Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
john
“Do you really think that trump is so dumb”
Yes he clearly has had a breakdown, Several advisors and Supporters have been saying it for months. ask Mulvaney who knows him better than both of us.
HE either was so dumb that he thought it would work, or was so dumb that he didn’t realize what would happen. or a combination Regardless that doesn’t change anything IVe said.you tell me then what did he want to happen when “walk down to the Capitol…fight much harder…. You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong””
what did he mean when he said he hopes Pence comes through for us?Again Obviously a peaceful lrally is fine, even great if he said what the said Thurs night “Now Congress has certified the results, and the new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly, and seamless transition of power.”” which was JUST AS TRUE Wed (just change “has certified ” to “about to certify” )
again there was ZERO chance of Congress not certifying
He could add he thinks it was stolen, but he respects the rule of law, hopefully there will be greater transparency in future election etc etc that would be a whole other story
So what was he trying to accomplishTVP
the problem is that doesnt hold up under the slightest bit of Scrutiny
Where the people there to show they were ” united behind Trump” confused when Giuliani called for “Trial by combat” ?
Can you provide a quote from any speaker calling for “transparency”?“Now what exactly could trump have wanted from pence? ”
a few points 1) Trump doesn’t have the first clue abotu the constituion as is clear everytime he mentions it (eg “I have this great Article II that nobody talks about” or when first running ands asked what kind of justices he’d nominate ““[justices] would look very seriously at her email disaster.”” ) So Trump wanted PEnce to hand him the elction, he didnt understand that Pence cant’t
2) The point wasn’t Pence at that point, he told it to the crowd, remember. He wanted to egg on the crowd. To trick them into thinking there was still la chance if only they would “fight much harder”
And it worked ! there are several reports of protestors calling for Mike PEnce to be hanged Lin Wood (Trump’s former (?) lawyer ) called forso to answer your question
“what are you concerned about?
1) I’m concerned that the President doesnt have a basic understanding of the constituion
2) Im concerned that the President told his VEEP to disregard the constitution (the fact that he couldn’t doesn’t make it better I don’t really get the logic there
If Trump said ok “No more Free Speech for liberals” while legally it would mean nothing it should still concern you
3) I’m concerned that he manipulated the crowd into thinking they still stood a chance if they “showed strength”I realize my pending post is
really just a repeat of my previous post, Sorry for the repetition.
But this is so obvious to me that I have a hard time understanding how you (or anyone) does NOT see it as incitement.So please help me understand. what do you think the point of the rally was , what were they trying to accomplish?
What was Trump trying to accomplish by egging on same rally, and feeing them lies that he had to have known weren’t true) ?
what did he mean when he told the group “walk down to the Capitol…fight much harder…. You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong” What was he telling them to do?
What did he mean when he said “Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us”Thanks I’m trying to understand how Trump can be viewed as innocent
shady
“That’s the best you’ve got?! You’ve got to be kidding me.”
Yeah, its pretty bad. and no I’m nto kidding hte Presdient really told his Vice PResident to disregard the Constituion and tricked many of his followers into thinking they could overturn the election.
Terrible I know. Definitely impeachable,
although probably not technically legally incitementI think you are missing the context . Otherwise I don’t know what you are missing
The plan was to “overturn the lection” with violence if needed.
Trump had his day in court (and again and again and again…) There was nothing left to do but certify the vote that had been decided by the electoral college
Instead Trump tricked and manipulated his followers into believing they could overturn the lection. This was impossible to do (peacefully) he lied and tricked people into thinking Pence had a say in the matter. He threw his loyal VP who stood by him in thick and thin right under the bus and sent a bunch of his crazed followers after him. He did not call for peaceful protest. He egged them on, even AFTER the rioting when he said “go Home in peace” he still called them (the rioters) “patriots”
The start of that tweet was ““These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”” If thats isnt condoning I dont know what is? You ask “what am I missing” you keep missing the context. Saying “Ok everybody good job I’m proud of you , but now its time to go home” (not a verbatim quote but that IS the gist) is NOT condemning
Reminds me of the scene in Fiddler on the roof when the constable who brings his men along to a pogrom yells “enough” after the the destruction.
Trump supporters would view him as a good guy , I guess after all he said “enough” ??and again it isnt just the liberal media. Senator Toomey, Murkowski. Pence Reportedly considered tenacting the 25th. Several cabinet members resigned . Ari Fleisher Chris Christie who had been constantly been defending him have no condemned him
I understand that when truth comes from the media, many like waving their hands and favoring “alternative facts” with the magic words “fake news” that just makes facts change. But this isnt just the liberal media
It isnt part of the wedding. followign the wedding split makes no sense.
should be split 50/50.
