The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,390
    Reaction score
    2,158
    Age
    62
    Location
    Alabama
    Offline
    There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.



    Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

    Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.
     
    And we have a "winner"...


    I'm sure McConnell knew this was coming.
     
    And we have a "winner"...


    I'm sure McConnell knew this was coming.
    Every elected official that attempt to overturn the results of this past election should be immediately booted out of office and then charged with sedition against the United States.
     
    And we have a "winner"...


    I'm sure McConnell knew this was coming.

    Hawley is going to run for the GOP nomination in 2024 and, between this and his support for the $2,000 checks, is working really hard to establish his bona fides as the Trumpiest candidate in the field.
     
    Every elected official that attempt to overturn the results of this past election should be immediately booted out of office and then charged with sedition against the United States.
    Why not charge them will sedition, try and convict them and then boot them out of office? I wouldn't wait until they are out of office.
     
    Josh Hawley doesn't have the trumptard look going on. He needs to step up his game somehow.
     
    These fools do not realize that MAGA isn't a movement. It is a cult of personality. Trump is the personality. You don't get to insert yourself as the leader of the CoP by agreeing with the CoP. That just keeps them from turning on you. Hawley is expects that agreeing with Trump=Trump voters. The idiot doesn't understand that half of MAGA is going to vote for Trump even if Trump doesn't run.
     
    These fools do not realize that MAGA isn't a movement. It is a cult of personality. Trump is the personality. You don't get to insert yourself as the leader of the CoP by agreeing with the CoP. That just keeps them from turning on you. Hawley is expects that agreeing with Trump=Trump voters. The idiot doesn't understand that half of MAGA is going to vote for Trump even if Trump doesn't run.

    and that is the BEAUTY of the con.

    Hawley is same guy standing in front of a 3 card Monte in Times Square table with his wallet out trying to win back his $20.

    10 times.
     
    These fools do not realize that MAGA isn't a movement. It is a cult of personality. Trump is the personality. You don't get to insert yourself as the leader of the CoP by agreeing with the CoP. That just keeps them from turning on you. Hawley is expects that agreeing with Trump=Trump voters. The idiot doesn't understand that half of MAGA is going to vote for Trump even if Trump doesn't run.

    The next step is Hawley trying to copy Trump's personality. He's going to start calling in to Sean Hannity's show to talk about how he's hearing people saying more and more that he could have hooked up with Pamela Anderson at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas in 1994.
     
    Here's my question about all of this. Where, in any government document or law, does it provide for members of Congress to object to a state's electoral votes when they don't agree with the result?

    The Constitution says only that the votes shall be counted. It makes no mention of objections.

    The Electoral Count Act of 1877 says that a member my object, and the two houses must then debate and vote on whether or not to reject that state's vote. However, it doesn't say anything about objecting based on the result. It seems to quite clearly state that the objection can only be on the validity of the vote document (in other words, that someone doesn't believe that the document they opened is the actual one submitted by the state in question.

    " but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified."
     
    Yes, so the objection, if he follows through, will not go anywhere. It will just delay the inevitable. It’s totally stupid. But consider the source.
     
    Here's my question about all of this. Where, in any government document or law, does it provide for members of Congress to object to a state's electoral votes when they don't agree with the result?

    The Constitution says only that the votes shall be counted. It makes no mention of objections.

    The Electoral Count Act of 1877 says that a member my object, and the two houses must then debate and vote on whether or not to reject that state's vote. However, it doesn't say anything about objecting based on the result. It seems to quite clearly state that the objection can only be on the validity of the vote document (in other words, that someone doesn't believe that the document they opened is the actual one submitted by the state in question.

    " but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified."

    So as long as there isn't a sustained objection in both houses, it's a moot question. But imagine that both houses were Republican-controlled and enough of them were willing to try this end-run around the election. If a state had its electors voided based solely on a political objection, they would file suit and it would get to the Supreme Court quickly on the basis of whether the objection was proper under the law (as you suggest). Otherwise, it would allow a party in full control of Congress to invalidate any election of the other party's candidate for president.

    That's not simply a political question, there are legal standards involved - at least that's how it appears.
     
    So, apparently, my long time local deaf friend's brother is coming into town to attend a Trump rally in DC on the 6th. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    A little back story. Long time deaf friend is a neighbor and we've known her since before my wife and I married over 20 years ago. She is also disabled with CP, so we've helped her a lot over the years with transportation, taking care of her home and what not. She's been a great friend over the years, but she has a massive blind spot when it comes to politics. She hates all things Democrat and reads stuff like Orly Taitz and Gateway Pundit. She's never mentioned or talked about QAnon though. She loves Trump and thinks he can do no wrong. She hoping next week will be a great start to the new year. Clearly she thinks Trump will somehow be awarded the election by Congress. I don't ever argue with her. She knows what I think.

    Her brother is also a big Trump supporter, and he's coming here from Wisconsin to attend the rally. He got Covid last November and has apparently fully recovered. I fully expect he and his group traveling with him will not be wearing masks and I'm not entirely sure, but at least him, and maybe all of his friends will be staying at her place. This is making me pretty nervous because my friend hasn't gotten Covid, and I think a case of Covid for her would be deadly. They're gonna go to this rally, and I would not be surprised if it happens that they get her infected. I think I'm gonna have to avoid her for 14 days, if I can. We have her visit my home usually once a week. I'm hoping she avoids it entirely, but I think I'm gonna go ahead and pretend I'm sick to avoid her, lol.
     
    Last edited:
    So, apparently, my long time local deaf friend's brother is coming into town to attend a Trump rally in DC on the 6th. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    A little back story. Long time deaf friend is a neighbor and we've known her since before my wife and I married over 20 years ago. She is also disabled with CP, so we've helped her a lot over the years with transportation, taking care of her home and what not. She's been a great friend over the years, but she has a massive blind spot when it comes to politics. She hates all things Democrat and reads stuff like Orly Taitz and Gateway Pundit. She's never mentioned or talked about QAnon though. She loves Trump and thinks he can do no wrong. She hoping next week will be a great start to the new year. Clearly she thinks Trump will somehow be awarded the election by Congress. I don't ever argue with her. She knows what I think.

    Her brother is also a big Trump supporter, and he's coming here from Wisconsin to attend the rally. He got Covid last November and has apparently fully recovered. I fully expect he and his group traveling with him will not be wearing masks and I'm not entirely sure, but at least him, and maybe all of his friends will be staying at her place. This is making me pretty nervous because my friend hasn't gotten Covid, and I think a case of Covid for her would be deadly. They're gonna go to this rally, and I would not be surprised if it happens that they get her infected. I think I'm gonna have to avoid her for 14 days, if I can. We have her visit my home usually once a week. I'm hoping she avoids it entirely, but I think I'm gonna go ahead and pretend I'm sick to avoid her, lol.

    Why pretend? Just be up front about your avoidance. If she's a friend, she'll understand. Either way, you stick with your decision. The health of you and your family is more important.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom