LOLwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
Proud Boys leader admits plan to storm Capitol, will testify against others
60,657 Views |
752 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Osodecentx
Trump allies' fake Electoral College certificates offer fresh insights about plot to overturn Biden's victory
By Zachary Cohen and Marshall Cohen
Wed January 12, 2022
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Overssight.
The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn't have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states -- like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results -- and they served no legitimate purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html
By Zachary Cohen and Marshall Cohen
Wed January 12, 2022
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Overssight.
The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn't have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states -- like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results -- and they served no legitimate purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html
mostly incorrect, biased, and late to the party.. this was reported on in wait for it.. December of 2020. In order to overcome any safe harbor issues that could have arisen in a contested state, both sets needed to be sent.. the second set could have been certified if the state so chose to but they did not and the slates were discarded as standard process.Sam Lowry said:
Trump allies' fake Electoral College certificates offer fresh insights about plot to overturn Biden's victory
By Zachary Cohen and Marshall Cohen
Wed January 12, 2022
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Overssight.
The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn't have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states -- like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results -- and they served no legitimate purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html
Our populous is ignorant and the media is feeding them bullsh.. and calling it filet mignon.
There were no "contested states."4th and Inches said:mostly incorrect, biased, and late to the party.. this was reported on in wait for it.. December of 2020. In order to overcome any safe harbor issues that could have arisen in a contested state, both sets needed to be sent.. the second set could have been certified if the state so chose to but they did not and the slates were discarded as standard process.Sam Lowry said:
Trump allies' fake Electoral College certificates offer fresh insights about plot to overturn Biden's victory
By Zachary Cohen and Marshall Cohen
Wed January 12, 2022
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Overssight.
The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn't have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states -- like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results -- and they served no legitimate purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html
Our populous is ignorant and the media is feeding them bullsh.. and calling it filet mignon.
Y'all crack me up.
the fact that law suits were active in multiple states up to and past Jan 6 2021 means they were in fact contested..Sam Lowry said:There were no "contested states."4th and Inches said:mostly incorrect, biased, and late to the party.. this was reported on in wait for it.. December of 2020. In order to overcome any safe harbor issues that could have arisen in a contested state, both sets needed to be sent.. the second set could have been certified if the state so chose to but they did not and the slates were discarded as standard process.Sam Lowry said:
Trump allies' fake Electoral College certificates offer fresh insights about plot to overturn Biden's victory
By Zachary Cohen and Marshall Cohen
Wed January 12, 2022
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Overssight.
The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn't have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states -- like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results -- and they served no legitimate purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html
Our populous is ignorant and the media is feeding them bullsh.. and calling it filet mignon.
Y'all crack me up.
You keep doing you Sam, it cracks us up!
Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
But it wasn't Trump's plan.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Quote:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.Quote:
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
But it wasn't Trump's plan.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Quote:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.Quote:
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
it isnt random, you obviously know but are acting reckless disregard for the truth.. that makes you a fraudSam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
But it wasn't Trump's plan.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Quote:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.Quote:
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
Very funny to see all the speculation and conspiracy theories about Biden stealing the election while you ignore Trump's open and obvious attempt to do exactly that.4th and Inches said:it isnt random, you obviously know but are acting reckless disregard for the truth.. that makes you a fraudSam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
But it wasn't Trump's plan.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Quote:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.Quote:
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
no he didnt, stop playinSam Lowry said:Very funny to see all the speculation and conspiracy theories about Biden stealing the election while you ignore Trump's open and obvious attempt to do exactly that.4th and Inches said:it isnt random, you obviously know but are acting reckless disregard for the truth.. that makes you a fraudSam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
But it wasn't Trump's plan.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Quote:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.Quote:
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
They were discarded despite Trump's best efforts to railroad them through. That's how you know he never meant to safeguard the process.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Either Trump could have stopped his followers, or he couldn't. That makes him ineffective at best and complicit at worst.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Reasonableness is an objective standard.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. %A0In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? %A0 %A0You would be tearing your argument apart. %A0Belated? %A0According to whom? %A0Is that an opinion? %A0Is there a written standard in place? %A0Forced? %A0How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. %A0You have no case, Counselor. %A0I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it. %A0Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it. %A0
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. %A0They should and will be prosecuted. %A0No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. %A0You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. %A0 Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. %A0Not one. %A0 But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. %A0Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). %A0Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. %A0Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. %A0Trump did not pardon them,. %A0He let law enforcement handle it. %A0You may think he waited too soon. %A0He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. %A0The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? %A0Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? %A0Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? %A0Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? %A0No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? %A0Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. %A0 But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. %A0Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. %A0Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. %A0Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. %A0Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. %A0Misremembered. %A0Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. %A0Where is the problem? %A0
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. %A0See I admit when I mis-state. %A0You should try it some time. %A0: )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. %A0Is three hours reasonsble? %A0Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable. %A0
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? %A0I can't stand Trump. %A0I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. %A0That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. %A0That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. %A0None of which is a crime. %A0He ended up doing what he was supposed to. %A0It does not matter if he was happy.
The mayor didn't refuse assistance. She requested and received a few hundred unarmed troops to operate at other locations around the city. She had nothing to do with whether there was a military presence at the Capitol.
Reasonable to who? %A0Maybe for critique or a ops after action, maybe. %A0But to prosecute? Or to accuse of treason, which is what the Jan 6th group is doing. %A0 This isn't to see if we can respond better, it is to blame a sitting President of insurrection. %A0 Reasonableness stands to convict ?????
She said she did not want a Federal presence the day before. %A0She played into the situation. %A0If I remember correctly that was testified under oath. %A0But I know you can't belive any of the Trump team right.
Circles
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
Sam, you are now really pushing it.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
Trump did something you dont agree with.. i am shocked! Shocked i tell you!Sam Lowry said:They were discarded despite Trump's best efforts to railroad them through. That's how you know he never meant to safeguard the process.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Thank goodness the military escorted him out on Jan 20th.. oh wait, he left quietly..
It is sad you cant see they worked for 4 years to sour the public opinion while changing the rules to beat him. Without covid, he would not have lost even with 4 years of manipulation.
Cananda was right, covid cost him the election. Biden has done and been exactly as Trump predicted. November is gonna be massive. Even the Roe v wade leak, the Dems cant get them fired up enough to stem the losses they are expecting.
Economy is #1 and it will take a miracle to avoid a red wave in november.
lol.. you have no clue. Actually, you do which makesSam Lowry said:Either Trump could have stopped his followers, or he couldn't. That makes him ineffective at best and complicit at worst.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Reasonableness is an objective standard.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. %A0In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? %A0 %A0You would be tearing your argument apart. %A0Belated? %A0According to whom? %A0Is that an opinion? %A0Is there a written standard in place? %A0Forced? %A0How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. %A0You have no case, Counselor. %A0I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it. %A0Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it. %A0
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. %A0They should and will be prosecuted. %A0No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. %A0You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. %A0 Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. %A0Not one. %A0 But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. %A0Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). %A0Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. %A0Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. %A0Trump did not pardon them,. %A0He let law enforcement handle it. %A0You may think he waited too soon. %A0He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. %A0The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? %A0Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? %A0Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? %A0Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? %A0No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? %A0Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. %A0 But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. %A0Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. %A0Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. %A0Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. %A0Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. %A0Misremembered. %A0Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. %A0Where is the problem? %A0
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. %A0See I admit when I mis-state. %A0You should try it some time. %A0: )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. %A0Is three hours reasonsble? %A0Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable. %A0
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? %A0I can't stand Trump. %A0I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. %A0That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. %A0That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. %A0None of which is a crime. %A0He ended up doing what he was supposed to. %A0It does not matter if he was happy.
The mayor didn't refuse assistance. She requested and received a few hundred unarmed troops to operate at other locations around the city. She had nothing to do with whether there was a military presence at the Capitol.
Reasonable to who? %A0Maybe for critique or a ops after action, maybe. %A0But to prosecute? Or to accuse of treason, which is what the Jan 6th group is doing. %A0 This isn't to see if we can respond better, it is to blame a sitting President of insurrection. %A0 Reasonableness stands to convict ?????
She said she did not want a Federal presence the day before. %A0She played into the situation. %A0If I remember correctly that was testified under oath. %A0But I know you can't belive any of the Trump team right.
It even more crazy that you post this stuff.. it aint a movie, lines of police cant stop a mob but hey lets get the president of the USA to go up to a mob and tell them to go home.. its even funnier because we know you are serious
Ignore the emoji
You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:
Sam, you are now really pushing it.I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.Quote:
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
Something you don't agree with either...or do you?4th and Inches said:Trump did something you dont agree with.. i am shocked! Shocked i tell you!Sam Lowry said:They were discarded despite Trump's best efforts to railroad them through. That's how you know he never meant to safeguard the process.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
I guess Trump's allies in Congress and the media don't have a clue either. They were begging him to talk to the crowd and tell them to go home. Even Don Jr. tried.4th and Inches said:lol.. you have no clue. Actually, you do which makesSam Lowry said:Either Trump could have stopped his followers, or he couldn't. That makes him ineffective at best and complicit at worst.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Reasonableness is an objective standard.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. %A0In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? %A0 %A0You would be tearing your argument apart. %A0Belated? %A0According to whom? %A0Is that an opinion? %A0Is there a written standard in place? %A0Forced? %A0How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. %A0You have no case, Counselor. %A0I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it. %A0Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it. %A0
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. %A0They should and will be prosecuted. %A0No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. %A0You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. %A0 Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. %A0Not one. %A0 But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. %A0Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). %A0Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. %A0Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. %A0Trump did not pardon them,. %A0He let law enforcement handle it. %A0You may think he waited too soon. %A0He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. %A0The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? %A0Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? %A0Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? %A0Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? %A0No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? %A0Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. %A0 But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. %A0Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. %A0Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. %A0Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. %A0Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. %A0Misremembered. %A0Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. %A0Where is the problem? %A0
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. %A0See I admit when I mis-state. %A0You should try it some time. %A0: )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. %A0Is three hours reasonsble? %A0Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable. %A0
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? %A0I can't stand Trump. %A0I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. %A0That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. %A0That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. %A0None of which is a crime. %A0He ended up doing what he was supposed to. %A0It does not matter if he was happy.
The mayor didn't refuse assistance. She requested and received a few hundred unarmed troops to operate at other locations around the city. She had nothing to do with whether there was a military presence at the Capitol.
Reasonable to who? %A0Maybe for critique or a ops after action, maybe. %A0But to prosecute? Or to accuse of treason, which is what the Jan 6th group is doing. %A0 This isn't to see if we can respond better, it is to blame a sitting President of insurrection. %A0 Reasonableness stands to convict ?????
She said she did not want a Federal presence the day before. %A0She played into the situation. %A0If I remember correctly that was testified under oath. %A0But I know you can't belive any of the Trump team right.
It even more crazy that you post this stuff.. it aint a movie, lines of police cant stop a mob but hey lets get the president of the USA to go up to a mob and tell them to go home.. its even funnier because we know you are serious
Ignore the emoji
since i stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once, i feel my CV will hold up in voir dire..Sam Lowry said:Something you don't agree with either...or do you?4th and Inches said:Trump did something you dont agree with.. i am shocked! Shocked i tell you!Sam Lowry said:They were discarded despite Trump's best efforts to railroad them through. That's how you know he never meant to safeguard the process.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
I do think Trump should have acted differently in many cases including how he handled Jan 6th but probably not in the way you think..