Only reason to differentiate would be if one side is much bigger than the other say Chossons side is twice the size of the kallah’s side. Then the Chosson’s side should offer to pay extra , but the kallah’s side insisting on that is a bit pettyThough I can’t help but wonder if this is mashal of some sort. It seems so petty like Meir G said He agrees to pay 1/3 (~ $666) The other side agrees to pay $1000 they are fighting over $334 ?
DY
No, and for that reason the justice department said they weren’t pursuing it
Sure can
Though it helps to know the backstory
A good starting point is an npr story entitled “On Far-Right Websites, Plans To Storm Capitol Were Made In Plain Sight”
AFTER you understand the back drop (whcih TRUMP knew about remeber he is a busy tweeter)
here is a breif timeline (I posted this on another thread in answer to a simmiler question)
On January 7 (when the outcome was inevitable) and people were in Washington for the planned for violence, what did he do. did he protest the result but encourage calm like a normal person?
No of course not, he hates the country far too much for that, instead he further inflamed his supporters and threw his loyal VP on the bus by demanding of him an act he had to have known was illegal and impossible. Naturally this further inflamed the massesThe crown shouted “”Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!”” – remember the crowd that arrived planning violence. What did Trump do, did he urge peaceful protest.? No of course not He said “Thank you” and He further inflamed tensions with “We will never give up. We will never concede.” “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.”
AFTEr the rioting started Trump still Encouraged them calling them ““These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”” before telling them to go home
These are not the words of someone who condemns violence .compare his speech before to his concession speech. THAT was a normal speech. compare the difference in tone.
Note there was no real practical change that occurred Jan 6-7 in Congress. The result wasn’t in doubt. The change is Trump realized his legacy is now in tatters with even the GOP saying he should be removed.
It isnt the media. The GOP senate understood Trump’s speech for what it was . IF you think all of them, all the rioters, and all of us got it wrong, and only you and a few others understand how poorly misunderstood innocent Trump was.
I’m not sure what you mean by “actual incitement “. No he never said “OK let’s storm the Capitol” But he did egg on a group that came in town planning to storm the capitol
hope this helps
Participant
“1. then wth is the point of this thread?”
As explained earlier There was never any chance of overturning the election.
Most people new that.Some people beleived Trump, that he had some evidence he was taking time to put it together and when a judge would see it things would go his way.
Those people chose to give him some time to make his case.
Again, he never had a chance of making a case
Some people gave him until Dec 15 realizing (As you didnt) that ultimatly that was what REALLY counted, and maybe States would direct electors or courts would or there would be faithless lectors – no not the clintons but , and I realize this is news to you, there were 304 eelctors pledged to vote for the Democrat who were not clintons.Once Dec 15 passed, and Trump didn’t provide anything substantial those people, correctly , realized that there was less of a chance that he ever would. Some held out hope a bit longer, but with every passing day more and more people realized he had nothing- or perhaps the courts weren’t interested in hearing what he had .
On Jan 6/7 we came even closer. Now most people relaize he had nothing (or tha the courts werent intrested) Sure there are some who still Don’t quite get it See Health’s comment on Jan /7 “Btw, Trump might still be President because Hopefully the SCOTUS will decide in his Favor.”
but by now most people know that Trump doesnt have any ace up his sleeve.
do you relaize that yet?
Were you able to read up on the Electoral college?
2. Yes its the point you’ve been making but I explained to you (patiently) that you were mistaken
see reply # 1930315 on 12/20 “he cant prove fraud There is a spectrum of how long people are willing to hold on to the fantasy that he can. some gave it until the Electoral college (a reaosnable benchmark as outlined above) others are giving it until Jan 6 still others until JAN 20. others even after that.” (before your ” clear and detailed post (my last on the first page)” that was as wrong and irrrelvent as all your other posts on this page)
3″3. funny how you woke up now that it’s not the point of this thread. in previous posts you’ve talked about potential deadlines and how they all passed.”
Yep. and another one passed on Jan 6.
Again some are hoping there will be some miracle before Jan /20 Some will still be hoping for some karaken release in Jan 2135, And Trump’s corpse will be propped up as president. I suspect you fall into that camp.
“now you’ll answer
participant
you should really take a civics lesson.”
Yes You should!” the electoral college has to vote and it has to be ratified by congress.”
