots with non-matching signatures. Honestly there is quite an extensive list of things that went on that shouldn't have. Yes and all the changes were equal for both sides. The fact that Trump didn't organize people to push his supporters to use mail in ballots was on them, the rules were the same for both camps. There is always a small amount of fraud in every election just not to the scale to change the results. There were like 60 plus court cases none of them showed any proof. Objectively the side that had 10 flags in their yards, drove hours and stood in line for hours wearing their red hats to see their god were far more likely to commit fraud than the voters who just didn't want Trump another 4 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted January 11 Author Share Posted January 11 (edited) On 1/10/2024 at 3:36 PM, Highmark said: You do know this isn't the first time a politician or citizens have asked electors to nullify an election? Including asking the VP. Should they all have been indicted? https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/celebs-launch-video-to-sway-electoral-college-834890307723 Why is it any more justifiable for a group of celebrities to try and sway an elector? I've said this before.....what happens if there is indisputable provable fraud found in an election? What is the process for the results to be rejected? I know a few of the options and you might not like them. On top of that many legal scholars debate whether the VP's role is more than ceremonial....so much in fact that the dems passed a law after the 2020 election ensuring it was. Oh just stop…Trump lost. Using your math Clinton beat Trump. Edited January 11 by Mainecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.