Yes, I would vote for him again today if the opponent is another POS like Biden/HArris/Hillary/Bernie/AOC/Etc.. I dont fear him as a tyrant or a dictator. Biden has done more to limit my rights than Trump did..
It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
facts and logic dont stick often for you..Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
Maybe he has it in coloring book form..
Edit: ignore if you find it offensive.. probably done for the night, being harsh with my remarks.
I'll ask my kids…they probably have a few that are equally relevant.4th and Inches said:Maybe he has it in coloring book form..Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
Sam is confusing SE365 members with Joe Biden again ...Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I'm good. Hope I'm not being too harsh either.4th and Inches said:Edit: ignore if you find it offensive.. probably done for the night, being harsh with my remarks.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
we cool! Talk to yall tomorrowSam Lowry said:I'm good. Hope I'm not being too harsh either.4th and Inches said:Edit: ignore if you find it offensive.. probably done for the night, being harsh with my remarks.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
LOL classic Iron Law of Woke Projection.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
I'm about as woke as you are. It's all right, man…you tried. It can't be easy defending a guy who had a public psychological meltdown and tried to drag the country along with him (not without some success, if this board is any sign).whiterock said:LOL classic Iron Law of Woke Projection.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
LOL the layers of irony....psychosis from neverTrumpers who are locked in an onanistic cycle of UltraMaga meltdown.....only adds richness to the layers of projection you have going on here.Sam Lowry said:I'm about as woke as you are. It's all right, man…you tried. It can't be easy defending a guy who had a public psychological meltdown and tried to drag the country along with him (not without some success, if this board is any sign).whiterock said:LOL classic Iron Law of Woke Projection.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
You're a skilled propagandist. I'm sure the "Trump as heroic defender of the Constitution" narrative plays well to your targets. You and I, we know better.whiterock said:LOL the layers of irony....psychosis from neverTrumpers who are locked in an onanistic cycle of UltraMaga meltdown.....only adds richness to the layers of projection you have going on here.Sam Lowry said:I'm about as woke as you are. It's all right, man…you tried. It can't be easy defending a guy who had a public psychological meltdown and tried to drag the country along with him (not without some success, if this board is any sign).whiterock said:LOL classic Iron Law of Woke Projection.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
Can one vote for Trump and be called a "never Trumper"? I didnt vote for Trump. just asking for a friend.
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Trump is as much a defender of the constitution as Biden, Obama, GW, and dozens of others on capital hill past and present. They are when it suits them..Sam Lowry said:You're a skilled propagandist. I'm sure the "Trump as heroic defender of the Constitution" narrative plays well to your targets. You and I, we know better.whiterock said:LOL the layers of irony....psychosis from neverTrumpers who are locked in an onanistic cycle of UltraMaga meltdown.....only adds richness to the layers of projection you have going on here.Sam Lowry said:I'm about as woke as you are. It's all right, man…you tried. It can't be easy defending a guy who had a public psychological meltdown and tried to drag the country along with him (not without some success, if this board is any sign).whiterock said:LOL classic Iron Law of Woke Projection.Sam Lowry said:It's just two slightly different ways to say you're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.whiterock said:LOL first it was "oddly random" detail about how legitimate Trump and legitimate Biden electors were selected, then you say I'm trying to avoid talking about the entirely legitimate slates of electors that were the subject of the contest in January.Sam Lowry said:You're doing your best to talk about everything except the fake electors. I can understand why.whiterock said:It's not random. It's the process. There are two sets of electors in every presidential election, for every state in the union. They are selected by the parties, months prior to the election. Among many implications of that process is that to be selected as elector, you have to have distinguished yourself to the party faithful. It is a reward to individuals who have distinguished themselves somehow in party functions. That guards against faithless electors.Sam Lowry said:That's an oddly random information dump, none of which has anything at all to do with whether the "alternate" set of electors was legitimate. As you probably know, it was not. It's especially ironic that you claim to champion the authority of state legislatures here. The actions of the rogue legislators were a direct subversion of that authority (and probably a violation of federal law as well).whiterock said:Sam should be forgiven for his error, as he is working from complete ignorance on this point.4th and Inches said:correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.