Yes. Thanks to me you now know that. youre welcome!!
” if there was fraud why hasn’t trump proven it yet? he had plenty of time to prove it .”
Excellent point!
” now all ships have sailed. ”
not all, but another one (though remember there never were any ships)“when would you think is a reasonable deadline to have to 8prove fraud?”
Excellent question
” do you agree with health?”
another good question!” there are some who will always say there’s fraud. do u agree with them?”
December 13 was a reasonable deadline for him to have had to prove fraud. now all ships have sailed. there was no fraud.”
Nah It isnt a deadline, not so sure what this is saying” I said there was no fraud.”
Yes, (though again remember the context: that he would be able to prove)
” I also said if there was fraud he had to have proven it by Dec 14 even tho that’s not the point of this thread. ”
I never said that, so no its not the point of the thread“so what don’t you understand?”
“there. wrote it for you. thank me for saving you the time.”
Thanks ! was pretty good Second half didnt make sense, but first half wasn’t bad.
See you’re starting to get it. Don’t feel so bad that you were wrong (though calling the OP “dumb” wasnt nice especialy given how ignorant your comments have been) . A lot of people didn’t know about the electoral college. I’m glad to be able to educate you
no need to thank me, pushes me to learn more. So THANK YOU for your persistently wrong comments“Who are you talking to, me or yourself?”
whoever wants to listen so at this point myself. Hopefully nobody is reading this ridculous thread.
You definitely aren’t interested in listeningSo thta leaves just me
and the moderator I guess….Hi mods! thanks for letting me continue this strange hobby of mine
john
“Send me an adres where Trump asks for a violent protest or for invading the capitol.”
sure. though I’m not sure what you mean by “adres” The rally was planned for weeks, there were calls for violence on twitter for weeks Including storming the capitol and having a firing squad for Mike Pence
On 12/19/20 Trump tweeted “…Be there will be wild”On January 7 (when the outcome was inevitable) and people were in Washington for the planned for violence, what did he do. did he protest the result but encourage calm like a normal person?
No of course not, he hates the country far too much for that, instead he further inflamed his supporters and threw his loyal VP on the bus by demanding of him an act he had to have known was illegal and impossible. Naturally this further inflamed the massesThe crown shouted “”Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!”” – remember the crowd that arrived planning violence. What did Trump do, did he urge peaceful protest.? No of course not He said “Thank you” and He further inflamed tensions with “We will never give up. We will never concede.” “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.”
AFTEr the rioting started Trump still Encouraged them calling them ““These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”” before telling them to go home
These are not the words of someone who condemns violence .compare his speech before to his concession speech. THAT was a normal speech. compare the difference in tone.
Note there was no real practical change that occurred Jan 6-7 in Congress. The result wanted in doubt. The change is Trump relaized his legacy is now in tatters with even the GOP saying he should be removed.
It isnt the media. The GOP senate understood Trump’s speech for what it was . IF you think all of them, all the rioters, and all of us got it wrong, and only you and a few others understand how poorly misunderstood innocent Trump was. Then I don’t know what to say
hope this helps
rightwriter
don’t worry he knows
Health as you know
That report was widely discreditedand Ramsland has proven himself unreliable (couldnt keep his states straight)that said. I’m not interested in debating wehther or not fraud occured. As your mind is made up, and no ammount of evidence would convince you.
Although it is possible that this silly disregarded claim was the kraken Powell had promised. so I guess I can’t fault you for not willing to concede that she lied. since arguably she provided evidence.
You did call me a liar when I said her court case would never be heard. So we will have to wait for that.
“Btw, Trump might still be President because Hopefully the SCOTUS will decide in his Favor.”
Love it!
you do not disappoint.Participant you with him? Or do you grant the Fat lady has sung?
Participant
“that has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not trump had an invented deadline for potential evidence”
This was never the topic at hand
That you thought it was is on you
“your boiling my blood up. ”
To quote you “refua sheleima.”
See I read your posts. Every one of them. you misunderstood the topic don’t understand the US election and are nasty to whit. Read a little about the election, read my posts. And I will always take the time to explain it to you. Yes even “over and over and over…”
Health
“In other words – You Lied!
I quoted from the book w/o permission. Therefore I didn’t write the name of the book.”nope. I don’t lie. however you know less about copyright law than EMS protocols. There is no copyright violation for a small excerpt, and certainly not if you don’t quote verbatim, and certainly not if youve already said it, and now are just pointing to a source.
If I tell you the first step when encountering an unconscious individual is to make sure the scene is safe . No copyright violation right?
IF You say really? first I think you should put up some cholent. I’d say No Look at NYS’s Statewide
Basic Life Support Adult and Pediatric Treatment Protocols ” Page 10. And then most people would say wow thank you for the source.No whiff of a copyright violation took place
Look up “fair use”
“Why do you keep Posting that they Didn’t present any Proof?”
i was hoping for something more exciting than that, that was the kraken?
“I didn’t post their names because of Copyright Laws.”
There is no copyright law that prevents anyone from sharing the name of a book where something can be found .
If there were every book with footnotes would be violating copyright laws. In fact the reverse is true. IF anything citing source protects you from a copyright violationI’m sorry for the digression. We don’t have to get distracted from thsi excellent thread. Lets keep our excellent discussions separate.
“did you ever treat a MVA victim in the street?!?”
no.Now your turn When would you grantthat Powell lied Jan 20? Jan 2022? are we going to wait till she retires? dies?
part 2
see for me its easy
If her case gets heard by the supreme Court. wow was I wrong. surprising but it happens. Not that big a deal
At that point we will see if she lied when she said she had evidence (it wouldnt change the fact that she lied when she said she would release it “soon” which has long passed whcih is what started our conversation)But I did make a prediction, and if it turns out wrong it is wrong
No big deal It is ok to be wrong. Granted, I’d be dying to know why she kept the evidence hidden until after The vote was finalized. Certainly not an intelligent decision, but at thsi point We arent expecting intelligence from her, but curious decision nonethless
So if her case ever gets heard I was wrong.
So my question for you. you beleive her when she said she has evidence that she will reelase “soon” you extend “soon” to be whenever the Supreme court case listens to her. (Though this is not a definition I’m familiar with, lets let it slide)
If, in the likely event, the Supreme court never listens to her case. At what point would you grant tha she lied when she said she will release it “soon”
Health
“Why do you keep doing this?”
curious if you are able to. This is what draws me to YWn. Arguing over things with 2 different valid views is less interesting to me.Here we have a person who unquestionably lied. she said she would release here evidence on dominion “soon”. soon has passed, she didnt release evidence so she lied. PEriod easy
to most people no big deal.
Then you have people who can look at black and say white who can make up non-existent EMS protocols Who can say their inauguration rally was the largest ever. who can make up supreme court cases. who can say Trump didn’t incite a mob against the capitol. I find it fascinating .I’m not even sure what you lose by saying “yes she lied” that doesn’t mean there was no fraud, it isnt really conceding anything. She might even have the evidence, but hasn’t released it when she said she would “soon” (yes she doesn’t have to, but she said she would and didn’t that is a lie)
“She is going to SCOTUS ”
Again, no she isnt. My question is when would you concede that Jan 20? Jan 2022? are we going to wait till she retires? dies?Syag
I loved Masterpiece havent played in years I search for it from time to time it always goes for > $100 on amazon/ebay if you ever get bored of it can cash in .
We got the game pandemic recently . Interesting game Family has been enjoying it , kids feel like understand the idea of lock down containing disease etc cure vs eradicating And it you dont play against each other all play together against disease lose together or win together .
Lots of funAmazing
what a cult
There is no evidence that can change your mind. sure We can rpovdie tweets from Trump and pronouncements from him and supporters calling for violenceBut you will deny they say what they say (“wild” doesn’t mean wild it means calm protest right?) Trial by combat means demonstration
If that fails claim they are fake tweets planted by the media
IF that fails just say he /they were in on it .Whcih is fine. I dont intend nor think I can chaneg your mind
Edited
sostop pretending your mind is made up and thats that .
“What I think will happen is that Chief Roberts will pressure the rest not to hear the case.”
That could be
I guess history is about to be made Rember when you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!””
and insulted me over and over?Man up and brace yourself to admit she lied.
I’m asking when you will be ready
I’m guessing January 6 isnt it
January 20?
(remember in November she said “soon” so we are reeeeeeaaaaly stretching things to accommodate you )
surely if she gets sued and settles or loses youd have to admit?or still not
johnklet
“and a lot of people will regret voting him out of office, just give it a couple of months…”
I think the opposite is true. In time (more than months at least years) people will deny ever having voted for him. People will look back at his presidency with embarrassment. That isnt to say there wasn’t some good, but that will be dwarfed by Corona, and more so by his exit. It is hard to downplay what happened yesterday
People who dont know much american history might know some tidbits like The British burned the whitehouse during the war of 1812. A century from now , people will know a Trump instigated mob stormed the Capitol in the hopes of overturning an election.
sure a few history buffs will know that Trump did some good like move the embassy I can hear it now “Really the crazy guy who tried to instigate a insurrection? I never would have guessed”CY
“he could have left with dignity instead he had instigate his people to rush the Congress, ”
This was predictable. And no he couldn’t leave with dignity that isn’t who he is.