Electors are selected by the parties, at state conventions. State PARTY conventions. In Texas, they are selected by Congressional District caucus.
This is worth some explanation: The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) state convention is where the guts of party business occurs. To be a state delegate, you must attend your voting precinct convention and be selected as a delegate to the county convention. (if you show up, you will be selected.) The delegates to the county convention select (among several more minor items) delegates to state convention. Each county has a prescribed number of delegates, based on the number of precincts. (Again, if you show up, you will in most cases at minimum be selected as an alternate delegate.) (In McLennan Co, the precinct and county conventions are, for the sake of expediency, held simultaneously, typically at a public school lunchroom or auditorium.)
At state convention, there is a general assembly where delegates are seated by county. Then, the county delegates "caucus" by state senate district (SD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates caucus with county delegates from each county in SD-22.) Senate caucus is where state business occurs....party platform, RPT leadership, etc.... THEN. County delegates go to caucus by US Congressional districts (CD). (Ex: McLennan Co delegates "caucus" with county delegates from each county in CD-17.) That is where Republican National Committee representatives are selected, where delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected....and.....where members of the Electoral College are selected.
So at the conclusion of each state convention in a Presidential Election year, the RPT selects an entire slate of electors - one from each Texas Congressional district.
The Dems do the same.
So EVERY presidential election, THERE ARE TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS, one Republican, and one Democrat. That is the foundation of every Congressional objection to certification of electors. It is an effort to throw out one set of electors in favor of another. In Trump's case, he sought to throw out the Biden electors and allow the state legislatures from each state in question to vote, as stipulated by the Constitution, on which slate of electors to recognize.
That is the process. Everything was completely supportive of process.
To portray it as insurrection is quite irresponsible. Very divisive, and purposely so to distract from the underlying issue, which is that state legislatures are the proper and entirely constitutional remedy for massive election fraud.
The challenge of electors by the opposing party is also a tradition. That one has never been successful does not render any of the challenges themselves illegitimate. Many legal & constitutional issues surrounding presidential elections not been resolved by the courts and are thus open to contest. It would indeed be convenient for you to waive it all off as illegitimate to avoid thorny problems with your own position, but the real world doesn't work like that, particularly in law and even moreso in politics.
can you make up your mind, please?
Depends, I'd say. There's some who voted for the Big Orange in 2016 because the Hillary was Just. That. Bad., and they have never forgiven themselves since.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Can one vote for Trump and be called a "never Trumper"? I didnt vote for Trump. just asking for a friend.
Some voted twice for His Blonde Rotundity but won't admit it.
And some voted for McCain even though he was not running, and have abandoned Reality since 2016.
Trump, say what you will about him, seems to have an effect on everyone.
Me, I vote by policy. I like $2/gallon gas and no new wars.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Wow, a new sig.Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:Already answered.Osodecentx said:Do you have an argument, Hillary?Oldbear83 said:Oh, there's a perfectly valid argument there, Sam.Osodecentx said:Looky here. No argument, just insultsOldbear83 said:
Your undying moral support for Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer et al is noted.
With appropriate contempt.
The plain fact, Sam, is that there has not been a morally decent Democrat nominated for President in the last quarter-century.
Your desperate fixation to blame Trump for everything blinds you to this fact.
Ironically you keep proving my other complaints correct by missing them over and over.
And you don't have to sign your posts as 'Hillary'.
Okay Hillary Biden
Glad to meet you Ms. Biden, I'm Daniel, posting under OldBear83.
Poor Stasi Oldbear Schumer
Dont lower yourself dude. We arent in kindergarten and you are above pointing a finger and saying but he did it first. Dont reward desperate cries for attention with attention.
I dont always agree with you but you do bring some different ideas to the table. Much better than the same old same old party line pablum.
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.