Its a bit confusing that people expected him to change . People don’t change this late in the game. Many of my friends and posters here have been confused how we cant support Trump who has been so good for XYZ. hopefully now you understandujm
“What if your hobby is politics?” *
Then you should get a new hobby. Particularly as you seem to eat up a lot of nonsense and cant ascertain the difference between fact and fiction
This thread and the suing VP pence thread https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/vp-pence-sued-by-republicans
are both proof of that*from here https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/start-the-clock#post-1936094
(I dont want to hijack syag’s thread)Health
any updates?
Where do things stand.
Was she lying?
Are we waiting for Jan 20?
Do you still think she is going to the Supreme court?
Are we waiting until she settles with dominion or gets ruled against in court for her baseless allegations?Thanks
participant
Have you had time to look into how the electoral college works?
As Pence correctly said yesterday there was nothing left for him to do but certify. sure some raised objections but there was no doubt that there was 0 % chance of any objection getting through one house let alone both
“now lets respond to your latest garbage. all quotes are imprecise.”
Being imprecise is your specialty. nothing you said on this thread was precise or factual.Let me guess it still isn’t over , you think Trump might still win.
You may note since Dec 15 when The OP correctly said it was over nothing changed vis a vis fraud allegations . There were no significant court cases there were no new allegations. Just the same old same old. sure a bunch of loons thought (think?) there is secret evidence that Trump was saving for some heroic showdown. but most realized that if he had anything he would have shown it long long ago.So while some were holding out something would materialize. all intelligent people new nothing would.
I wonder if now with the benefit of hindsight you see that it was over Dec 15 when all court cases where settled and the electoral college voted .If you dont see that, thats fine too.
“There is a spectrum of how long people are willing to hold on to the fantasy that he can. some gave it until the Electoral college (a reasonable benchmark as outlined above) others are giving it until Jan 6 still others until JAN 20. others even after that.”
so which camp are you in?
Is it STILL not over?“I am rather confused, and id appreciate if someone can explain it to me, why a video trump put out, telling everyone to go home peacefully, had him banned from social media. (i didnt get to see the video myself…)”
Happy to explain
The Presidnet has to respect the rule of law. It is ok to think you won and to call for recount, courtcase etc. The problem is Trump doesnt care about the rule of law. He cares about Trump . He said there was cheatign before the election took place. He did the same in 2016 he did the same during the primaries (see his tweet feb 3 2016)
As you know many people believe him, at this point he is unhinged turning against his own VP who just wants to follow the constitution (which clearly Trump hasnt glanced at) . Trump encouraged “marching on the capitol” he knew what would happen. It took him quite some time to tell “protesters to go home”
The senate is going to vote on the objection. The odds of the objection passing one house let alone both are zero. Do you think for a second Trump will say “I’m disappointed with the outcome, but Democracy has spoken” OF course not he will yell names and sow more discord.
As for the video, hint he ame video he encourages them “reitzes them uhn” saying they cheated their stealing the election etc .
Enough already
You lost, You got a recount , lost again. Got court cases lost all of those. At some point he’s got to shut upTwitter is right to silence him
Their only mistake is not having done so months ago WE would all be in a better placeTVP
“He meant it when he said it,”
meant what? what do you think he meant?
” and he said it with a purpose.”
of course he did, Noone is saying it was accidental the purpose was inclusivity . He made a pun to preach a message of inclusivity. He didn’t cancel anything he didn’t say or imply that no one should say “amen” or that saying “amen” was wrong or not inclusive .
He has a masters in divinity, Do you really think he didn’t know what amen means ?
TVP
“. He meant it when he said it, and he said it with a purpose.”meant what exactly? what it it
Yes of course he said it with a purpose, a purpose of inclusivity. Not sure whats wrong with that.
Lehavdil elef alfei rivvovos havdolos when We chazal say “halichos olam lo al tikri halichos eleh halachos” Are they “canceling” the word halichos. Do they not know what halichos means Ch”v they are teaching a lesson.
That is all he meant a message on inclusivity, I thought it was silly. You do to thats fine.
What do you think he meant?
ujm
Sorry Pence didnt see your misinterpretation of the scholarly law review in time
Do you think he is in on it? Or perhaps your contention was mistaken?
“its the fact that a standard word was “cancelled” for not being “inclusive”…”
Oh o it was cancelled? too bad No shul I’ve been in over the past days got that memo.
“this is just ridiculous….”
It is, so many right wingers getting all bent out of shape over a (admittedly dumb) pun.
Health
“The more Fraud commited – the more chance it will be detected!
So they limited to 6 States & the Presidential election.”Biden didnt need to win all 6 he could lose Georgia, and one or 2 others (PA,; Mi; Wi + Nv, Mi + Nv, Ar +Nv) etc and still have won
so which is it did they cheat the bare minimum needed to win?
Or did they go for gold , and if so why not the Senate?Let me guess
They cheated just the right amount , any more would’ve been obvious;any less too risky. but these geniuses were able to pinpoint the exact sweet spot of cheatingOF course the only thing these geniuses didnt accoutn for was the incredible mind of Health who saw right through it!
Good job cracking the case!
Looking forward to the KRaken’s release or you admitting that Sydney Powell lied whichever comes first
“but it seems your support extends to social issues as well, HOW??”
I cant speak for all but supporting a candidate doesn’t mean you agree or support all their positions.
Once upon a time Trump supporters said the same “I dont agree wit him on xyz but he’s better than Hillary, or but Supreme court or but ISrael”
granted some shift has taken place over the past months and most of them are all in on the crazy train supporting all sorts of nutty ideas, just because “their guy” said it. but it wasn’t always this way and it shouldn’t be this wayThe fact that you even have this question is telling
“the Justice Department/Attorney General have the standing to declare an act (partially) unconstitutional and act accordingly by disregarding provisions they deemed contrary to the constitution? ”
No of course not .
I concede that people have incorrectly made that claim. that was never in dispute noen of your wrong claims are yoru own, Ive heard the same talking points on twitter. They are mostly worng.
“he Democrats already HAVE played this game with their abuse of the constitutional impeachment process for use as a political weapon and a farcial attempt to overturn the election they lost and the will of the voters.”
Wrong again
Amazing. you do not disappoint“Now the Democrats are reaping what they sowed with the Republicans utilizing constitutional and legal mechanisms available in kind.”
You have that backwards
nothing will come of these objection the Democrat’s control the house and as you now know the VP is not in charge of the proceedings. Yes Biden’s inevitable inauguration MIGHT be delayed (I doubt that too) but stopping it is legally impossible.What has been sown is the new norm . If a Republican chas veshalom wins the presidency and there is A democratic congress they will object (following the precedent to be set by Republicans) and this time ovrthrow the election.
you reap what you sowUJM
“ubiq, you obviously didn’t read the first citation I posted on the Lawfare site.”
sure did! You provide great sources!
Though not really an article more musings of a professor, musings are fine , keep sharing
But arent “proof”
and the the second more exhaustive article doesn’t -at all – raise the ideas you are using it t buttress
ujm
Folks, please read Loyola University Chicago Law Journal’s “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election
great read. thanks for sharing
It does not mention many of the wrong ideas that you have Like The Attorney General choosing to disregard laws
You are making stuff up and sharing (interesting) articles that do not at all say what you claim.gadfly
“shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;”
Yes beforehand not afterwards. The laws for voting in a state are determined by the legislature. not determining the winner
TVP
“I don’t see what is wrong with trump requesting the secretary of state of Georgia uncover them.” There wouldnt be, but that isnt what he said. Trump doesn’t care about illegal votes, that isnt what this is about at all.
What he says was “‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’”
If he said “look I suspect irregularities and granted we had dozens of cases and almost 2 months to find evidence of it, and I still cant find significant evidence but I really really think its there please make sure the vote is done right “. That would be another story, but that isnt what happened
ujm
It is interesting how you silly ideas change
I’m glad you’ve given up on the wrong idea that Pence can choose which electors count . You now accept that it is inevitable that eventually Biden will be president, just that might be delayed a bit to cause problems. (Can you imagine how much the Republicans hate this country that you can imagine them causing this headache just to delay President Biden’s term by a few days? a month? *)
At any rate the law is clear. Pelosi becomes President. If there is a question about constitutionality the courts can decide. I know you assume republicans are criminals and don’t care much for laws. but give them a little credit Are you really suggesting they would unilateraly volate laws to seaze power for a few days?
and you have trouble understanding why unlike FOLLOWING impeachment procedures that would be undemocratic?* I think you overestimate the length of the debate 13 senators said will challenge (need senator + representative) Only 4 states have been questioned that’s 26 hours of debate (2 hours is the maximum not minimum) even if they need an extra 2 hours for each debate to Schmooze? chap a coffee ? that is 52 hours If they skip weekends work 9 – 5 they can be done well before the 20th.
And that is a lot of ifsHealth
“S. Powell actually wrote in her brief that the Court should consider the case before Jan. 6″
yes I know what she wrote. and I said she wouldn’t get her case heard
Here is an exchange we had
Health – ” but her case wasn’t heard yet by SCOTUS!”
Ubiq – “I’t wont be.”
Health – Ok; you say she’s Lying. So the cases she filed are King vs. Whitmer 20-815, & In Re Pearson 20-816. Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are! Now why would you lie? Are you Afraid she’ll win those cases?!?”She wont be having a case
she wont be releasing any evidence
she lied when she said she would “soon” (it is past soon even if she ends up releasing anything now)all that is old news and was known to most for almost 2 months
what is no knwon is if those who beleived her leis, will be able to say “wow she WAS lying”
Stil remains to be seen. We gave it till Jan 20 so theres still time
Health
any updates on Sydney Powell’s Scotus case? does it have a date yet?
Are we passed the “soon” by which she had said in early November she would relese her secret Evidence?
NEw (related Question
on Jan 6, when (not if) Pence doesn’t acknowledge any “alternate ” electors and certifies A Biden presidency (perhaps after some needless time wasting by a group that puts party over country at every turn) Would that at all make you question your understanding of the process? What ifs your lanned “explanation” for why he won’t install Trump?
I’m so sorry but it doesnt
the page you cited (pg 541) is the table of contents . would love to see what page you think you saw that on..
Though worth noting you seem to have at least changed your view on this “Pence might just declare Trump the winner when he constitutionally presides over the Joint Session on January 6. His ruling is that final ruling”
now you at least grant that “majority of both houses of Congress voted to overrule the VP’s decision.”
(Though this isnt quite right)
ujm
““open all the certificates”.”
Correct
“Regarding whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper submitted as a states electoral college vote, concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.”
Interesting source regarding the requirement to PResent (year wasnt even close….)
Still doesn’t really help your case. Even if required to read any purported ballots (which would require Both houses to concur or one plus himself according to the source you cite)
He STILL does not get the power to choose which to accept.His job is solely to open them and read them . He does not have the power to object or choose one over another
If he did have this magic power 1. SOMEBODY would’ve used it by now 2. It would be mentioned n the excellent article you cite someplace over the course of its 131 pages it would mention that BTW the Vice President has sole discretion in choosing whcih electors he likes. ITs not there because he doesn’t have this power
In fact it says the opposite (pg 634 ) “The ECA’s procedural provisions have two purposes. … The second is to drain away as much power as possible from he Senate President, whom the ECA appoints to preside at the joint session when Congress counts the votes”
In other words the VP (President of the senate ) has essentially NO power over the determination
ujm
“The court could not intervene. If the court was asked to intervene the court would declare the issue a political question for Congress to fix and something the courts are unqualified to address.”
This is of course wrong (and doesnt even make sense)
so You are saying we are lucky Biden Cheney Gore didn’t act on this magical ability they have secretly been granted that only a few MAGA supporters are aware of?“Five states this year have multiple competing slates of electors. ”
This is incorrectThere are 5 states where people appointed themselves as “backup electors” but people appointing themselves has no legal meaning. NO state legislature or governor appointed any backup electors
“The Electoral Count Act clearly states that the Vice President shall open all *purported* slates of electors submitted to Congress”
It doesn’t give the Vice President the ability to decide which to count. That paower belongs solely to the states
Again Ghomert wants the Electoral count act thrown out, becasue he thinks the constituio lets the Vice President decide (he is wrong of course but that is his clam) but with the Electoral count act still Law The VP clearly doesnt get to choose, and without it he probably doesnt
and again No state sent 2 sets of electors“some comedian submitted an official looking purported slate of electors for a state as a joke and, in accordance with the act, Congress opened and acknowledged it.”
while this has zero bearing on anything you’ve incorrectly said. It is still interesting. Can you please provide a bit more details What comedian? what state? OR reference to story Google is turning up nothingthanks
ujm
(follow up to pending comment)
In fact Louie gohmert is trying to get The Electoral count act thrown out as unconstitutional. (that is the subject of this thread!) And get Pence to be the final arbitrator. The ACt you cite is the very law that clearly PREVENTS Pence from acting wily nily (Not that he necessarily could do what he wanted before the Act was signed, but the constitution is vaguer which resulted in 1876 problems so while ALL your comments on this thread were wrong in 1886 (before the electoral count became law) you could TRY to make a case. After the Electoral count act there isnt even room for discussion
ujm
Yes it does
and it essentially disallows it (becasue it was a problem that occurred in 1876, a few years before) . It leaves each STATE not the vice President to determine who the States’ electors areso to sum up.
There is no ability for states to send multiple electors
and no state did.Pence, like the Rest of the US government is bound by the constituion and cant just act as he sees fit.
Sure there can be some procedural delay on Jan 6, but that is all.I’m so sorry you had to find out this way
ujm
thanks for your response
A few clarification points.
1) Where did you get this notion of two opposing sets of electors being a thing. I checked the constitution it isnt there. Where do you get the idea that there is such a mechanism for a state to send alternate electors. Can you please point to this mechanism existence in the constitution ?
The constitution is quite clear “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”
Note A number of electors. no mention of a second backup set. There is simply no such thing2) No state submitted opposing sets of electors this year either. Sure a few nut jobs may have appointed themselves. We can do the same I appoint myself and my 613 electoral votes all for you. This has EXACTLY as much legal significance as other self appointed electors . As the constitution says “Each State shall appoint,…” (article 2 section1) It isn’t: whoever feels up to it shal appoint themselves
So even if there where such a mechanism (there isn’t see #1) NO state acted upon it * still not much Pence can do within the confines of the constitution
3) so just to clarify your evolving position: in 2000. If Gore had said “forget electors I’m not counting any of them I’m President and thats that” The court would intervene and rule it unconstitutional (assuming it came to that and he wasn’t dragged out kicking and screaming) Even though this would be “tell[ing] Congress how to handle its internal policies, regulations and/or legislative rulings”
*To be fair if there was such a thing some states may have utilized this option, but there is no such thing and they didn’t.
Thanks for the reply.
A follow up question, I checked the constitution for the mechanism outlining the existence of backup electors, giving states the ability to send multiple slates. I can’t find it, where is this idea mentioned please?
Also
To be clear so if aAl gore decided “forget electors im just gonna declare myself president” in that case the court COULD intervene. Correct? Even though it would telling “Congress how to handle its internal policies, regulations and/or legislative rulings. ” ?
ujm
“You’re absolutely incorrect. As egregious as such a policy would be, ONLY Congress could change that. No court.”
source please.
It saddens me that you lack an elementary understanding of basic US civics. Though interestingly you keep changing your position first all three branches are “coequal” and court cant check the other two. Then they can check when other branches work together but not when one works alone Now I’m not even clear what you think court cant check, but regardless it is of course wrong.At any rate Ive been trying to understand your position, I’m not sure if you saw my question
here it is again: you seem to think the vice President can just do what he wants. Is this correct?
In 2000 Al gore (then vice President) could have just chosen himself as President?
For that matter in 2016 Biden could’ve just chosen Hillary? or himself? Or Mickey Mouse?
Could he have chosen Obama for a third term (after all it “cannot constitutionally be judicially reviewed.”) ?Thanks in advance
I’m not sure why you are ignoring my question. I’ll rephrase
Are you saying that Joe Biden in 2016, (and for that matter 2012), Dick Cheney in 2008, Al gore in 2000, etc all had the power to appoint any President they wanted and there was no way to stop them. And the fact that they didn’t was just out of their tzidkis or something?
ujm
“No court can tell Congress how to handle its internal policies”
I dont know what this means. If congress made an internal policy that no Jews can sit in congress, you can bet the court can stop them.
I’m confused where you came up wit hthis difference that the court only has say over that which that ” involves multiple branches of government.” Executive orders dont (by definition) involve “multiple levels of government” and yet the Court can, and has (FDR comes to mind) overrule it.
This distinction is one that you made up. You cant just make up facts and then make up more facts to support those
and I’m still trying o understand your view
you seem to think the vice President can just do what he wants. Is this correct?
In 2000 Al gore (then vice President) could have just chosen himself as President?
For that matter in 2016 Biden could’ve just chosen Hillary? or himself? Or Mickey Mouse?
Could he have chosen Obama for a third term (after all it “cannot constitutionally be judicially reviewed.”) ?Hoping you can take a moment to clarify these (or just some) questions, Thanks